NationStates Jolt Archive

Or does such a thing even exist?

What if tomorrow, all the insurgents stopped attacking, leaving no one to defend against? Would even a miracle such as that be a victory? Sure all our soldiers would get to come home, but what's to stop the whole sorry mess from starting up all over again a month or so later? Are we suppose to hold Iraq's hand till the end of time?

I just don't see a tangable victory EVER in Iraq. Why is it taking so long, costing so much, and getting WAY to many of our soldiers injured or killed? The insurgents suck. They are fucking bums. The US has the most effecient and brave soldiers in the world. WTF??!!

There can only be one answer. The attack on Iraq was designed to get more military contracts signed. Military contracts that have NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.

America is safe RIGHT NOW from ANY military invasion. (Hell. We wouldn't even need the military. Between all the athletes, bikers, NRA members, MMA fighters, postal workers, metalheds, gangsta rappers, country boy shitkickers, power walkers and the Sopranos, even China'a 100 million troops wouldn't get very far) We can never be safe from someone that comes up with a plan that none of us has concidered though. (like what happened on 9-11)

Guerilla warfare can easily overcome the best conventional forces if they are capable of using the countryside to their advantage. They are an enemy that operates without any real central command, structured supply lines, industrial base or organized military operations; their equipment and firepower may be far less than their opponents, but their sheer mobility and flexibility more than compensates for their low quality and loose organization. After all, in recent history guerrilla forces inflicted costly and lasting defeats on both the US and the Soviet Union, the two greatest military powers in history. It shouldn't be surprising in the slightest that guerrillas in Iraq can cost us huge amounts of money and thousands of lives.

I think victory in Iraq would be the remaining insurgents laying down their arms and joining the Iraqi government. To that end, we need to clearly reaffirm the independence of the Iraq regime and make it known that we fully intend to withdraw our forces once stability has been achieved. From a strategic standpoint, having permanent bases would be a good way to maintain security in the Persian Gulf but I doubt the insurgents or the Iraqi people in general would like that. Maybe in the future, but moving to permanent bases right away would be very undesirable.

i dont know what would count as victory in iraq considering that we met our goals there 5 years ago.

i guess we have to stay until the iraqis turn into americans.

"To defeat the orthodox, one uses the unorthodox. To defeat the unorthodox, one uses the orthodox."
-Sun Tzu

We are the orthodox, the guerillas are the unorthodox. It's a waiting game, and we have made huge gains recently (see troop surge).

And keep in mind that while yes, we have lost more than 4000 troops, they have lost a much greater number. Hell, in Operation Phantom Fury alone, we killed more than 1350 and captured 1500 while taking a bit more than 600 casualties, with only 92 fatal. That was in a bit more than a month.

Calling the insurgents bums and saying they suck is, frankly, bullshit. They are highly dedicated, highly motivated soldiers who are fanatically obsessed with their cause. So while no, they are nowhere near as well trained or disciplined as our own troops, they also have absolutely no qualms in throwing their lives away. That makes up for a lot.

Or does such a thing even exist?
No, it doesn't exist. There is no victory because victory is an outcome, and what we are doing there is designed to be an endlessly ongoing situation with no final outcome. Why? Because of this:

There can only be one answer. The attack on Iraq was designed to get more military contracts signed. Military contracts that have NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.
The war in Iraq is a program to support the military industrial complex. Period. This is why there can never be victory. There can only be a continuation of the current situation (desired by outfits like Halliburton et al, Raytheon, oil companies, etc) or a cessation of the current situation (desired by the majority of private citizens).

I've been asking that question since day one. How are we supposed to "win" if victory has not been defined?

At least in Vietnam we were trying to get somewhere. But now, the longer we stay there, the more people get angry and fight us, and the more we fight back, and the longer we stay, and etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Its like we have invented a war to fight. Who cares if the Arabs are all pissed off at us? Do we need to shoot them all?

Or does such a thing even exist?

What if tomorrow, all the insurgents stopped attacking, leaving no one to defend against? Would even a miracle such as that be a victory? Sure all our soldiers would get to come home, but what's to stop the whole sorry mess from starting up all over again a month or so later? Are we suppose to hold Iraq's hand till the end of time?

I just don't see a tangable victory EVER in Iraq. Why is it taking so long, costing so much, and getting WAY to many of our soldiers injured or killed? The insurgents suck. They are fucking bums. The US has the most effecient and brave soldiers in the world. WTF??!!

There can only be one answer. The attack on Iraq was designed to get more military contracts signed. Military contracts that have NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.

America is safe RIGHT NOW from ANY military invasion. (Hell. We wouldn't even need the military. Between all the athletes, bikers, NRA members, MMA fighters, postal workers, metalheds, gangsta rappers, country boy shitkickers, power walkers and the Sopranos, even China'a 100 million troops wouldn't get very far) We can never be safe from someone that comes up with a plan that none of us has concidered though. (like what happened on 9-11)

What we are doing in Iraq is rather similar to the assistance that we provided to the Greeks against the commies after World War II. Once the government is up and running and able to stand on their own two feet we withdraw and they take care of their own internal security and we all work together on international security concerns.

