SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Ducimus · 08-03-06, 09:19 PM

The key difference with this event i think,. ... i mean.. unless im mistaken, is that the generals were asked their assesment from a senate committee. Rather then voluntarly give one when it wasn't asked. Which kind of harkens back to the "rebellion" against Rumesfield. ( http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/ )

Going back on topic of Civil war. I honestly haven't seen many headlines in sectarian violence lately. That doesnt mean it's not happening, or escalating, only that I (we) havent been hearing more about it. But i know for a fact, that the situation in any given theater is generally COMPLETELY DIFFERENT then the picture painted by the media, for better, or even worse. So while we're not hearing much about it, its quite likely its spiralling out of control, hence the General Officer comments.

Now, what i find intresting in this, should a state of civil war be offically declaired or recognized, is what our (the US's) reaction to it will be. Right now, without any civil war, i can sit here, and look anyone in the eye if i had to, and tell you straight up, we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. We've already built up our bases, and poured more concrete there then we did in vietnam.

Iraq will be, once things settle down, what is called an "oversea's remote short tour". In otherwords, i see us in Iraq for the next decade or two, rotating troops every 365 days, just like Korea. Only difference is, there wont be any DMZ to sit behind.

Now while im 100% sure that's what will happen, regardless of any poltiics back home about pulling out of iraq, i think all that becomes questionable should we ever acknowledge an iraqi civil war. It could give us an opportunity to depart/pullback in such a way as to save face (something which we currently do not have), OR it could get us mired into an even deeper morass.

08-03-06, 09:19 PM	#13
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	The key difference with this event i think,. ... i mean.. unless im mistaken, is that the generals were asked their assesment from a senate committee. Rather then voluntarly give one when it wasn't asked. Which kind of harkens back to the "rebellion" against Rumesfield. ( http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/ ) Going back on topic of Civil war. I honestly haven't seen many headlines in sectarian violence lately. That doesnt mean it's not happening, or escalating, only that I (we) havent been hearing more about it. But i know for a fact, that the situation in any given theater is generally COMPLETELY DIFFERENT then the picture painted by the media, for better, or even worse. So while we're not hearing much about it, its quite likely its spiralling out of control, hence the General Officer comments. Now, what i find intresting in this, should a state of civil war be offically declaired or recognized, is what our (the US's) reaction to it will be. Right now, without any civil war, i can sit here, and look anyone in the eye if i had to, and tell you straight up, we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. We've already built up our bases, and poured more concrete there then we did in vietnam. Iraq will be, once things settle down, what is called an "oversea's remote short tour". In otherwords, i see us in Iraq for the next decade or two, rotating troops every 365 days, just like Korea. Only difference is, there wont be any DMZ to sit behind. Now while im 100% sure that's what will happen, regardless of any poltiics back home about pulling out of iraq, i think all that becomes questionable should we ever acknowledge an iraqi civil war. It could give us an opportunity to depart/pullback in such a way as to save face (something which we currently do not have), OR it could get us mired into an even deeper morass.