NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account)fairly well sums up many claims that have been made about the US occupation of Iraq:

"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press..........

First came the "monumental ignorance" of those in Washington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.

What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:

• The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds of thousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.

• Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President Saddam Hussein's Baath party — from government, school faculties and elsewhere — left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.

• An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.

• The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.

• Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capital equipment to be spirited away across borders.

• The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.

In his 2006 memoir of the occupation, Bremer wrote that senior U.S. generals wanted to recall elements of the old Iraqi army in 2003, but were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bremer complained generally that his authority was undermined by Washington's "micromanagement."

Although Allawi, a cousin of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister in 2004, is a member of a secularist Shiite Muslim political grouping, his well-researched book betrays little partisanship.

On U.S. reconstruction failures — in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington's own auditors — Allawi writes that the Americans' "insipid retelling of `success' stories" merely hid "the huge black hole that lay underneath."

For their part, U.S. officials have often largely blamed Iraq's explosive violence for the failures of reconstruction and poor governance.

The author has been instrumental since 2005 in publicizing extensive corruption within Iraq's "new order," including an $800-million Defense Ministry scandal. Under Saddam, he writes, the secret police kept would-be plunderers in check better than the U.S. occupiers have done.

As 2007 began, Allawi concludes, "America's only allies in Iraq were those who sought to manipulate the great power to their narrow advantage. It might have been otherwise."
The sad part is that Bush seems bound and determined to keep the nightmare of Iraq alive and well for Iraqis and the American people.

"Monumental arrogance" indeed!!!

Watch as various ignoramuses will come out thumping things like "freedom" (in how many ways to die), "democracy" (as long as you vote for the guy with the most guns), and the "liberal media" (who dare report the truth), not covering how things are "getting better" (like the skillsets of local insurgents and plunder monkeys).

Watch as various ignoramuses will come out thumping things like "freedom" (in how many ways to die), "democracy" (as long as you vote for the guy with the most guns), and the "liberal media" (who dare report the truth), not covering how things are "getting better" (like the skillsets of local insurgents and plunder monkeys).
I agree, but as hard as the "thumpers" may try, they are barking up the wrong tree and have been since March of 2003. :(

This forum is dead?

This forum is dead?

You know I really can't figure out why, when Chalabi was proven to be a scumbag of the highest order, he was still given time with certain senior members of the Administration.

You know I really can't figure out why, when Chalabi was proven to be a scumbag of the highest order, he was still given time with certain senior members of the Administration.
It was all part of the plot to invade Iraq and build 14 enduring bases?

It was all part of the plot to invade Iraq and build 14 enduring bases?

Operation Enduring Bases...much more apt name for it really....

Of course Chalabi was only a player in the game....a semi name if you will...and this shows how fucked the DoD and NSA were....they couldn't even scapegoat him! Doh!

This forum is dead?

Very slow day and in complet agreement... ;)

Well, since none of the right-wing trolls have come forward to comment on this, I'll do what I can to fill in the gap:

Allawi is an Iraqi, and therefore cannot be trusted to know what is truly best for Iraq. Only Americans know what is best for other nations. That's why they should all do what we say without question.

(Yeah, I know, it should contain a bit more profanity, but my heart really isn't in it.)

Well, since none of the right-wing trolls have come forward to comment on this, I'll do what I can to fill in the gap:

Allawi is an Iraqi, and therefore cannot be trusted to know what is truly best for Iraq. Only Americans know what is best for other nations. That's why they should all do what we say without question.

(Yeah, I know, it should contain a bit more profanity, but my heart really isn't in it.)

The real issue is that 'Iraq' is a western invention.

The big fuckup in this whole venture (not counting Bush and Co. who, by definition, are the biggest fuckups around) was that we passed so many jobs off to American contracters. We let Iraqis lose their jobs. People with a job are a whole hell of a lot less likely to join an insurgency. Instead we let them sit at home with hungry families, and stew over how they had been wronged.

Blackwater, Halliburton, and Co. got the best deal out of this war.

The American invasion of Iraq was basically handing out pink slips to hundreds of thousands of otherwise useful people and not expecting them to go postal later on.

The big fuckup in this whole venture (not counting Bush and Co. who, by definition, are the biggest fuckups around) was that we passed so many jobs off to American contracters. We let Iraqis lose their jobs. People with a job are a whole hell of a lot less likely to join an insurgency. Instead we let them sit at home with hungry families, and stew over how they had been wronged.

Blackwater, Halliburton, and Co. got the best deal out of this war.

Ok on this basis....would you have disbanded the Iraqi Army or would have kept them?

I certainly agree with the first three points and the last point, the fourth is something I don't know about and the fifth just seems to be a dig at free trade.

This forum is dead?

That's what you get for keeping your distance, CH.

I think this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account)fairly well sums up many claims that have been made about the US occupation of Iraq:


The sad part is that Bush seems bound and determined to keep the nightmare of Iraq alive and well for Iraqis and the American people.

"Monumental arrogance" indeed!!!

Just because the Americans leave Iraq doesn't mean that the "nightmare of Iraq" will be over.

Oh sure, for Americans. But for Iraqis, the nightmare will truly begin then, as they dissolve into complete civil war, genocidal conflict, and anarchy.

It will make Somalia look like a childrens' playground.

Anyways, what the FUCK does Venezuela have to do with anything?

Anyways, what the FUCK does Venezuela have to do with anything?

Nothing, except in the mind of Chavez, who is of the opinion that Venezuela is the most important and influential nation on Earth.

Nothing, except in the mind of Chavez, who is of the opinion that Venezuela is the most important and influential nation on Earth.

Precisely what I thought.

Ok on this basis....would you have disbanded the Iraqi Army or would have kept them?

It would have made sense to keep them around. I mean, they knew the territory, already had experience dealing with the locals, and more importantly, had plenty of skills that would have been of the best interest to keep off the streets. At least while they were drawing paychecks, you'd have a major chunk of people who could be relied on to keep the peace without stepping on too many toes out of sheer ignorance.

It would have made sense to keep them around. I mean, they knew the territory, already had experience dealing with the locals, and more importantly, had plenty of skills that would have been of the best interest to keep off the streets. At least while they were drawing paychecks, you'd have a major chunk of people who could be relied on to keep the peace without stepping on too many toes out of sheer ignorance.

If nothing else, it would have kept them busy with minor civil works projects.

It would have made sense to keep them around. I mean, they knew the territory, already had experience dealing with the locals, and more importantly, had plenty of skills that would have been of the best interest to keep off the streets. At least while they were drawing paychecks, you'd have a major chunk of people who could be relied on to keep the peace without stepping on too many toes out of sheer ignorance.

I don't believe that would have solved enough of the problems.

Considering that Iraq seems to be a place as divisive as Yugoslavia was, for ethnic and religious reasons, there is no good solution that involves a unified Iraq. And a divided Iraq would merely set the stage for ethnic cleansing and war between the newly created states (over oil and access to the sea).

A lot of people say, "Bush was so stupid, I have the solution, or I had the solution that would have worked."

Let's face it - there isn't a solution that would have worked. Not one. Not without involving the people who live there in a conflict worse than Yugoslavia.

I don't believe that would have solved enough of the problems.

Considering that Iraq seems to be a place as divisive as Yugoslavia was, for ethnic and religious reasons, there is no good solution that involves a unified Iraq. And a divided Iraq would merely set the stage for ethnic cleansing and war between the newly created states (over oil and access to the sea).

