Are we winning the War in Iraq?

[erynthered]

In case we were still discussing the topic of the thread, I saw on some crappy news show today that roadside bombing deaths in Iraq are down 90% since this time last year. FWIW...

 

 

NO!! We've lost the war!!

 

< Reid, Murtha, pulosi, kennedy, everywhinningcryingbleedingheartliberalinamerica>

[pBills]

So if things are going so well, isn't almost time to start bringing the troops home?

[PastaJoe]

NO!! We've lost the war!!

 

< Reid, Murtha, pulosi, kennedy, everywhinningcryingbleedingheartliberalinamerica>

 

The war was over years ago, Saddam was defeated. This is now an occupation of a country with internal political factions that don't like each other.

[PastaJoe]

Now the politicians are getting into the act:

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A member of an Iraqi city council shot at U.S. forces Monday outside Baghdad, killing at least three soldiers, two Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said. But the U.S. military said one coalition soldier and an "enemy" were killed and five others were wounded. The military said it is investigating.

 

The Iraqi official fired an AK-47 at U.S. troops after they entered the City Council building in al-Madaen, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, according to one Interior Ministry official. The councilman killed at least three people and wounded four, a ministry official said.

 

U.S. forces returned fire, killing the councilman, according to two Interior Ministry officials.

 

The shooting happened after U.S. soldiers and local officials had attended a ceremony to open a park in al-Madaen, also known as Salman Pak, an Interior Ministry official said.

 

In other violence, a mortar attack killed at least 10 people Sunday evening in northern Iraq, according to a military operations command in Diyala province.

[DC Tom]

The war was over years ago, Saddam was defeated.

 

..."Mission Accomplished".

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Now the politicians are getting into the act:

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A member of an Iraqi city council shot at U.S. forces Monday outside Baghdad, killing at least three soldiers, two Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said. But the U.S. military said one coalition soldier and an "enemy" were killed and five others were wounded. The military said it is investigating.

 

The Iraqi official fired an AK-47 at U.S. troops after they entered the City Council building in al-Madaen, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, according to one Interior Ministry official. The councilman killed at least three people and wounded four, a ministry official said.

 

U.S. forces returned fire, killing the councilman, according to two Interior Ministry officials.

 

The shooting happened after U.S. soldiers and local officials had attended a ceremony to open a park in al-Madaen, also known as Salman Pak, an Interior Ministry official said.

 

In other violence, a mortar attack killed at least 10 people Sunday evening in northern Iraq, according to a military operations command in Diyala province.

It was in a battleground district, like Ohio is a battleground state.

[Adam]

In case we were still discussing the topic of the thread, I saw on some crappy news show today that roadside bombing deaths in Iraq are down 90% since this time last year. FWIW...

How are things in Afghanistan? oops.........

[/dev/null]

How are things in Afghanistan? oops.........

Could be alot better if they they had the resources needed to conduct operations. But those are all tied up in Iraq

[pBills]

Could be alot better if they they had the resources needed to conduct operations. But those are all tied up in Iraq

 

 

That is true. War in two areas is awfully tough to pull off.

[Chef Jim]

That is true. War in two areas is awfully tough to pull off.

 

Yeah you're right. That whole WWII didn't come out too well did it?

[pBills]

Yeah you're right. That whole WWII didn't come out too well did it?

 

 

Well then I guess we didn't learn from that huh? Not going as peachy as everyone states.

[DC Tom]

Well then I guess we didn't learn from that huh? Not going as peachy as everyone states.

 

Going well enough that Afghanistan can threaten to invade Pakistan.

 

And there's also that American expectations in Afghanistan tend to be pretty put of whack with the reality of what can be accomplished. The leader of Afghanistan has rarely had any power outside Kabul; a good many of the rural tribes don't even recognize Afghanistan's presumed borders. What, exactly, are we supposed to be accomplishing in that sort of a region?

[Adam]

Could be alot better if they they had the resources needed to conduct operations. But those are all tied up in Iraq

So it might have been better to wrap things up there before moving into Iraq. Were things too easy in Afghanistan, cause I just don't understand- we crushed the Taliban, then allowed them back up. I am not a military tactician, but letting them regroup makes no sense to me. Things seem to be worse there now than when we started

[SD Jarhead]

So it might have been better to wrap things up there before moving into Iraq. Were things too easy in Afghanistan, cause I just don't understand- we crushed the Taliban, then allowed them back up. I am not a military tactician, but letting them regroup makes no sense to me. Things seem to be worse there now than when we started

 

See DC's post above. We are much more likely to see Iraq settled and resembling a functioning government than we are in the 'Stan.

[Endzone Animal]

And there's also that American expectations in Afghanistan tend to be pretty put of whack with the reality of what can be accomplished. The leader of Afghanistan has rarely had any power outside Kabul; a good many of the rural tribes don't even recognize Afghanistan's presumed borders. What, exactly, are we supposed to be accomplishing in that sort of a region?