Your view that we are somehow not committed to that goal to purposefully get military contracts is rather silly. I am sorry. I just think it is silly. Guerrilla actions take time and we have only been at it for 7 years and we have made excellent progress. Remember that Japanese guerilla activity by isolated guerillas continued for at least 30 years after the end World War II.

Your view is rather cynical and sophomoric and quite shall I see conspiracy theoryish. I think it is also bizarre to claim that the US has taken high casualties. We simply have not. We have less casualties by far than we did in Vietnam and we had low casualties there. What is your historical reference point to say that we are taking high casulaties? I am baffled.

"To defeat the orthodox, one uses the unorthodox. To defeat the unorthodox, one uses the orthodox."
-Sun Tzu

We are the orthodox, the guerillas are the unorthodox. It's a waiting game, and we have made huge gains recently (see troop surge).

And keep in mind that while yes, we have lost more than 4000 troops, they have lost a much greater number. Hell, in Operation Phantom Fury alone, we killed more than 1350 and captured 1500 while taking a bit more than 600 casualties, with only 92 fatal. That was in a bit more than a month.

Calling the insurgents bums and saying they suck is, frankly, bullshit. They are highly dedicated, highly motivated soldiers who are fanatically obsessed with their cause. So while no, they are nowhere near as well trained or disciplined as our own troops, they also have absolutely no qualms in throwing their lives away. That makes up for a lot.

C'mon Setulan. Be fair. Don't you think someone in the military has read "The Art of War" by now? They know the score and what time it is.

So we are achieving a tangable goal by winning the numbers game? A numbers game that is only measured in thousands? How is this going to stop a civil war? How is this going to get everyone there to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? That just can't be done can it?

I think you are way off base with madman - vs - trained & disciplined. (Damm! Ain't you ever seen a Bruce Lee movie?) :D The problem in Iraq, all along, has been not enough troops and lack of proper equipment. C'mon! Shock and awe? It was yawn and snore! A quick victory in Iraq would have forced the Military-Industrial Complex to leave too much money on the table. Had we sent in a few hundrend thousand more troops than we did (back in 2003) there would have been a far less chance of civil war erupting.

What we are doing in Iraq is rather similar to the assistance that we provided to the Greeks against the commies after World War II. Once the government is up and running and able to stand on their own two feet we withdraw and they take care of their own internal security and we all work together on international security concerns.

Your view that we are somehow not committed to that goal to purposefully get military contracts is rather silly. I am sorry. I just think it is silly. Guerrilla actions take time and we have only been at it for 7 years and we have made excellent progress. Remember that Japanese guerilla activity by isolated guerillas continued for at least 30 years after the end World War II.

Your view is rather cynical and sophomoric and quite shall I see conspiracy theoryish. I think it is also bizarre to claim that the US has taken high casualties. We simply have not. We have less casualties by far than we did in Vietnam and we had low casualties there. What is your historical reference point to say that we are taking high casulaties? I am baffled.


I agree with all but the part about Greece. We are taking a much more active role in Iraq then we ever did there.


C'mon Setulan. Be fair. Don't you think someone in the military has read "The Art of War" by now? They know the score and what time it is.

Sigh* Do I think the military has read Sun Tzu? Yes. Do I think our leaders have? No. No I do not.

So we are achieving a tangable goal by winning the numbers game? A numbers game that is only measured in thousands? How is this going to stop a civil war? How is this going to get everyone there to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? That just can't be done can it?

No, not at all. We are winning a tangible goal by watching the numbers of casualties, both civilian and military, drop drastically ever since the troop surge. Drop so far, in fact, that liberal media is actually acknowleding they were wrong! We are winning a tangible goal because the Iraqi government is asking us to leave, not because they do not want us, but because they know they can shoulder the responsibility.

And alas, I feel like we will never sing Kumbaya :(

I think you are way off base with madman - vs - trained & disciplined. (Damm! Ain't you ever seen a Bruce Lee movie?) :D

Actually, I think you are off base. I said fanatical, not mad. There is a world of difference between the two.

And I LOVE Bruce Lee!!! :)


The problem in Iraq, all along, has been not enough troops and lack of proper equipment. C'mon! Shock and awe? It was yawn and snore!

I was home sick when shock and awe went off, and it was far from a yawn and a snore. It succeded in trashing the Iraqi power structure.

A quick victory in Iraq would have forced the Military-Industrial Complex to leave too much money on the table. Had we sent in a few hundrend thousand more troops than we did (back in 2003) there would have been a far less chance of civil war erupting.

Thats just wacky. Sorry, but I find the entire military industry conspiracy ridiculous. And we have never had a few hundred thousand troops there. We have a bit more than 130,000 there now.

I agree with all but the part about Greece. We are taking a much more active role in Iraq then we ever did there.




Sigh* Do I think the military has read Sun Tzu? Yes. Do I think our leaders have? No. No I do not.



No, not at all. We are winning a tangible goal by watching the numbers of casualties, both civilian and military, drop drastically ever since the troop surge. Drop so far, in fact, that liberal media is actually acknowleding they were wrong! We are winning a tangible goal because the Iraqi government is asking us to leave, not because they do not want us, but because they know they can shoulder the responsibility.