A lot of people say, "Bush was so stupid, I have the solution, or I had the solution that would have worked."

Let's face it - there isn't a solution that would have worked. Not one. Not without involving the people who live there in a conflict worse than Yugoslavia.

What we do know is that bush undertook an extremely risky project, which was likely to fail anyway, and then making lots of mistakes on top of it...

What we do know is that bush undertook an extremely risky project, which was likely to fail anyway, and then making lots of mistakes on top of it...

Can't argue with that.

But it would have been fucked up no matter which way you took it after that.

I can't honestly believe anyone who says that they have the answer to solve all the problems there.

Even if you left, even if you talked with Syria and Iran, there will still be war and genocide and fratricidal conflict there for years.

The Saudis have promised to send money and weapons and even troops there if the US withdraws and Iran moves in. Most of the Gulf States are in a period of extreme rearming to oppose Iran and what they see as a likely power grab in the region by Iran and Syria.

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Interior Ministry was running secret police to slaughter Sunnis in their beds - once the US leaves, they'll be able to publicly round up every Sunni man, woman, and child, and slaughter them as payback for the Saddam years.

Nothing to stop Kurds from forming an independent Kurdistan at that point. And talking to Turkey won't stop them from invading the new Kurdistan and silencing them.

It's not as easy as people say. If it were that easy to solve the problems there, it would have been done already. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something.

Well quite. Which is why so many people said that invading Iraq was a stupid thing to do.

Iraq will soon become a satellite state of Iran. They finally win the 'Iraqi Imposed War'.

Iran will get to deal with the Sunni insurgents paid for by the Gulf States.

There will also be the slaughter of a million Sunnis.

It would have made sense to keep them around. I mean, they knew the territory, already had experience dealing with the locals, and more importantly, had plenty of skills that would have been of the best interest to keep off the streets. At least while they were drawing paychecks, you'd have a major chunk of people who could be relied on to keep the peace without stepping on too many toes out of sheer ignorance.

Drawing paychecks. You hit the nail there. I suspect that even if they had not to turn all their kit in and still be allowed to draw a paycheck things might not have turned to shit or at least not in so short a space...

If nothing else, it would have kept them busy with minor civil works projects.

Spot on. The much vaunted rebuilding Schools and getting power restored and the Hospitals. However I think that that could have turned to shit quite quickly if the US liaison did not understand the way things are done in the East.

I don't believe that would have solved enough of the problems.

Considering that Iraq seems to be a place as divisive as Yugoslavia was, for ethnic and religious reasons, there is no good solution that involves a unified Iraq. And a divided Iraq would merely set the stage for ethnic cleansing and war between the newly created states (over oil and access to the sea).

A lot of people say, "Bush was so stupid, I have the solution, or I had the solution that would have worked."

Let's face it - there isn't a solution that would have worked. Not one. Not without involving the people who live there in a conflict worse than Yugoslavia.


Well quite. Which is why so many people said that invading Iraq was a stupid thing to do.

Iraq will soon become a satellite state of Iran. They finally win the 'Iraqi Imposed War'.

Its funny how Joe Lieberman still wants American troops to be in Iraq, seems his interests lye elsewhere.

I don't believe that would have solved enough of the problems.

Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for certain. It would have helped stem the flow of violence and violence precursors (like an army out of work). Look at it this way. Soldiers are trained to do a variety of things, but it generally falls under the gist of breaking things and killing people. If you have a whole bunch of people trained to do that, and are paid to do that, and all of a sudden, they're fired, you'd have a big bowl of crap coming up in a hurry.


Considering that Iraq seems to be a place as divisive as Yugoslavia was, for ethnic and religious reasons, there is no good solution that involves a unified Iraq. And a divided Iraq would merely set the stage for ethnic cleansing and war between the newly created states (over oil and access to the sea).

Martial law under the Iraqi army might have worked as a temporary solution while US engineering corps actually started rebuilding key infrastructure rather than having everything done by an insufficient number of US troops with little experience and even less motivation (At least the Iraqi army would be doing this for their homes).


Let's face it - there isn't a solution that would have worked. Not one. Not without involving the people who live there in a conflict worse than Yugoslavia.

Not really. It just means you're closing your eyes to the options. There were some, but the administration certainly wouldn't consider them for PR reasons.

They won't work anymore of course, unless you have a time machine handy, but they were workable ideas before things got so bad.

Iran will get to deal with the Sunni insurgents paid for by the Gulf States.

There will also be the slaughter of a million Sunnis.

A total win for the Iranians...with the added bonus of putting the House Of Saud nose out of joint ;)

That's what you get for keeping your distance, CH.
Perhaps you are right but I have a reason for keeping my distance.......

My wife has finally immigrated to Canada from the Far East. :)

The real issue is that 'Iraq' is a western invention.

Mhm.

Mhm.
Mhm?

Well, Bush is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Wow, I'm amazed that I can't find any points to dispute in this thread, so I'm bumping it for Bush-bait. ;)

In any event, the OP article says it all, the full litany of Bush's errors and their obvious consequences. There is no legitimate way to argue that these things are not true or don't matter.

I also agree with those who point out that we are stuck with this mess now. If we were to be strictly Macchiavellian, we would have to acknowledge that our first allegiance must be to ourselves and pull our forces precipitously out of Iraq, back to the US and our long-established territorial holdings, and adopt a strong defensive stance against the potential onslaught of terrorist attacks by an enemy that will claim victory pretty compellingly. However, there is no way to avoid the horrendous effect this would have on the Iraqi people to whom we must owe a moral and ethical debt, if nothing else. If we abandon them now, then we must also abandon all pretense to membership in the community of civilized nations and all claim to an international voice. We must also be willing to abandon most of the principles we claim to believe in.

I personally am not willing to do that, but I admit I have little idea of how to unscrew this pooch.

Wow, I'm amazed that I can't find any points to dispute in this thread, so I'm bumping it for Bush-bait. ;)

In any event, the OP article says it all, the full litany of Bush's errors and their obvious consequences. There is no legitimate way to argue that these things are not true or don't matter.

I also agree with those who point out that we are stuck with this mess now. If we were to be strictly Macchiavellian, we would have to acknowledge that our first allegiance must be to ourselves and pull our forces precipitously out of Iraq, back to the US and our long-established territorial holdings, and adopt a strong defensive stance against the potential onslaught of terrorist attacks by an enemy that will claim victory pretty compellingly. However, there is no way to avoid the horrendous effect this would have on the Iraqi people to whom we must owe a moral and ethical debt, if nothing else. If we abandon them now, then we must also abandon all pretense to membership in the community of civilized nations and all claim to an international voice. We must also be willing to abandon most of the principles we claim to believe in.

I personally am not willing to do that, but I admit I have little idea of how to unscrew this pooch.

You also have to accept that if there's a catastrophic un-doing of the stability of Iraq (however short term), it will ripple across the region.

The ripple could very well affect long term oil prices, which would screw us royally.

So simply leaving only gives us a short term benefit (to the US only), while very possibly opening a can of worms for a long term screwjob.

You also have to accept that if there's a catastrophic un-doing of the stability of Iraq (however short term), it will ripple across the region.

The ripple could very well affect long term oil prices, which would screw us royally.