We have a large presence of troops firmly in place on Iran's Western and Eastern borders. Could come in handy...

[Adam]

Going well enough that Afghanistan can threaten to invade Pakistan.

 

And there's also that American expectations in Afghanistan tend to be pretty put of whack with the reality of what can be accomplished. The leader of Afghanistan has rarely had any power outside Kabul; a good many of the rural tribes don't even recognize Afghanistan's presumed borders. What, exactly, are we supposed to be accomplishing in that sort of a region?

I am not over there, so I can only go by what I hear, but it sounds like they are more destabilized and have more terrorist activity than Iraq at this point

[DC Tom]

I am not over there, so I can only go by what I hear, but it sounds like they are more destabilized and have more terrorist activity than Iraq at this point

 

Actually, Afghanistan now has pretty much the same level of violence that it's had since 1979. Semi-nomadic tribal region, no central government, external forces fighting proxy wars backing different tribal interests. The only reason it's "terrorism" now is because it's directed at US troops. Take out that bias, and it's generic central Asian tribal conflict seasoned with Pakistani influence, just like it was in '95. Ditto the opium exports...anyone who's ever tried to take power in Afghanistan has eventually had to support or be supported by the drug trade. Even the Taliban...they took over the country in part on the promise of eliminating the opium crop, and two years later were exporting it themselves. Part of the bad blood between Iran and the Taliban was the two million Iranians hooked on cheap heroin from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Drugs and tribal warfare in Afghanistan aren't terrorism...it's a way of life.

 

Plus, if you go by what you hear...you hear every spring that "Al Qaeda and the Taliban are rebuilding". Every single spring they rebuild. How much of a threat can they be in Afghanistan if they're constantly rebuilding? They're the freakin' Arizona Cardinals of international terrorism.

[Adam]

Plus, if you go by what you hear...you hear every spring that "Al Qaeda and the Taliban are rebuilding". Every single spring they rebuild. How much of a threat can they be in Afghanistan if they're constantly rebuilding? They're the freakin' Arizona Cardinals of international terrorism.

Sounds kind of like the Bills

[OCinBuffalo]

We have a large presence of troops firmly in place on Iran's Western and Eastern borders. Could come in handy...

I still say this is the original objective, and the big mistake was not telling us this. It's the only thing that makes sense(um, Axis of Evil), for many reasons and on multiple levels. Please keep in mind that I am just stating what I see, I don't support it necessarily, but it seems fairly obvious to me.

 

If you look at a map with a military eye, you see that you have to invade Iraq in order to get after Iran. Logistically, strategically, everything points to establishing a base of operations in Iraq after establishing a foothold in Afghanistan, if the strategic goal is ultimately military and economic suppression of Iran. By deploying our forces as we have, and once stability was accomplished in the two countries, we would have the strategic conditions set to deny Iran's economy pretty much everything, with an unlimited and unbreakable land supply train of gas, ammo, food, and water linked from the sea straight to the border(or, hopefully not, front). While at the same time, we would have a presence on their other border that they would have to deploy resources to defend against. This essentially creates a two front war for Iran, which would significantly reduce their #s advantage, and would also allow us to harass their rear areas and infrastructure with air/SF from two sides. Their only means of outside resupply would be through mountains in the North, which is slow and therefore easily smashed by air. Is this a provocation of war? Sure. So what? That's for politicians and diplomats. I am only talking in terms of a strategic plan here.

 

If this strategy was carried out: there's nothing anyone, especially Europe, China and Russia, could do about it. As it stands right now, European banks are still extending credit to Iranian businesses and banks, despite all their BS about "sanctions" and "pressure". China and Russia are selling arms. So their "opposition to the war" is about money, not some phony "moral superiority". What's worse, if these two countries were to stabilize themselves, their own armies/security/intelligence force's #1 priority will be to counter Iran, and to a lesser degree Pakistan. This means that regardless of whether we have troops there or not, Europe's interests and influences are significantly reduced.

 

A strong case can be made that this is precisely why European politicians are against both wars, or at least the one in Iraq, and this is why they have fired up their respective citizens. Big surprise that the far-left socialists in this country who "don't understand why we can't be more like Europe" were quick to pick up on this. Of course they weren't smart enough to see through the Duke case, so why should we expect them to see through this one? Christ most of them still think we attacked ourselves on 9/11, so what do you expect?

 

If we can stabilize our position, and if we can hold real influence with both new democracies, it basically makes Europe's activity on any level and in any discipline significantly less relevant. They don't like that on multiple fronts: pride, business, relevance, and influence world wide.

 

That's what this is all about. Say whatever you want but whenever you get done, these facts will remain. I am not saying that either war was a good idea, and I am especially not saying that either was carried out properly. I am saying that it appears that the Bush admin people thought that Iraq would be over before it started and that they could move on to Iran quickly, which obviously was a significant error in judgment.

[SD Jarhead]

I think you're correct. I also believe that had the initial occupation gone better, we would be in Syria right now, which was part of the follow on plan.