And alas, I feel like we will never sing Kumbaya :(



Actually, I think you are off base. I said fanatical, not mad. There is a world of difference between the two.

And I LOVE Bruce Lee!!! :)



I was home sick when shock and awe went off, and it was far from a yawn and a snore. It succeded in trashing the Iraqi power structure.



Thats just wacky. Sorry, but I find the entire military industry conspiracy ridiculous. And we have never had a few hundred thousand troops there. We have a bit more than 130,000 there now.

I meant send in 400,000 (ish) troops from day one or don't go at all. (sorry if the wording threw you off) I know we havn't had even close to that many, hence my M-IC theory which just happens to be true

I meant send in 400,000 (ish) troops from day one or don't go at all. (sorry if the wording threw you off) I know we havn't had even close to that many, hence my M-IC theory which just happens to be true

If we sent in 400,000 troops from the get go, it would get more money for the industries you believe are running the country.

And besides, do you have any idea how much that number entails?
Like, seriously? That is...

2/5 of the army
OR
4.5/3 of the marines
OR
1.33/10 of the ENTIRE US MILITARY

those numbers include reserves. It would take months to organize that many troops and send them that far.

Its like we have invented a war to fight.
:eek:
Better get some insurance .... and hurry.


A war on a noun invariable causes issues this thread brings up.

because they know they can shoulder the responsibility. Like bribing the populace. That's "responsibility" in every instance in history, isn't it?
:rolleyes:
http://www.kdbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=8665931&nav=menu608_2_5

It succeded in trashing the Iraqi power structure.Way to go. And with how many YEARS of competence ... and "succeeding" ... how's it doing again?

Apparently it's this: نصرة

And keep in mind that while yes, we have lost more than 4000 troops, they have lost a much greater number. Hell, in Operation Phantom Fury alone, we killed more than 1350 and captured 1500 while taking a bit more than 600 casualties, with only 92 fatal. That was in a bit more than a month.



Is this information even accurate? These days, I don't know what sources of information to trust.

If we sent in 400,000 troops from the get go, it would get more money for the industries you believe are running the country.

And besides, do you have any idea how much that number entails?
Like, seriously? That is...

2/5 of the army
OR
4.5/3 of the marines
OR
1.33/10 of the ENTIRE US MILITARY

those numbers include reserves. It would take months to organize that many troops and send them that far.


How does a quick, decisive victory cost more? We were led to believe that Iraq possesed WMDs that could eventually make it to America. If you REALLY believed that as a leader you have to throw as much at them as possible. You try to get as much help from the rest of the world as possible. What does Bush do? He says "Your with us or against us" WTF??!! That's certainly not going to get forign & US hands to shaking anytime soon. Then the scaming bastard includes N. Korea in the Axis of Evil. WTF??!! (Oh so NOW everything is cool with Kim Jong Ill since the M-IC stands to win the whole fucking Monolopy game when the war with Iran starts) Connect the dots man!

The single biggest problem with the conflict in Iraq is the fact that we invaded with no clear objectives beyond the removal of Saddam Hussein. This was a result of the fact that no one in the administration had any real military experience, other than the (largely ignored) Colin Powell. The military leadership wanted almost half a million troops for the invasion, which might well have prevented the insurgency from ever taking root, but Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom felt that 75,000 would be enough. In the end they compromised, but said compromise was decidedly in Rumsfeld's favor. But to answer your question, is victory possible? To answer that, one must first define victory, and this we have failed to do.

Incidentally, a previous poster expressed doubt about the existence of the military-industrial complex. The phrase was popularized by Eisenhower, who certainly believed in its existence and found it deeply troublesome. Eisenhower was a five star general, so I think his opinion should be taken as authoritative in this matter.

Is this information even accurate? These days, I don't know what sources of information to trust.That's the point. Depends on who you listen to .... speaking of which, everyone here already heard of Flush Limblob's new contract, right?
If you want optimism and number-padding, you know where to go.

The single biggest problem with the conflict in Iraq is the fact that we invaded with no clear objectives beyond the removal of Saddam Hussein. This was a result of the fact that no one in the administration had any real military experience, other than the (largely ignored) Colin Powell. The military leadership wanted almost half a million troops for the invasion, which might well have prevented the insurgency from ever taking root, but Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom felt that 75,000 would be enough. In the end they compromised, but said compromise was decidedly in Rumsfeld's favor. But to answer your question, is victory possible? To answer that, one must first define victory, and this we have failed to do.

Incidentally, a previous poster expressed doubt about the existence of the military-industrial complex. The phrase was popularized by Eisenhower, who certainly believed in its existence and found it deeply troublesome. Eisenhower was a five star general, so I think his opinion should be taken as authoritative in this matter.Good post. *bows*

But to answer your question, is victory possible? To answer that, one must first define victory, and this we have failed to do.Yes, but many of "us" have been there & bought the T-shirt.
http://roadkillrefugee.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/mission-accomplished.png
Imagine how confused the coalition of willing believers and Bush sympathizers must be to know how old this photo is! Teehee!

Incidentally, a previous poster expressed doubt about the existence of the military-industrial complex. The phrase was popularized by Eisenhower, who certainly believed in its existence and found it deeply troublesome. Eisenhower was a five star general, so I think his opinion should be taken as authoritative in this matter.