So simply leaving only gives us a short term benefit (to the US only), while very possibly opening a can of worms for a long term screwjob.
This is true. I don't mean to imply that even the most immoral, unethical approach would make things better for us; only that it may be the only way "out" of Iraq. And of course, even if we isolate ourselves behind guarded walls, we would not be able to stay out of a world war if conflict were to spread enough to qualify for that label. Even if only in the history books, we'd be in it for having started it.

So the question is, how can we turn being in Iraq into a less bad thing for us? (Note: I don't demand it be made into a good thing.) I'm sure there is a way, but whatever it is, it won't be accomplished in the kinds of time frames implied by "benchmarks" and "Mission Accomplished" banners, and "getting the job done" political chin-waggery. We are in Iraq now. We broke it. We own it. Whether we like it or not, we live there now.

This is true. I don't mean to imply that even the most immoral, unethical approach would make things better for us; only that it may be the only way "out" of Iraq. And of course, even if we isolate ourselves behind guarded walls, we would not be able to stay out of a world war if conflict were to spread enough to qualify for that label. Even if only in the history books, we'd be in it for having started it.

So the question is, how can we turn being in Iraq into a less bad thing for us? (Note: I don't demand it be made into a good thing.) I'm sure there is a way, but whatever it is, it won't be accomplished in the kinds of time frames implied by "benchmarks" and "Mission Accomplished" banners, and "getting the job done" political chin-waggery. We are in Iraq now. We broke it. We own it. Whether we like it or not.

1. Accept that we'll have to stay in some form, in order to keep some semblance of order - then come up with a plan that keeps that number small.

2. Redo the Iraqi Constitution - there should be three nations as a confederation. Kurds, Sunnis, Shias.

3. Allow the Shias to unify with Iran if they like - that becomes Iran's problem.

4. Allow the former Baathists to run the Sunni portion - they'll drive out the al-Q people who came there to fight us.

5. Allow the Kurds to run their area.

6. Tell Turkey that if they play nice, and leave the Kurds alone, they can be full fledged EU members.

7. Pray that it all works - keeping some forces in each area to make sure they play nice for 20 years or so.

1. Accept that we'll have to stay in some form, in order to keep some semblance of order - then come up with a plan that keeps that number small.
Agreed.

2. Redo the Iraqi Constitution - there should be three nations as a confederation. Kurds, Sunnis, Shias.
But why should any Iraqi citizen accept any Constitution that we have anything to do with, regardless of its form? I do not see how guiding the form of the Iraqi Constitution or the development of the nation will lead to our presence being less bad. It will still put us in the position of being an occupier telling them how to live, and, thus, a legitimate target for insurgency.

EDIT: Which could have the added bad effect of causing the Iraqis to reject a plan that might be the best thing for them.

Personally, I don't have much problem with either partition or the establishment of a new, hopefully less bad, dicatorship, if democracy won't take route -- just as long as the source of either is Iraqi, not American.

3. Allow the Shias to unify with Iran if they like - that becomes Iran's problem.
But if Shias are not to be deportd to Iran (which would only add exponentially to our troubles), then we must accept Iranian participation in the settlement of Iraqi conflicts. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, either, but it requires us to get past the additional errors of Bush in refusing to engage Iran and instead fomenting conflict with Iran.

4. Allow the former Baathists to run the Sunni portion - they'll drive out the al-Q people who came there to fight us.
Unfortunately, many of them have now joined anti-American insurgencies, and with good reason. How do we propose to get them to trust and deal with us now?

5. Allow the Kurds to run their area.
I am a moderate fan of the idea of an independent or semi-autonomous Kurdistan. Turkey, however...

6. Tell Turkey that if they play nice, and leave the Kurds alone, they can be full fledged EU members.
This requires EU cooperation, which requires us to overcome more of Bush's errors to dis-alienate them. And remember, the Europeans are just as corrupt and twice as politically twisty any just about anyone else we deal with. They've been playing this game longer than we have and are very, very good at it. What price are we willing to pay to get them to go along with us?

7. Pray that it all works - keeping some forces in each area to make sure they play nice for 20 years or so.
20 years? I'd bet more like 75 years unless the perfect Iraqi "Tito" presents himself sometime soon. Remember your own point, that Iraq's troubles influence and are influenced by the troubles and issues of the entire Middle East as well. Nothing we do in Iraq can control what happens in other countries, and Iraqi stability can always be undermined by them. And it will be because our presence, even if it does become "less bad," will always be a rallying cry for extremists in that region. This balancing act we are discussing will take a lot longer to establish and be much harder to maintain than a mere 20 years will allow for.


Basically, Bush's policies have taken all the people he presumed to dictate too -- our enemies as well as our allies -- and put them in the catbird seat of being able to look down at us from more powerful, advantageous positions and demand to know what we are going to do get ourselves out of this mess. We have nothing to bargain with, and they are not dependent in any way on our achieving Bush's goals. We could not possibly be in a worse political position. I don't see how we will get out of it without resorting to political bribery, acceptance of unfavorable obligations to ally nations, and general public, political shit-eating.

EDIT: There is no way to make this less bad without the help of the people we have already alienated and turned against us, in other words.

One thing that I think is absolutely necessary is new US leadership. Bush is so hopeless, so thoroughly discredited and such an object of hostility, that there is no way anyone will accept him as leader towards any kind of solution or future plan at all. Why should they? Why should any Muslim or Mid-East leader listen to a word that comes out of his adminstration, especially when they are making such hay in their own countries at his expense? And why should even our old Eurpean allies associate themselves with him in any way at all? He is a failure at everything he does, and there is no reasonable argument in favor of putting him in charge of anything now.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not allow for early termination of an administration -- no way to dismiss a government and force a national election. This is a shame, in my opinion. I do not believe that any new strategy from the US will have any weight at all unless it comes from a new team.

So what to do in the two years that we are stuck with the current asshats?

But why should any Iraqi citizen accept any Constitution that we have anything to do with, regardless of its form? I do not see how guiding the form of the Iraqi Constitution or the development of the nation will lead to our presence being less bad. It will still put us in the position of being an occupier telling them how to live, and, thus, a legitimate target for insurgency.

It worked with Japan. Go figure.

EDIT: Which could have the added bad effect of causing the Iraqis to reject a plan that might be the best thing for them.

Which isn't any worse, and probably better than the current government, which can't find its ass from a hole in the ground.


Personally, I don't have much problem with either partition or the establishment of a new, hopefully less bad, dicatorship, if democracy won't take route -- just as long as the source of either is Iraqi, not American. Democracy is overrated. These people appear to come up with their own strongmen - because they like strongmen.


But if Shias are not to be deportd to Iran (which would only add exponentially to our troubles), then we must accept Iranian participation in the settlement of Iraqi conflicts. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, either, but it requires us to get past the additional errors of Bush in refusing to engage Iran and instead fomenting conflict with Iran.

No deportations - but if the Shia sector merges with Iran, Iran gets to handle the problems there - and take credit or blame for whatever happens next. Better than us getting the blame.


Unfortunately, many of them have now joined anti-American insurgencies, and with good reason. How do we propose to get them to trust and deal with us now?

I think that if they saw they had their own territories in which to rule, they would trust us more. After all, most of them are fighting us so that when we're gone, they can start killing each other (al-Sadr springs to mind here).


I am a moderate fan of the idea of an independent or semi-autonomous Kurdistan. Turkey, however...

Turkey would probably want to cooperate if they get to be a full fledged EU country. Otherwise, they have motivation to conquer the Kurdish state - which again would be entirely on them, not us.


