Is the current conflict in Iraq win-able?

[JosephH]

Cpt.,

 

In a simple environment (e.g. Panama, Grenada, Falklands) I'd agree with definition #1, but in this case I think we're really dealing with a situation better defined by defs #2-4.

[JosephH]

Cheney had 7 deferrments of experience in Vietnam - He and Rumsfield are complete posers - Powell knows better and advised against going into Iraq the first time (I'll be stunned if he takes another four years of abuse - but then he knows whoever those fools replace him with would be a disaster...).

 

As far as Iran and Lebanon, our forays in both were disasters one and all - the boneheads kept trying to treat them like Latins and were all but repeatedly, laughed out of the Middle East (Bush Sr.'s CIA and VP experience was mostly in South/Central America). And Panama, please! just like Saddam, our boy turned around and bit us on the ass - set'em up, knock'em down - now that really took putting on the ol' military thinking cap (will we be crowing over Grenada next...).

 

The troops in all cases did great, the political, intelligence, and military leadership in all three were a disaster.

[Ratboy]

year 52 roman empire. These guys didn't want to accept shit. The revolt in Gaul, in which tribes for the first time acted in concert, had soon taken hold of half the country.

 

Yep, the Gauls were definitely an exception, as were the Huns. Attila didn't want to be a Roman, he just wanted to roam the countryside raping and pillaging as his ancestors had done for centuries. Upper Britain was an exception as well. I believe a large amount of acquiesence to Romans was on the southern and eastern parts of the Mediterranian.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Dear JosephH,

 

Of course you think the other definitions because you might be wrong

 

Well anyway if 1000 people dead and over 200k troops for over 12 months in a foreign land duking it out isnt a war then I don't know what is. Get off your high trip!

 

If you think this is the 30th time a dictator "allied" to the US has turned it's back wake the fuck up. It's been happening before the turn of the 20th century to dems and repubs tard. Funny how you fail to mention that part too.

 

Ratboy- I am happy to prod at the inconsistancies for you. I just wanted to make a notice of your poor example. Glad you agreed.

[Ratboy]

I don't know if I would call my example poor, since I did qualify it with "for the most part".

[Cpt.Caveman]

For the most part with these multiple major exceptions

[Dave_Schuldt]

There is a book I recently read which was really really good and offers some perspective in this conflict. The book is by Tom Clancy and it is called Shadow Warriors, and it mainly deals with the life of the Special Forces, and the military life of one of their commanders. For someone in their late twenties it was interesting to hear about conflicts and missions that I was too young to really understand but remember. They talk about Vietnam, Lebanon, Iran, and Panama among others. I'm not really sure when this book was written, but one thing that was striking is how much praise this guy had for people like Cheney, Rumsfield, and Powell, and how much experience that these three individuals had in dealing with tough conflicts, especially Lebanon.

 

Good one Jon

[Ratboy]

Vandals, Visigoths and Ostrogoths offset the Huns and Gauls. Lower Britain offsets upper Britain. And that doesn't include any of the southern and eastern provinces. Thus, "for the most part".

[Cpt.Caveman]

Sounds like a bunch of fuckers were resisting to me!! Nice try though..

[Ratboy]

If you call three a bunch, then I guess so.

[Dru]

if you can call the Scots painting their asses blue and raising their kilts "resisting" Gowans?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Ratboy wont give up. He's convinced himself illogically that's not much resistance. lmao

 

Back to the main point you were trying to imply or state - not much resistance. Since when is an entire nation rebelling and invading other territory and sabotaging war objectives like villages to the point of burning them down not much resistance? Wake up dude! Get a clue!

 

For example -

If the shiites of Iraq got pissed and invaded Saudi Arabia and burn down Riyadh that might not be much resistance would it

[Ratboy]

I never said there was no resistance. I said that there were quite a few that didn't resist, because they knew they were better off as provinces of Rome, both financially and militarily. Egypt, Greece, Judea and Asia Minor are all examples. Yes, some did resist, as I agreed. The Gauls are a good example. Some fought to become Romans, or at least equal to Romans within the empire, so I wouldn't call that resistance. The Goths are a good example of this, as are the Vandals, who basically bought their way into Carthage nobility with the spoils from their crusade across North Africa to become Romans. There were also wars fought by Rome for glory or wealth that had nothing to do with trying to form a new province, like Cassius fighting the Parthians. I stand by my premise that most peoples of the region knew it was good to be Roman and therefore didn't resist when Rome made them a province. Of course, there were exceptions.

 

None of this has anything to do with the current situation in Iraq and whether it's win-able, though.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Exactly your example was poor for 2 reasons - it was half false and riddled with holes. And it had not much to do with Iraq.

 

Thanks for clarifying number 2 yourself so I didn't have to :-) But you are making this boring.