And thought is was important enough to mention it in his fairwell speech. (January 17th, 1961)


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

If we sent in 400,000 troops from the get go, it would get more money for the industries you believe are running the country.

And besides, do you have any idea how much that number entails?
Like, seriously? That is...

2/5 of the army
OR
4.5/3 of the marines
OR
1.33/10 of the ENTIRE US MILITARY

those numbers include reserves. It would take months to organize that many troops and send them that far.

The invasion plans drawn up by General Franks and his staff- that is, by the people best equipped to understand and deal with the problem- involved well over 400,000 troops. It would of course take time to deploy so many troops, and they planned on it taking seven months. If the war had been a short one, as it would likely have been in this scenario, the army could easily have handled it.

How does a quick, decisive victory cost more? We were led to believe that Iraq possesed WMDs that could eventually make it to America. If you REALLY believed that as a leader you have to throw as much at them as possible. You try to get as much help from the rest of the world as possible. What does Bush do? He says "Your with us or against us" WTF??!! That's certainly not going to get forign & US hands to shaking anytime soon. Then the scaming bastard includes N. Korea in the Axis of Evil. WTF??!! (Oh so NOW everything is cool with Kim Jong Ill since the M-IC stands to win the whole fucking Monolopy game when the war with Iran starts) Connect the dots man!

How is N. Korea not evil? Why are you so focused on WMDs? By the way, North Korea probably has nuclear capability.

How is N. Korea not evil? Why are you so focused on WMDs? By the way, North Korea probably has nuclear capability.

I think we wrapped up the NK situation pretty nicely once China assumed a decisive role in the situation. With them more or less on the other parties' side in opposing North Korean nuclear activities, it was easy to make progress.

Personally, I think China's just looking forward to opening up NK for easy land access to South Korea's market...

How is N. Korea not evil? Why are you so focused on WMDs? By the way, North Korea probably has nuclear capability.

Why even bring it up when you have declared a war on terror? What are the odds of declaring them as part of the AoE and seeing Kim Jong Ill come out with a white flag? North Korea was a back up plan in case we accidently found Osama too fast. Cheney worked damm hard to make sure his connections with the M-IC would payoff someday. (I still think this has something to do with the black eye that Cheney gave Bush and blamed it on a pretzle)

Or does such a thing even exist?

There hasn't been a clear articulation of a realistic and achievable definition of victory.

[QUOTE=Dragontide]There can only be one answer. The attack on Iraq was designed to get more military contracts signed. Military contracts that have NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.

Always remember the adage "cock up before conspiracy".

i dont know what would count as victory in iraq considering that we met our goals there 5 years ago.

i guess we have to stay until the iraqis turn into americans.

Actually, the original goal (removing the clear and present danger of WMDs) had already been accomplished by 1998.

It's a waiting game, and we have made huge gains recently (see troop surge).

Dubious gains, that are not solely due to the Surge - ethnic cleansing and the natural ebb and flow of violence in a civil war have as much to do with the drop in violence as the Surge. Furthermore, the strategy has not accomplished the underlying goals. The surge was intended to give the central government some breathing space to build a viable Iraq. It hasn't done so, and it is highly questionable if such a goal is achievable.

I've been asking that question since day one. How are we supposed to "win" if victory has not been defined?

Indeed.

No, not at all. We are winning a tangible goal by watching the numbers of casualties, both civilian and military, drop drastically ever since the troop surge.

The Surge isn't the only cause of the drop in violence, as I pointed out above.

This strategy has combined with other developments -- especially the fact that so much ethnic cleansing has already occurred and that violence in civil wars tends to ebb and flow, as the contending sides work to consolidate gains and replenish losses -- to bring about the current drop in violence. The Sunni sheiks, meanwhile, are getting rich from the surge. The United States has budgeted $150 million to pay Sunni tribal groups this year, and the sheiks take as much as 20 percent of every payment to a former insurgent -- which means that commanding 200 fighters can be worth well over a hundred thousand dollars a year for a tribal chief. Although Washington hopes that Baghdad will eventually integrate most former insurgents into the Iraqi state security services, there are reasons to worry that the Sunni chiefs will not willingly give up what has become an extremely lucrative arrangement.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305-p20/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

As more units are pulled out to start trying to plug the leaks in Afghanistan, we can expect an increase in the violence in Iraq.

Drop so far, in fact, that liberal media is actually acknowleding they were wrong! We are winning a tangible goal because the Iraqi government is asking us to leave, not because they do not want us, but because they know they can shoulder the responsibility.

Not only has the Surge not accomplished the long term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq, it has most likely done it harm.

Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments: the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305-p0/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

Thats just wacky. Sorry, but I find the entire military industry conspiracy ridiculous.

Indeed.

And we have never had a few hundred thousand troops there. We have a bit more than 130,000 there now.

Note that Zinni's "Desert Crossing" (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm) called for more than double the force that was used, and still predicted an outcome similar to what actually happened.

(Note: the rule of thumb for a sucessful occupation is a 20+/1000 troop/population ratio.)

If we sent in 400,000 troops from the get go, it would get more money for the industries you believe are running the country.