This requires EU cooperation, which requires us to overcome more of Bush's errors to dis-alienate them. And remember, the Europeans are just as corrupt and twice as politically twisty any just about anyone else we deal with. They've been playing this game longer than we have and are very, very good at it. What price are we willing to pay to get them to go along with us?

If they don't want to play the game, with the new governments, and help with stability in the form of economic cooperation, they lose out not only on contracts, but on stability in the Gulf region.

They use gasoline, too. And they know where it comes from.


20 years? I'd bet more like 75 years unless the perfect Iraqi "Tito" presents himself sometime soon. Remember your own point, that Iraq's troubles influence and are influenced by the troubles and issues of the entire Middle East as well. Nothing we do in Iraq can control what happens in other countries, and Iraqi stability can always be undermined by them. And it will be because our presence, even if it does become "less bad," will always be a rallying cry for extremists in that region. This balancing act we are discussing will take a lot longer to establish and be much harder to maintain than a mere 20 years will allow for.

We could get lucky. And if Turkey takes part, and Iran takes part, then we'll probably be out of there in less than a few years.


Basically, Bush's policies have taken all the people he presumed to dictate too -- our enemies as well as our allies -- and put them in the catbird seat of being able to look down at us from more powerful, advantageous positions and demand to know what we are going to do get ourselves out of this mess. We have nothing to bargain with, and they are not dependent in any way on our achieving Bush's goals. We could not possibly be in a worse political position. I don't see how we will get out of it without resorting to political bribery, acceptance of unfavorable obligations to ally nations, and general public, political shit-eating.

EDIT: There is no way to make this less bad without the help of the people we have already alienated and turned against us, in other words.

It could be worse, believe me.

It worked with Japan. Go figure.
Yeah, go know. A totally different foreign nation and culture from Iraq. A totally different group of Americans in charge (you know, not as stupid as the ones we've got now). A nation that had been thoroughly and decisively defeated in a stand-up international war which they started, not half-beaten by a half-assed strategy launched aggressively by invading incompetents. A nation that had a long-standing and coherent national/cultural identity, not some political frankenstein that had been cobbled together by other foreigners out of factions/tribes that were already at each other's throats. And a nation that was neatly isolated on its own set of islands, not located in prime strategic real estate, loaded with oil, and surrounded by greedy and ambitious neighbors.

Gosh, why don't I think the same techniques that worked in Japan will work in Iraq?

Which isn't any worse, and probably better than the current government, which can't find its ass from a hole in the ground.
And who were hand-picked and supported by us.

Democracy is overrated. These people appear to come up with their own strongmen - because they like strongmen.
Hey, I say let them have whatever kind of government they like. I'm an American, and I believe that all people have the right to go to hell in the handbasket of their choice.

No deportations - but if the Shia sector merges with Iran, Iran gets to handle the problems there - and take credit or blame for whatever happens next. Better than us getting the blame.
Don't kid yourself. We'll still get the blame. We need to just accept that and prepare for it, no matter what we do.

I think that if they saw they had their own territories in which to rule, they would trust us more. After all, most of them are fighting us so that when we're gone, they can start killing each other (al-Sadr springs to mind here).
This is very possible. Good point. But I still foresee problems with any partition of territories that appears to come with a US stamp of approval. However, perhaps a new US administration will lessen that effect.

Turkey would probably want to cooperate if they get to be a full fledged EU country. Otherwise, they have motivation to conquer the Kurdish state - which again would be entirely on them, not us.
Possibly, but only if the EU is willing to sweeten the deal to an extent they have so far resisted. And their tensions with the Kurds are internal and old. It will take a lot to overcome that. And thanks to Bush, we are not in a position to offer the Turks anything with regard to the EU. And the Turks obviously know that. Why should they make a Kurdish deal with us for EU membership, when they can make other kinds of deals directly with the Europeans and keep the Kurdish conflict as a tool to pressure us with?

And by the way, of all the people there, it is the Kurds we owe the most to. Those people have been brutally screwed over at least twice because of the US leaving them in the lurch after getting help from them. Abandoning them to Turkey's tender mercies will be another thing which will invalidate all US claims to being anything but a rogue nation that commits criminal acts of war.

If they don't want to play the game, with the new governments, and help with stability in the form of economic cooperation, they lose out not only on contracts, but on stability in the Gulf region.

They use gasoline, too. And they know where it comes from.
Unless, of course, recognizing the geo-political realities, they choose to make their deals with Iran and not us.

We could get lucky.
This remark, all by itself, sums up just how fucked we really are.

And if Turkey takes part, and Iran takes part, then we'll probably be out of there in less than a few years.
Don't worry. Turkey and Iran will definitely take part. They'll take huge parts of the corpse of Iraq that I am sure they would only just love to carve up between themselves.

But why should they work with us to do it, when they can just sit back and wait for our inevitable total failure and the collapse of the rickety pseudo-system we're trying to set up, followed possibly even by a Saigon-style panicked evacuation of US personnel? Then they can just roll in and take what they want. No need to consult with us at all, as long as they are willing to be patient.

It could be worse, believe me.
There's plenty of time. I'm sure it will get worse.

I think this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account)fairly well sums up many claims that have been made about the US occupation of Iraq:


The sad part is that Bush seems bound and determined to keep the nightmare of Iraq alive and well for Iraqis and the American people.

"Monumental arrogance" indeed!!!

It sounds almost as if they wanted to screw it up...

Well, i did a image search of "phail" and this man is named MacPhail

His face looks like that of failure:

http://www.societehistoire.ca/images/abo-new-MacPhail.jpg

Well, i did a image search of "phail" and this man is named MacPhail

His face looks like that of failure:

http://www.societehistoire.ca/images/abo-new-MacPhail.jpg

His name sounds like "fail" too.

Mhm.

Mhm? Is this another TLA thats suddenly appeared in the last week and I missed the memo?

Perhaps you are right but I have a reason for keeping my distance.......

My wife has finally immigrated to Canada from the Far East. :)

o.O

Where's she from?

Mhm?

I agree with him.

Iraq is a Western invention. IIRC, all the Middle Eastern nations are artificial constructs of the imperial powers, just like African nations are.

I agree with him.

Iraq is a Western invention. IIRC, all the Middle Eastern nations are artificial constructs of the imperial powers, just like African nations are.

Yeah...and its not only that the countries are artificial; we still insist on meddling in their affairs.

Yeah...and its not only that the countries are artificial; we still insist on meddling in their affairs.

Especially the U.S. :(

In large part I agree that the situation is probably now unsalvageable; and I certainly agree that the reasons for going in have been proved false. (I agreed with the invasion at the time, but too much of what convinced me has been proven false to continue to do so.)

But I disagree that the war was always unwinnable. The miltary (taking it's cue, as always, from our gutless politicians) has been continuingly either unwilling or unable to deal with the insurgency. This type of insurgency can and has been dealt with successfully before; but it requires an intelligent, planned response to take the initiative away from the enemy, and a level of ruthlessness that would have shocked and dismayed our equally gutless media.

Especially the U.S. :(

No. Not only the US. France, the UK and Russia as well.

In large part I agree that the situation is probably now unsalvageable; and I certainly agree that the reasons for going in have been proved false. (I agreed with the invasion at the time, but too much of what convinced me has been proven false to continue to do so.)