 

Later

[jon]

I was actually serious Dave. You can get your perspective from CNN. You can get your perspective from the people who were there, in this case Gen. Carl Stiner was both in charge in Lebanon and the Panama operation.

[Ratboy]

Response deleted by Ratboy so this "discussion" will finally end.

[Stonehead]

There is a book I recently read which was really really good and offers some perspective in this conflict. The book is by Tom Clancy and it is called Shadow Warriors, and it mainly deals with the life of the Special Forces, and the military life of one of their commanders. For someone in their late twenties it was interesting to hear about conflicts and missions that I was too young to really understand but remember. They talk about Vietnam, Lebanon, Iran, and Panama among others. I'm not really sure when this book was written, but one thing that was striking is how much praise this guy had for people like Cheney, Rumsfield, and Powell, and how much experience that these three individuals had in dealing with tough conflicts, especially Lebanon.

 

Tom Clancy new book criticises Iraq war (registration may be required; use BugMeNot & Firefox)

 

His latest book, Battle Ready, is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni.

 

Battle Ready looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict.

 

In an interview today with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book's planning.

 

Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.

 

Interview with Tom Clancy and General Anthony Zinni

[JosephH]

Cpt.

 

Poster: Cpt.Caveman

Of course you think the other definitions because you might be wrong

 

Not particularly, again in a simpler context I would agree, but not Iraq or Afganistan.

 

Well anyway if 1000 people dead and over 200k troops for over 12 months in a foreign land duking it out isnt a war then I don't know what is. Get off your high trip!

 

Your Commander-In-Chief has assidiously avoided formally declaring war on anyone for lots of practical [business-related] reasons. And whatever it is he considers this "conflict" to be, he declared victory on the deck of a carrier some time ago. So, the "war", declared or otherwise, is over and what we now have is an incredibly piss-poor occupation. If you are debating the difference between war and occupation - go for it...

 

And my "trip", high or otherwise, is pretty irrelavant to a discussion of the nature of this or any other conflict. And I suspect if it were possible to get the facts you'd find out that roughly 1/2-2/3's of the IED casualties to-date have been killed with munitions that easily could have been secured in the first two weeks of the conflict had Rumsfield been remotely interested using adequate force levels initially (more like 250-300k) and had actually managed to bribe the Turks with $32 billion so we could have had a northern front to tackle the Arab conclaves immediately.

 

If you think this is the 30th time a dictator "allied" to the US has turned it's back wake the fuck up. It's been happening before the turn of the 20th century to dems and repubs tard. Funny how you fail to mention that part too.

 

No, I didn't "fail to mention" that at all - we have about a long, long bi-partisan history of installing miserable despots to do our commercial bidding (and usually supress democracy at every turn) only to be bitten on the ass by them later. It's amazing how we don't learn that half the battles we fight are battles of our own making.

[Cpt.Caveman]

"And I suspect if it were possible to get the facts you'd find out that roughly 1/2-2/3's of the IED casualties to-date have been killed with munitions that easily could have been secured in the first two weeks of the conflict had Rumsfield been remotely interested using adequate force levels initially (more like 250-300k) and had actually managed to bribe the Turks with $32 billion so we could have had a northern front to tackle the Arab conclaves immediately."

 

Agreed except for the numbers 500k if you ask me.

[jon]

Stonehead, I've been meaning to read that book. I've seen Zinni interviewed on Charlie Rose among others and he has some strong arguements. My statements are by no means support for the either the administration or the war, simply that I found a lot of things in the book very interesting. One thing that really stuck me was his comments about unconvential warfare, it was almost straight out of Al Qaeda's manual, it was freaky.

[JosephH]

Zinni is the real deal - he always looked out for his men and was a believer of Gray's approach of getting everyone out from behind their desks - if you don't believe it from him I don't know whose views you would accept.

 

[Cpt., For 500k you might have to stop protecting the Germans and French - maybe even the Japanese - could be the end of the free world as we know it... ]

 

[JosephH]

Post deleted by JosephH

[JosephH]

One of today's headlines in the NYT:

 

U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq

 

If this keeps up unanswered it will be very analogous to the current situation in Afganistan - We'll be holed up behind the green line and in Saddam's various palaces claiming to control the country while the locals who really control it fight it out amongst themselves on the way to the big 3-way fandango.

[selkirk]

I'm incredibly impressed right now. This is a political discussion that hasn't devolved into either

"Bush is moron / Kerry is a pussy"

or

"Bush is military poser / Kerry is a moonbat"

[Mal_Con]

In Iraq we have got about to the point we were in Vietnam in 1964. We are supporting a government composed of former CIA informers. That government controls little or no real estate that is not policed by US troops. I cannot see how we know what we are trying to accomplish. As best as I can tell we thought that once Saddam was removed a government would arise from the ashes that would grant US bases and make piece with Israel. Such an assumption could only be made by a person with astounding ignorance of the area.