And besides, do you have any idea how much that number entails?
Like, seriously? That is...

2/5 of the army
OR
4.5/3 of the marines
OR
1.33/10 of the ENTIRE US MILITARY

those numbers include reserves. It would take months to organize that many troops and send them that far.

Indeed. Even Rummy knew the two war strategy wasn't doable with the forces we had.

The single biggest problem with the conflict in Iraq is the fact that we invaded with no clear objectives beyond the removal of Saddam Hussein. This was a result of the fact that no one in the administration had any real military experience, other than the (largely ignored) Colin Powell. The military leadership wanted almost half a million troops for the invasion, which might well have prevented the insurgency from ever taking root, but Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom felt that 75,000 would be enough. In the end they compromised, but said compromise was decidedly in Rumsfeld's favor. But to answer your question, is victory possible? To answer that, one must first define victory, and this we have failed to do.

The military cocked things up as well. See "On Point II" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/18_months_the_army_wont_forget.html).

Incidentally, a previous poster expressed doubt about the existence of the military-industrial complex. The phrase was popularized by Eisenhower, who certainly believed in its existence and found it deeply troublesome. Eisenhower was a five star general, so I think his opinion should be taken as authoritative in this matter.

I don't doubt that the MIC exists. I just don't ascribe to the conspiracy theorists' beliefs like the OP put up. As I said above, "cock up before conspiracy".

Oh yea sure Daistallia! Eisenhower was a well known conspiracy theorist! :rolleyes:

depends on what you hoped to accomplished...

If you wanted to dispose of a dictator...then yes its been done...

If you wanted to lower gas prices....then your a dumbass if you think spending tons of money and lives and lowering the very value of your currency was the way to go...

If you wanted to hinder radical islam...then your a dumbass if you thought that restricting your mobility and putting all your eggs in the same basket of Iraq wasnt going to put a giant target on you saying Shoot Me for all of Radical Islamic Terrorists...

If you wanted an Ally in the War on Terror...then your a dumbass if you thought occupying a country and imposing a US backed Puppet Government was going to win you any friends...

And the list goes on...I think the problem is that there's been so many bullshit arguments and rationales for going to war in this area that its impossible to determine what victory really means...

Besides wasnt it already 'Mission Accomplished'? lol...

Many of you are blatant fools. You have no forsight. You have no logic to your arguments. There is a very blatant victory to Iraq, and the end is near. Well, relatively.

Too many of you think there is an "Instant Country, just add water!" Formula, or that "Victory in Iraq" entails only beating all the terrorists. (like the writer of this topic...) Use your heads.

When you take out a government, entirely, such as we have done with Iraq, there is a three-step plan to victory.

1) Rebuild the Government. DONE.
And it's not a true puppet-government either, as the guys the White House wanted in power are not in power. Their government is getting underway.Took us quite a while when we first started. Give them some time to get entirely effective, which involves utilization of a military.

2) Rebuild the Military. Work in Progress.
Yeah, work in progress. Right now, the Iraqi Airforce could barely take out a tank, let alone an enemy fighter. Americans are one of their primary groups of Airmen. Don't worry, within the next year, they'll have something, at least an adequate Air Defense System. Maybe two years, but that would require us to stay in just a bit longer.
We are helping them with promoting officers so it's not based on money and caste-status and the like. They've got some good guys rising through the ranks. Such a thing, however, is hella-difficult to start from scratch with.

3) The Pull Out. Don't even think about it yet! It must be nice and easy, as if laying a baby down to sleep. Yes, we can take a few thousand soldiers out now, perhaps. Not 10,000, though. That's getting a little hasty.
Don't try to mix 2 and 3. That's a solution designed for collapse.

American deaths in Iraq are at an all-time low, though. Anyone see a light at the end of the tunnel start to appear?

WMDs? Well, if anyone paid attention to history, there are still at least 6 tons of Iraqi Anthax made for Warheads floating around...
I dunno. I guess those are more child's toys than "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's not like we were told by Saddam's Son-in-Law who betrayed him while he was the head of Special Weapons in Saddam's Cabinet.
6 tons of Anthrax. Yeah. That's nothing to be worried about. Pffft.

Ask anyone with "classified information" in the military. They are likely to tell you (and if they don't, they know it, though) that North Korea and Iran are being real bitches right now, and no one's being let know about it so no one freaks out.
The Japanese Government is crapping their pants right now.
Iran is handing weapons over to insurgents in Iraq, many of whom arn't even Iraqi. If you deny that, you haven't been paying attention to the news.

I think your problem is that...

1) you rebuilt a Government no one will support...News Flash, Democracy requires the support of the People, and no one supports Puppets...and if you can kid yourself into thinking that they do in fact support it, then your not watching the Civil War unfolding...

2)The Military of Iraq can be rebuilt, but, itll constantly require American Support, even when its up to snuff, itll have to be supplied and funded with US Taxpayers Money...further hindering point #1....