But I disagree that the war was always unwinnable. The miltary (taking it's cue, as always, from our gutless politicians) has been continuingly either unwilling or unable to deal with the insurgency. This type of insurgency can and has been dealt with successfully before; but it requires an intelligent, planned response to take the initiative away from the enemy, and a level of ruthlessness that would have shocked and dismayed our equally gutless media.

How do you deal with an insurgency? The only example I know of where an insurgency was not successful was Malaya in the 50's/60's...and that failed because the the insurgents did not have the support of the populace and also that the insurgents made some very bad strategic decisions.

How do you deal with an insurgency? The only example I know of where an insurgency was not successful was Malaya in the 50's/60's...and that failed because the the insurgents did not have the support of the populace and also that the insurgents made some very bad strategic decisions.

Quintus Sertorius crushed an insurgency in Spain.

No. Not only the US. France, the UK and Russia as well.



How do you deal with an insurgency? The only example I know of where an insurgency was not successful was Malaya in the 50's/60's...and that failed because the the insurgents did not have the support of the populace and also that the insurgents made some very bad strategic decisions.

As Remote Observer said, Quintus Sertorius was probably the first successful anti-insurgency leader (or, at least, the first we know about). But there have been a number of others.

Malaya is, as you said, a bad example in some ways because the insurgents failed to gain popular support; but it should also be noted that they were well on their way to doing exactly that before the British commander (I have temporarily forgotten his name) began a very enlightened "Hearts and Minds" campaign, which both effectively countered insurgent propaganda and denied the insurgents access to the general populace.

President Fujimori of Peru not only defeated the Shining Path, he effectively destroyed both that organization and it's power base.

The Mahdi Uprising in the Sudan could be considered an insurgency, but I personally feel it was more of a conventional (if religiously motivated) war. Either way, the British crushed it quite thoroughly.

The uprising in the Phillippines post US acquisition was similarly annihilated.

The rules for fighting an insurgency are not hard to understand and simple to implement (though one should always recall the statement that even the simplest things in war become very difficult), to wit:

1: Do not allow insurgents a safe haven. If the insurgency has a place from which it can operate at will, train fresh troops and resupply and rest old ones, the insurgency will never end. You must deny them any safe haven, and refuse to allow them to "own" anything or anywhere. Never permit "nogo" areas to exist; if they develop, destroy them utterly.

2: Close the insurgents' lines of supply. If he can't get ammo, he can't shoot you with it. Kill his suppliers if possible, but at the least make it unprofitable. At that point most weapons dealers will go elsewhere

3: Seize the initiative. Patrol heavily, and especially in those areas most important to the insurgency. Attempt to engage at every possible opportunity. Remember: if he wasn't much weaker than you are, he'd be fighting you openly. You hold all the cards, so use them.

4: Hearts and Minds count. The populace will support an insurgency against you if two things coincide: first, they hate you and second, they don't fear you. So, make your choice, and make it right from the beginning, either bring them around to your way of thinking or make it really clear to everyone involved that fighting you is a losing proposition that will accomplish nothing but getting themselves killed. If you choose the second and go through with it, you'll still get a few die-hards who'll try you on for size, but not a popular uprising.

5: Ruthlessness is a virtue. An insurgent can be relied upon to be vicious and foul, an animal in human skin. He will follow no rules, and use any tactic, no matter how despicable, to gain even the slightest victory.
You must be equally ruthless. This is not to say that you must abandon your values and rules, but rather, that you must not shy from what must be done. For instance, if you capture a insurgent band, and they are not wearing identifiable uniforms, then they are not soldiers according to either the Geneva or Hague Conventions, and therefore need not be treated as such. Take some for interrogation, and hang the rest.
The rules of war are not a straightjacket. Know them, and know the exceptions. If insurgents are firing from inhabited buildings, destroy the buildings anyway - those using human shields are, by the laws of war, solely responsible for their deaths.

Those five rules aren't new. We knew about them in Vietnam. The US military's inability to apply them shows that at a high level, a political level, we are paralysed by sheer incompetence.

o.O

Where's she from?
The Philippines.

As Remote Observer said, Quintus Sertorius was probably the first successful anti-insurgency leader (or, at least, the first we know about). But there have been a number of others.

Malaya is, as you said, a bad example in some ways because the insurgents failed to gain popular support; but it should also be noted that they were well on their way to doing exactly that before the British commander (I have temporarily forgotten his name) began a very enlightened "Hearts and Minds" campaign, which both effectively countered insurgent propaganda and denied the insurgents access to the general populace.

President Fujimori of Peru not only defeated the Shining Path, he effectively destroyed both that organization and it's power base.

The Mahdi Uprising in the Sudan could be considered an insurgency, but I personally feel it was more of a conventional (if religiously motivated) war. Either way, the British crushed it quite thoroughly.

The uprising in the Phillippines post US acquisition was similarly annihilated.

The rules for fighting an insurgency are not hard to understand and simple to implement (though one should always recall the statement that even the simplest things in war become very difficult), to wit:

1: Do not allow insurgents a safe haven. If the insurgency has a place from which it can operate at will, train fresh troops and resupply and rest old ones, the insurgency will never end. You must deny them any safe haven, and refuse to allow them to "own" anything or anywhere. Never permit "nogo" areas to exist; if they develop, destroy them utterly.

2: Close the insurgents' lines of supply. If he can't get ammo, he can't shoot you with it. Kill his suppliers if possible, but at the least make it unprofitable. At that point most weapons dealers will go elsewhere

3: Seize the initiative. Patrol heavily, and especially in those areas most important to the insurgency. Attempt to engage at every possible opportunity. Remember: if he wasn't much weaker than you are, he'd be fighting you openly. You hold all the cards, so use them.

4: Hearts and Minds count. The populace will support an insurgency against you if two things coincide: first, they hate you and second, they don't fear you. So, make your choice, and make it right from the beginning, either bring them around to your way of thinking or make it really clear to everyone involved that fighting you is a losing proposition that will accomplish nothing but getting themselves killed. If you choose the second and go through with it, you'll still get a few die-hards who'll try you on for size, but not a popular uprising.

5: Ruthlessness is a virtue. An insurgent can be relied upon to be vicious and foul, an animal in human skin. He will follow no rules, and use any tactic, no matter how despicable, to gain even the slightest victory.
You must be equally ruthless. This is not to say that you must abandon your values and rules, but rather, that you must not shy from what must be done. For instance, if you capture a insurgent band, and they are not wearing identifiable uniforms, then they are not soldiers according to either the Geneva or Hague Conventions, and therefore need not be treated as such. Take some for interrogation, and hang the rest.
The rules of war are not a straightjacket. Know them, and know the exceptions. If insurgents are firing from inhabited buildings, destroy the buildings anyway - those using human shields are, by the laws of war, solely responsible for their deaths.

Those five rules aren't new. We knew about them in Vietnam. The US military's inability to apply them shows that at a high level, a political level, we are paralysed by sheer incompetence.

Well if we're going to have the Romans we need to include Gaius Suetonius Paulinus.

Malaya - Briggs....the Briggs Plan. You are right that the MNLA were doing quite well in garnering support. Timing huh?

Actually Guzman started losing support of the population when they had control of a sizable portion of the country. The population he controlled were not into his type of Maoist political philosophy. Fujimori captured him but it was inevitable that Guzman would be captured. He alienated his power base.

I am not sure that one can say that the Shining Path are destroyed as they still carry out operations. Also many of the imprisoned guerrillas are starting to hit their release dates just as it seems the Shining Path are regaining support.

I agree with you about the Sudan. That was a war.

The Philippines - which one do you mean? There seem to have been many. As far as I am aware there are currently four groups there... Abu Sayef, Moro National Liberation Front, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the New People's Army. All who are active to some degree or another.

Your five rules - 1 through 4 are very true. 5 smacks of someone reading too much of Machiavelli's The Prince.

As Remote Observer said, Quintus Sertorius was probably the first successful anti-insurgency leader (or, at least, the first we know about). But there have been a number of others.

Malaya is, as you said, a bad example in some ways because the insurgents failed to gain popular support; but it should also be noted that they were well on their way to doing exactly that before the British commander (I have temporarily forgotten his name) began a very enlightened "Hearts and Minds" campaign, which both effectively countered insurgent propaganda and denied the insurgents access to the general populace.

President Fujimori of Peru not only defeated the Shining Path, he effectively destroyed both that organization and it's power base.

The Mahdi Uprising in the Sudan could be considered an insurgency, but I personally feel it was more of a conventional (if religiously motivated) war. Either way, the British crushed it quite thoroughly.

The uprising in the Phillippines post US acquisition was similarly annihilated.

The rules for fighting an insurgency are not hard to understand and simple to implement (though one should always recall the statement that even the simplest things in war become very difficult), to wit:

1: Do not allow insurgents a safe haven. If the insurgency has a place from which it can operate at will, train fresh troops and resupply and rest old ones, the insurgency will never end. You must deny them any safe haven, and refuse to allow them to "own" anything or anywhere. Never permit "nogo" areas to exist; if they develop, destroy them utterly.

2: Close the insurgents' lines of supply. If he can't get ammo, he can't shoot you with it. Kill his suppliers if possible, but at the least make it unprofitable. At that point most weapons dealers will go elsewhere

3: Seize the initiative. Patrol heavily, and especially in those areas most important to the insurgency. Attempt to engage at every possible opportunity. Remember: if he wasn't much weaker than you are, he'd be fighting you openly. You hold all the cards, so use them.

4: Hearts and Minds count. The populace will support an insurgency against you if two things coincide: first, they hate you and second, they don't fear you. So, make your choice, and make it right from the beginning, either bring them around to your way of thinking or make it really clear to everyone involved that fighting you is a losing proposition that will accomplish nothing but getting themselves killed. If you choose the second and go through with it, you'll still get a few die-hards who'll try you on for size, but not a popular uprising.

5: Ruthlessness is a virtue. An insurgent can be relied upon to be vicious and foul, an animal in human skin. He will follow no rules, and use any tactic, no matter how despicable, to gain even the slightest victory.
You must be equally ruthless. This is not to say that you must abandon your values and rules, but rather, that you must not shy from what must be done. For instance, if you capture a insurgent band, and they are not wearing identifiable uniforms, then they are not soldiers according to either the Geneva or Hague Conventions, and therefore need not be treated as such. Take some for interrogation, and hang the rest.
The rules of war are not a straightjacket. Know them, and know the exceptions. If insurgents are firing from inhabited buildings, destroy the buildings anyway - those using human shields are, by the laws of war, solely responsible for their deaths.

Those five rules aren't new. We knew about them in Vietnam. The US military's inability to apply them shows that at a high level, a political level, we are paralysed by sheer incompetence.
You have been reading too much from the Bushevik playbook???

Some of your rules of engagement have been clearly attempted and they are to a large degree a huge part of the failed strategy to win those "hearts and minds".

Well, i did a image search of "phail" and this man is named MacPhail

His face looks like that of failure:

http://www.societehistoire.ca/images/abo-new-MacPhail.jpg
If you do a Google search for "failure", at the top of the list is this:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

And under images search, you get this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/Y/bush_miserable_failure.jpg

Yup, the face of failure indeed.

Well if we're going to have the Romans we need to include Gaius Suetonius Paulinus.

Malaya - Briggs....the Briggs Plan. You are right that the MNLA were doing quite well in garnering support. Timing huh?

Actually Guzman started losing support of the population when they had control of a sizable portion of the country. The population he controlled were not into his type of Maoist political philosophy. Fujimori captured him but it was inevitable that Guzman would be captured. He alienated his power base.

I am not sure that one can say that the Shining Path are destroyed as they still carry out operations. Also many of the imprisoned guerrillas are starting to hit their release dates just as it seems the Shining Path are regaining support.

I agree with you about the Sudan. That was a war.

The Philippines - which one do you mean? There seem to have been many. As far as I am aware there are currently four groups there... Abu Sayef, Moro National Liberation Front, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the New People's Army. All who are active to some degree or another.

Your five rules - 1 through 4 are very true. 5 smacks of someone reading too much of Machiavelli's The Prince.

Being ruthless backfires in today's world.

It might have worked for the Mongols, for instance, when they wiped out the Hashashim (who staged insurgent-style raids from their fortresses across present-day Iraq). But it plays bad in the court of public opinion (which, as we may note, counts for more than the Hague does).

I think he's talking about the US suppression of the Moro insurrection in the Phillipines, which appeared, at least at the time, to be a success. Largely because being ruthless was OK back then. You could say the same of the Nicaragua campaign by the US Marines in the 1930s.

Odd that the US military is completely organized, trained, and equipped to do one thing - fight large scale conventional (and possibly nuclear warfare) against another large scale conventional force with the aim of destroying that force within a month. It appears to be extremely good at that because that's all it was ever expected to do.

Despite the fact that decentralized warfare and insurgency has been on the rise for decades, and despite the fact that the US fought against an insurgency in Vietnam, we still focused on the Soviet-style threat.

I guess that's because fancy weapon systems are really sexy, and sell well. That, and if you're a Congressman, you have to bring home the bacon - a weapon system can be pork, but more infantrymen are not.

Add to this the fact that you can't be ruthless in today's world and get away with it (unless you're cause employs suicide bombers, in which case it's perfectly acceptable), and it makes it very difficult to fight an insurgency of any kind.

Decentralized warfare by nature crosses the boundary between military and police action - and most Western nations abhor the very idea of doing just that. That adds an even greater restriction - you can't militarize the police in most nations, and you can't use the military to act as police in most nations.

If you think of this another way, al-Qaeda got its initial influx of more recruits because it was emboldened by its success against the then-superpower USSR in Afghanistan. Not that the USSR couldn't have turned the place into parking lot that glowed in the dark, but to Osama, he counts it as a success - and the best way to win recruits (aside from claiming that a superpower is invading) is to succeed. Nothing succeeds like success.

I believe that eventually, the US will leave Iraq (sooner rather than later). And, in the short term, that's a good thing for the US. In the long term, for the rest of the world (and probably the US), the success of insurgents in Iraq will encourage the other insurgencies to spring up around the world, and repeat their success in every country around the world.

If all a group has to do to win is strap bombs to a few followers, and cause daily mayhem, and the reaction of the besieged governments is to either commit atrocities (bad) or retreat (also bad), then we're in for a shitstorm.

One might say that Shining Path lost because the poor in Peru just weren't that up about blowing themselves up. Or that the IRA used remote bombs (which killed innocents but left the attacking insurgent alive to be a target of media outrage) instead of suicide bombers.