3)You can pull out now...and send them at our enemies...see, right now we're sittin there fightin Iranian/Al Queda/who ever else that wishes to shoot us backed Militias that will continue doing so as long as we're there, and its not going to stop until you hit them at the source...The Iraqis arent going to stop shooting till they feel that their goals are met or they cant physically fight any longer...Its a Civil War, you cant just go in and impose government on a Civil War...If Britain had decided to impose a pro British Government, in say, the American Civil War, the North and South wouldve simply forgot their differences and teamed up to destroy the Limey bastards...We need to leave and let them fight it out for themselves...and then we can get our Mobility back, finish up in Afghanistan, and continue fighting Global Terror the way we need to be...

The problem is that you cant install a democracy, it cant be done...you can install Dictators, you can impose Colonial Rule, but, Democracies can only be done by the people themselves, its how not only the US but every other democracy on the face of the earth has done it...Imposed Puppet Democracy cannot and will not succeed...

The insurgents suck. They are fucking bums. The US has the most effecient and brave soldiers in the world. WTF??!!


To be honest, for 3 guys with an RPG and 2 AK's to hold up a whole American platoon for a good bit of time, shows me that the insurgents are the braver ones. Would you face up to a British, American, or any other Coalition force with what they have? Compared to the fire-power the British, American and other Coalition forces, they have nothing.

Plus, the British have completed most operations, are slowly pulling back. have handed control back in their areas to the Iraq government, and have trained Iraqi forces to the extent to where they can fight their own battles against the insurgents with only minimal Allied support. (Recently in Basra)

And the British have done that losing just over 100 men. That's alot less than 4000.

That says alot about US efficiency.

You guys are good, but you aren't as bad arse as the man with the AK taking on that British or American fireteam without a hope in hell.

1) Umm... I'm Sorry? I think you're forgetting that not only did the US Administration not have the guy they wanted elected, but the people outright voted for the current leaders of Iraq. Remember those days, when proud Iraqis were showing their colored thumbs around proudly for cameras to see, showing everyone that they'd voted without threat of an AK-47 going off if they voted against what the current power said?

2) Not once their economy gets up a little bit more. Then we'll be selling them all the stuff we want to decomission and we'll be making money.

3) Can't pull out right now. Logic, statistics, history, logistics, all, for christ's sake, point to having some patience at this moment.
Iraq is nearly stabilization. Hell, the smart thing would be to split it into Kurdistan, Sunni-Iraq, and Shiite-Iraq. That'd stabilize really fast.

1) Umm... I'm Sorry? I think you're forgetting that not only did the US Administration not have the guy they wanted elected, but the people outright voted for the current leaders of Iraq. Remember those days, when proud Iraqis were showing their colored thumbs around proudly for cameras to see, showing everyone that they'd voted without threat of an AK-47 going off if they voted against what the current power said?

2) Not once their economy gets up a little bit more. Then we'll be selling them all the stuff we want to decomission and we'll be making money.

3) Can't pull out right now. Logic, statistics, history, logistics, all, for christ's sake, point to having some patience at this moment.
Iraq is nearly stabilization. Hell, the smart thing would be to split it into Kurdistan, Sunni-Iraq, and Shiite-Iraq. That'd stabilize really fast.

1) The majority of the population didnt vote, the ones who did, voted for their local warlord, and sparked the whole damn Civil War, cause the Shiites dont feel their represented well enough(by which i mean have total control), Kurds are angry they dont have power of any kind anymore, and Sunnis are sick of being shot at...

2) not going to happen without lots of american support, and practically buying out the country for Oil Conglomerates...further and further hindering Point #1...

3) Statistics, and History...that has to do with moving troops how?...your logic and others logic are two different things...and Logistics? im sure they can load up in some tanks and troop carriers and get out of their in a few weeks, no problem, hell, they did it going in whilst being shot at from all sides...im sure they can do it again going out...Although, your probably right about the governments getting stabalized faster in three split countries...only problem would be that itd dissolve into squabbling, land/money hungering death and chaos faster than you can say "Territorial Dispute"...

Whether or not victory can be achieved depends on the specification of the said victory.

Or does such a thing even exist?
I dunno. If you don't bother with that utterly pish 'democracy' rubbish, then you might get a single-state solution, with a fairly high level of security, employment, living standards and the like. And make sure it's secular.

Not entirely sure why democracy was a goal in Iraq... at all... or indeed quite why we even went in (aye oil and all that) for the second time, but there we go.
What if tomorrow, all the insurgents stopped attacking, leaving no one to defend against?
Errr... how could we tell if they were actually all stopping at once? Seriously...
Would even a miracle such as that be a victory?
Not particularly. Not having roaming bands of militiamen is nice, having clean drinking water, a stable government with a well-trained army and such is better.
Sure all our soldiers would get to come home, but what's to stop the whole sorry mess from starting up all over again a month or so later? Are we suppose to hold Iraq's hand till the end of time?

[QUOTE]I just don't see a tangable victory EVER in Iraq.
Seeing as you have absolutely no victory conditions set out, this is unsurprising. You're acting almost exactly like the US government is in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"So err... what're our goals?"
"Dunno really..."
"Right, well just try to improve things in general, then"
"Hmm, alright".

Set some objectives for yerself.
Why is it taking so long, costing so much, and getting WAY to many of our soldiers injured or killed?
Way too many?

4000-odd deaths for four years of occupation in a country where families were allowed to keep an AK47, if that was their wish, and the military armaments factories were raided by baddies is not that bad, let's be honest.
The insurgents suck.
Quite.
They are fucking bums.
Bit of a sweeping statement, Moqtada al-Sadr lives in a swanky mansion, for example.
The US has the most effecient and brave soldiers in the world. WTF??!!
Dunno about that one, seeing as your casualty rates are higher than the UK's, despite your troops having even more numerical superiority, in addition to better air support and the like than us, to be quite honest.
There can only be one answer.
What a particularly stupid statement. There could be loads.
The attack on Iraq was designed to get more military contracts signed. Military contracts that have NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.
... dunno about that, I'd think it was much more for long-term oil security than military contracts. Could be for loads of reasons, though. Could partially be to extend NATO's power in the region, amongst other things.
America is safe RIGHT NOW from ANY military invasion. (Hell. We wouldn't even need the military. Between all the athletes, bikers, NRA members, MMA fighters, postal workers, metalheds, gangsta rappers, country boy shitkickers, power walkers and the Sopranos, even China'a 100 million troops wouldn't get very far)
China doesn't have 100 million troops, it has around 2.25 million on active service, seven hundred thousand reservists and around four million paramilitary auxilliaries.

Even then, they have a very small blue-water navy and hence would have trouble even getting to the US to be honest.
We can never be safe from someone that comes up with a plan that none of us has concidered though. (like what happened on 9-11)
Aye etc. Cheers for yer platitudes. Hope that's this stuff out of your system for a while.

I think Bush wants to make iraq a u.s. territory b/c he is so oil hungry

Victory in Iraq? Us getting out without Iraq being completely overwhelmed with militants. Which we probably could do now.

Sorry for the mad late post, I went to sleep early last night/haven't been home all day. If I miss you, I apologize...I sorta skimmed what was written.


Like bribing the populace. That's "responsibility" in every instance in history, isn't it?


I never said it was responsible. Has it worked?

Way to go. And with how many YEARS of competence ... and "succeeding" ... how's it doing again?

Again, well recently. And when have I ever said that our leadership was competent? This war has been run badly from the start. It doesn't matter how comptetent our military leaders are when the government refuses to listen.

Is this information even accurate? These days, I don't know what sources of information to trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phantom_Fury
yes, it is. And I'm wounded :(

How does a quick, decisive victory cost more? We were led to believe that Iraq possesed WMDs that could eventually make it to America. If you REALLY believed that as a leader you have to throw as much at them as possible.

A quick, decisive victory would have required a HUGE amount of troops. Which would cost alot. And as for the WMD's, we believed he had chemical weapons. No, you don't go apeshit when someone has chemical weapons. What you do is train and equip your soldiers to deal with it, like we did.

You try to get as much help from the rest of the world as possible. What does Bush do? He says "Your with us or against us" WTF??!! That's certainly not going to get forign & US hands to shaking anytime soon.

Meh. I'm not going to argue the point, of course you want all the help you can get. I have never thought that it was a good idea to go in alone.

Then the scaming bastard includes N. Korea in the Axis of Evil. WTF??!! (Oh so NOW everything is cool with Kim Jong Ill since the M-IC stands to win the whole fucking Monolopy game when the war with Iran starts) Connect the dots man!

By what standard is Kim Jong Ill not a prick? And I am trying to connect the dots you keep giving me, but some are hazy and some just don't exist at all.


There hasn't been a clear articulation of a realistic and achievable definition of victory.

True, but it has widely been accepted that victory is setting up a stable government in Iraq.



Actually, the original goal (removing the clear and present danger of WMDs) had already been accomplished by 1998.

Well, somebody didn't think so :rolleyes:


Dubious gains, that are not solely due to the Surge - ethnic cleansing and the natural ebb and flow of violence in a civil war have as much to do with the drop in violence as the Surge.

I can't comment on this, as I don't actually know if it is factual. Where has there been ethnic cleansing?

Furthermore, the strategy has not accomplished the underlying goals. The surge was intended to give the central government some breathing space to build a viable Iraq. It hasn't done so, and it is highly questionable if such a goal is achievable.

Except it has? Again, if they did not feel secure in themselves, why would they ask us to leave?


As more units are pulled out to start trying to plug the leaks in Afghanistan, we can expect an increase in the violence in Iraq.

If you accept that a decrease in troops will increase violence, why don't you accept that more troops means less violence?



Not only has the Surge not accomplished the long term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq, it has most likely done it harm.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305-p0/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

That is an interesting viewpoint which I have actually not heard yet.
Thank you :)
(regardless of if I agree, I always like having new viewpoints, and I will look into that perspective)



Note that Zinni's "Desert Crossing" (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm) called for more than double the force that was used, and still predicted an outcome similar to what actually happened.

(Note: the rule of thumb for a sucessful occupation is a 20+/1000 troop/population ratio.)

I'm not surprised. The army is very good at, you know, fighting. Not so much the civilian leadership.


Indeed. Even Rummy knew the two war strategy wasn't doable with the forces we had.

What a prick. I can't stand him.


The military cocked things up as well. See "On Point II" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/18_months_the_army_wont_forget.html).