In a way, it was only a matter of time that groups realized that insurgency is a good modern strategy. Modern insurgency began with Mao and his book on guerilla warfare. Even if we had not invaded Iraq, it was only a matter of time before people began to realize that it was indeed a workable strategy against virtually any nation on earth.

Agreed.


EDIT: There is no way to make this less bad without the help of the people we have already alienated and turned against us, in other words.

*Ahem*

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/083/3/8/Let_the_UN_Take_Over.jpg

Being ruthless backfires in today's world.

It might have worked for the Mongols, for instance, when they wiped out the Hashashim (who staged insurgent-style raids from their fortresses across present-day Iraq). But it plays bad in the court of public opinion (which, as we may note, counts for more than the Hague does).

I think he's talking about the US suppression of the Moro insurrection in the Phillipines, which appeared, at least at the time, to be a success. Largely because being ruthless was OK back then. You could say the same of the Nicaragua campaign by the US Marines in the 1930s.

Odd that the US military is completely organized, trained, and equipped to do one thing - fight large scale conventional (and possibly nuclear warfare) against another large scale conventional force with the aim of destroying that force within a month. It appears to be extremely good at that because that's all it was ever expected to do.

Despite the fact that decentralized warfare and insurgency has been on the rise for decades, and despite the fact that the US fought against an insurgency in Vietnam, we still focused on the Soviet-style threat.

I guess that's because fancy weapon systems are really sexy, and sell well. That, and if you're a Congressman, you have to bring home the bacon - a weapon system can be pork, but more infantrymen are not.

Add to this the fact that you can't be ruthless in today's world and get away with it (unless you're cause employs suicide bombers, in which case it's perfectly acceptable), and it makes it very difficult to fight an insurgency of any kind.

Decentralized warfare by nature crosses the boundary between military and police action - and most Western nations abhor the very idea of doing just that. That adds an even greater restriction - you can't militarize the police in most nations, and you can't use the military to act as police in most nations.

If you think of this another way, al-Qaeda got its initial influx of more recruits because it was emboldened by its success against the then-superpower USSR in Afghanistan. Not that the USSR couldn't have turned the place into parking lot that glowed in the dark, but to Osama, he counts it as a success - and the best way to win recruits (aside from claiming that a superpower is invading) is to succeed. Nothing succeeds like success.

I believe that eventually, the US will leave Iraq (sooner rather than later). And, in the short term, that's a good thing for the US. In the long term, for the rest of the world (and probably the US), the success of insurgents in Iraq will encourage the other insurgencies to spring up around the world, and repeat their success in every country around the world.

If all a group has to do to win is strap bombs to a few followers, and cause daily mayhem, and the reaction of the besieged governments is to either commit atrocities (bad) or retreat (also bad), then we're in for a shitstorm.

One might say that Shining Path lost because the poor in Peru just weren't that up about blowing themselves up. Or that the IRA used remote bombs (which killed innocents but left the attacking insurgent alive to be a target of media outrage) instead of suicide bombers.

In a way, it was only a matter of time that groups realized that insurgency is a good modern strategy. Modern insurgency began with Mao and his book on guerilla warfare. Even if we had not invaded Iraq, it was only a matter of time before people began to realize that it was indeed a workable strategy against virtually any nation on earth.

It depends. In the west being ruthless to such an extent does not fly. In other cultures it does. Maybe it because these other countries did not go through the Enlightenment as it were .

My knowledge of the US involvement in the Philippine's back then is not good so I am loathed to comment until I do more reading. However I will make a premise. These groups wanted the US to end its involvement and gain political autonomy from the US. Well it might have taken 40 years and a World War but they got their wish...that is the other problem that people fail to realise. That insurgencies are not as short lived as people like to imagine. Their very nature allows for the mutation of groups that eventually allow power to be taken. A case in point is the IRA/Sinn Fien.

Nicaragua is another example of an insurgency not dying out or being destroyed. Until recently anyway. (1990's) And that was moreto do with being allowed into the political process.

The fact is that the west is not geared towards fighting a 4G war. Sure we can 'hold the line' but time and time it is shown that modern armies are not suited to 4G - last summers expedition into Lebanon by the IDF being a case in point...and very significant due to the ability of the defenders to adapt their tactics to their environment and to their goal. Which was to provoke the IDF into action and then bloodying the IDF's nose.

You have been reading too much from the Bushevik playbook???

Some of your rules of engagement have been clearly attempted and they are to a large degree a huge part of the failed strategy to win those "hearts and minds".

I disagree entirely. I don't believe Bush has complied with any of the five rules.

He has allowed safe havens in Iran, Syria and (probably) Saudi. Their supply lines seems as robust as ever - indeed, there seems to be no attempt to interdict them. Patrols are not targetted, and appear to have the purpose of maintaining order rather than eliminating insurgents. "Hearts and Minds" were assumed to be pro-American - sheer stupidity. And the military's ROE's are the same as or more restrictive than when fighting a conventional force, when we should be showing the enemy no quarter.

As to ruthlessness: If the media would object, castrate the media. Make the whole area a no-info zone - the only reporters in are shown show units and carefully screened combat zones. Don't publish casualty figures. Spin the whole damn war.
I'm all for freedom of the press. But that doesn't mean you have to HELP them make you look bad.

when we should be showing the enemy no quarter.

Plus


As to ruthlessness: If the media would object, castrate the media. Make the whole area a no-info zone

Plus American incompetence.

Plus American "We can solve anything by shooting it" mentality.

=

No living Iraqis.

You're an optimist aren't you? I mean, America hasn't learned a thing from some 30+ years guerrilla warfare throughout the globe, and had their nose bloodied more than once. What makes you think they'd learn a thing now?

Plus

Plus American incompetence.

=

No living Iraqis. Problem solved.

Well Herr Goebbels?

You have to agree that technically speaking, that would work. As far as any credibility as a nation goes, it's a terrible idea. That, and I'm not sure the rest of the world would ever suffer the US to exist after that, much less deal with the US.

Plus



Plus American incompetence.

Plus American "We can solve anything by shooting it" mentality.

=

No living Iraqis.

You're an optimist aren't you?

No, I'm a realist.

If the entire population was against us, we'd have been kicked out on our keisters six months after the "war" "ended".

On average, an insurgency consists of less than 1% of the population, supported by between 30% and 50% of the population. I haven't seen any information from Iraq to make me believe this is in any way an unusual insurgency, save that there may well be more than the usual number of outsiders working with the Iraqi insurgents. (Of course, that doesn't mean that 50%-70% support the other side. The majority, generally, doesn't care and generally just keep their heads down and wants it to be over.)

If you crush the 1% and convince the 30% not to reconstruct them, you win. If you reduce the support level to below 10%, you win (at that point, the insurgency can be controlled by standard policing methods). Killing the 30% is usually NOT an effective option - it pisses off the rest. And yes, it's been tried.

I doubt you will be able to restrict press access to combat zones. Didn't work in GW1 and 2....nor Vietnam...or East Timor.

Now the Chinese and the old Sovs could do that and be ruthless about it. West can't do that...you cannot execute journos for doing their job. Well you can but it really does nothing more than build resentment towards 'the system'.

I doubt you will be able to restrict press access to combat zones. Didn't work in GW1 and 2....nor Vietnam...or East Timor.

Now the Chinese and the old Sovs could do that and be ruthless about it. West can't do that...you cannot execute journos for doing their job. Well you can but it really does nothing more than build resentment towards 'the system'.