Oh yeah. I also love the part where it says the military is blaming itself instead of the civilian leadership. Typical.



I don't doubt that the MIC exists. I just don't ascribe to the conspiracy theorists' beliefs like the OP put up. As I said above, "cock up before conspiracy".

Thank you.

dunno about that one, seeing as your casualty rates are higher than the UK's, despite your troops having even more numerical superiority, in addition to better air support and the like than us, to be quite honest.

That is a patently ridiculous statement. Of COURSE our casualty rates are higher, we are occupying far more of the country then the UK (which is in Basra and parts of Southern Iraq). Nevermind the fact that Basra has been one of the quietest regions the entire time, whereas we have been occupying the hotbeds.

Nevermind the fact that Basra has been one of the quietest regions the entire time, whereas we have been occupying the hotbeds.

Being American, i hate to argue this point but...I believe Basra wasnt always so quiet, and the real question would be how quiet was it before the UK went in...

the fact that its quiet now indicates efficiency on the part of the limey troops...

On the other hand of course, we are occupying alot more of the country than the Brits, which could be the main reason we have higher casualty rates...

But, it doesnt matter, cause we have an equal share in the supposed success or failure of the Iraq War...

Being American, i hate to argue this point but...I believe Basra wasnt always so quiet, and the real question would be how quiet was it before the UK went in...

the fact that its quiet now indicates efficiency on the part of the limey troops...

On the other hand of course, we are occupying alot more of the country than the Brits, which could be the main reason we have higher casualty rates...

But, it doesnt matter, cause we have an equal share in the supposed success or failure of the Iraq War...


Don't misunderstand me, I have tremendous respect for the Brits. And Basra was bad. Hasn't been for a while.

And yeah =/

I will go as far as to say that, the war was never intended to be won by the US as a whole, but rather a continuous victory for the Bush Administration.

Let's take a step back and consider the Bush Administration as Bush Administration, rather than the will of the US, for a second, we can see that there's not a particular reason why they are here to full heartedly serve the common people the the US. To look at it more objectively, the prolonging of the war have

1. Show the rest of the Islamic world what happens to someone who disobey orders; how we are fully capable of destroying a near first world country down to a third world country

2. We gain control of oil that is becoming more and more important not just for the US, but all our first world allies and rivals.

3. The engineering of fear (take the meaningless "risk by color", and the over hipped WMD for example) and the prolonging of the war have increased controls in the US population, which allows the Bush Administration to pass things such as Patriot Act, and have also attempted to pass a Patriot Act II. It also allow the cutting of other civic fundings to be redistributed to the cost of war.

4. The Bush Administration have broken many laws unchecked. This is partly through fear, but also by this whole illusion that "Bush is an idiot". The second point bothers me the most since Bush doesn't even write his speeches. In fact how much of the decision did he himself actually makes is a question in itself. Somehow many well educated people in the US seem to accept oppression by justifying Bush's inability for oppressive intents. In the end Bush "messing up" becomes justified and no actions were taken.

My Conclusion is that the Bush Administration and their sponsors benefits financially by the prolonging of the war. Of course this will only happen through the exploitation of the poor and the middle class in the US, along with mass genocide carry out all over the world (Iraq is not an unique case). We can all speculate rather the Bush Administration was really Iraq to bring democracy, where objective informations are much harder to find. Or we can take a step back and ask ourselves, how did the Bush Administration treated the US people? Have our voice been heard over the past 8 years? What happen to human rights and democracy here on our own soil? What happens to our education system, our welfare system, our right for a fair trial, and the overall wellbeing of the poor/middle class? Am I suppose to conclude that same group of people are also humanistic about the people in Iraq? If you look at our government's attitude in "tactically bombing" women and children in Iraq, or Iraqi death rate by US troops/mercenaries, it's clear that we are not there now because we "care" for their well being.

I will predict that the war will end once it becomes unprofitable, or when the common people start voicing their opinions more about their opposition toward this obviously meaningless war.

That is a patently ridiculous statement. Of COURSE our casualty rates are higher, we are occupying far more of the country then the UK (which is in Basra and parts of Southern Iraq). Nevermind the fact that Basra has been one of the quietest regions the entire time, whereas we have been occupying the hotbeds.
Don't extend the current situation to how it's always been. Basra used to be completely mental. We brought the rate of violence down a lot from the highs we had in 2004/5 by trying a softer-touch approach.

Rolling around the streets in Warriors was out, kicking about in Land Rovers was in. In spite of the comments some people have made about our troops being underprotected in a Land Rover, "not being shot at" is a lot safer than "being shot at but in an APC".

Don't extend the current situation to how it's always been. Basra used to be completely mental. We brought the rate of violence down a lot from the highs we had in 2004/5 by trying a softer-touch approach.

Rolling around the streets in Warriors was out, kicking about in Land Rovers was in. In spite of the comments some people have made about our troops being underprotected in a Land Rover, "not being shot at" is a lot safer than "being shot at but in an APC".

For a while there, it went to crap the moment the Brits left.

For a while there, it went to crap the moment the Brits left.
Just as it will the moment the surge ends, before sorting itself out again after everyone realises that the public was actually quite happy to not have bands of militiamen causing trouble.