There was no real attempt in any of the wars you cite. They tried to restrict movements (the "embedding" system is just the latest attempt at that), but not access.

You can't keep the press out entirely, but you can deny them access to any troops, and deny them visas to get in-country. And you can certainly confiscate all of the footage shot by anyone caught in the warzone illegally.

You combine that with a strong PR push. Plus, you can pull such tricks as denying stations that publish anti-war tracts access to Presidential Press Briefings and giving scoops to their opponents. If you handle it right, the media can be made to sit up and beg on command.

Hell, they do this shit all the time with electioneering. Why not do it for the military?

No, I'm a realist.

Then you'd realize that America has too many idiots in high command, too many congress cockroaches funding high tech weapons for conventional warfare and too many "it's too hard, kill everyone and we win" seeded throughout its population and subsequently, armed forces.

Effecting real change would mean changing the mindsets of people back home. And maybe executing a couple of congressmen. Otherwise, you're not going to go anywhere in the 4th generation warfare.

In other words, for the ones who can profit off war, like the defense industries and their pet congress critters, being unable to adapt to 4g warfare is good. And that's the way it's going to stay.

There was no real attempt in any of the wars you cite. They tried to restrict movements (the "embedding" system is just the latest attempt at that), but not access.

You can't keep the press out entirely, but you can deny them access to any troops, and deny them visas to get in-country. And you can certainly confiscate all of the footage shot by anyone caught in the warzone illegally.

You combine that with a strong PR push. Plus, you can pull such tricks as denying stations that publish anti-war tracts access to Presidential Press Briefings and giving scoops to their opponents. If you handle it right, the media can be made to sit up and beg on command.

Hell, they do this shit all the time with electioneering. Why not do it for the military?

Yeah I did not state that properly...they were embedded in an attempt to control the news...yet there were news crews bombing around the battlefield that were not embedded...

Yeah I did not state that properly...they were embedded in an attempt to control the news...yet there were news crews bombing around the battlefield that were not embedded...

Of course. You're always going to have the intrepid correspondent, willing to venture into danger and likely death to get the truth. The real journalists, who can take the heat and get the story.

But for every one of those, there are a thousand witless, mindless drones who'll go get what they think the station wants and to hell with doing any work, like uncovering the truth or finding out what the man on the street thinks - hell, as far as he and his cronies are concerned, the man on the street thinks what He damn well tells him to believe!

If you locked down a country, the real journalists would still get in, and bring back the true stories of what they saw and felt.

Instead, today we have a thousand talking heads, each with their own pointless point-of-view, and not a one reporting what is actually happening. Just parrotting the company line. And the real journalist's real attempts to cover what's going on get lost in the shuffle - if the news companies broadcast their stuff at all.

Sorry, this has become a rant about journalism. Not exactly what I had in mind, as a response.

I'm tired. Going to bed. Frak! It's 2AM...

*Ahem*

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/083/3/8/Let_the_UN_Take_Over.jpg
:D It would be so irresponsible of me, but I would just love to take this whole filthy mess, bundle it up, hand it to the UN, say "Thank you!" as cheerily as possible, go home and turn the porch light off.

No, I'm a realist.

If the entire population was against us, we'd have been kicked out on our keisters six months after the "war" "ended".

On average, an insurgency consists of less than 1% of the population, supported by between 30% and 50% of the population. I haven't seen any information from Iraq to make me believe this is in any way an unusual insurgency, save that there may well be more than the usual number of outsiders working with the Iraqi insurgents. (Of course, that doesn't mean that 50%-70% support the other side. The majority, generally, doesn't care and generally just keep their heads down and wants it to be over.)

If you crush the 1% and convince the 30% not to reconstruct them, you win. If you reduce the support level to below 10%, you win (at that point, the insurgency can be controlled by standard policing methods). Killing the 30% is usually NOT an effective option - it pisses off the rest. And yes, it's been tried.
Lots of people call themselves realists, but a true realist is capable of telling when an idea is impractical, not applicable, or, especially, unrealistic.

Your breezy remarks about "ruthlessness" are all of those things, and as a realist, you should have been able to tell that just by reading history, since you are not the first person to propose these unworkable ideas.

I doubt you will be able to restrict press access to combat zones. Didn't work in GW1 and 2....nor Vietnam...or East Timor.

Now the Chinese and the old Sovs could do that and be ruthless about it. West can't do that...you cannot execute journos for doing their job. Well you can but it really does nothing more than build resentment towards 'the system'.
Even the Chinese and Soviets are/were not completely successful. Otherwise, no one outside of China would know about the Falun Gong, and no one would ever had read The Gulag Archipeligo. Nor, would I have spent my high school years reading smuggled, translated Russian and Polish samizdat magazines.

There's an old saying: "The truth will out." And the truth does come out and win out, every single time, no matter how long it takes.

Of course. You're always going to have the intrepid correspondent, willing to venture into danger and likely death to get the truth. The real journalists, who can take the heat and get the story.

But for every one of those, there are a thousand witless, mindless drones who'll go get what they think the station wants and to hell with doing any work, like uncovering the truth or finding out what the man on the street thinks - hell, as far as he and his cronies are concerned, the man on the street thinks what He damn well tells him to believe!

If you locked down a country, the real journalists would still get in, and bring back the true stories of what they saw and felt.

Instead, today we have a thousand talking heads, each with their own pointless point-of-view, and not a one reporting what is actually happening. Just parrotting the company line. And the real journalist's real attempts to cover what's going on get lost in the shuffle - if the news companies broadcast their stuff at all.

Sorry, this has become a rant about journalism. Not exactly what I had in mind, as a response.

I'm tired. Going to bed. Frak! It's 2AM...

That is possibly the politest rant I have ever read! LOL

What can I say...our Winnie sprung to mind immediately...

I also agree with you about the 'marketplace media'.

Even the Chinese and Soviets are/were not completely successful. Otherwise, no one outside of China would know about the Falun Gong, and no one would ever had read The Gulag Archipeligo. Nor, would I have spent my high school years reading smuggled, translated Russian and Polish samizdat magazines.

There's an old saying: "The truth will out." And the truth does come out and win out, every single time, no matter how long it takes.

hmmm...well the Falun Gong self publicised from Hong Kong if memory serves...and HK was not as restrictive as mainland China back then...

The samizdat materials....yeah you have a point there...but they were not in a war zone as foreigners...?

I approve of this article thoroughly, it points out alot of the points I have been making in this forum, the particular how the CPA caused Iraq's current problems.

Lots of people call themselves realists, but a true realist is capable of telling when an idea is impractical, not applicable, or, especially, unrealistic.

Your breezy remarks about "ruthlessness" are all of those things, and as a realist, you should have been able to tell that just by reading history, since you are not the first person to propose these unworkable ideas.

The real question is, am I unrealistic, or have our societies become too decadent to face what needs to be done?

If the former, then I am merely in error (hardly earth shattering). If the latter, then we deserve to be wiped out. A society that cannot protect itself is doomed.

No. Not only the US. France, the UK and Russia as well.

Correct, but not to the extent the U.S. meddles.

The Philippines.

You lucky - ! :eek:

The real question is, am I unrealistic, or have our societies become too decadent to face what needs to be done?

From a physical capacity standpoint, you are realistic. It CAN be done. From a realpolitik point of view, no, it can't be done.

Unless there was a single world government run by a dictatorship.