Are we winning the War in Iraq?

[Adam]

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.

This is a very scary thought- so the initial plan was dominance of most of the middle east? And we can prevent Iran from causing problems by restricting oil by taking over their country and not allowing that.

 

War should always be an option, but with this administration, it is too often the first option. I just hope either McCain or Obama can fix everything in 4 years, since they won't get re-elected

[OCinBuffalo]

This is a very scary thought- so the initial plan was dominance of most of the middle east? And we can prevent Iran from causing problems by restricting oil by taking over their country and not allowing that.

 

War should always be an option, but with this administration, it is too often the first option. I just hope either McCain or Obama can fix everything in 4 years, since they won't get re-elected

No I didn't say that, but thanks for providing an object lesson to others on what it's like to ride the European propaganda wave. Just pickin'

 

While you're at it: do you know that we actually have war plans on file right now to attack Canada with nuclear weapons? The HORROR! I know because I know. So there it is. We plan for everything so that we don't make shitt up as we go along. And that's funny , because looking back that's precisely what Rumsfeld appeared to be doing. Unfortunately, somehow the "attack Iraq" plan must have gotten chucked or misplaced.

 

Anyway, I said that the objective was to be able to apply significant land force threat to Iran in such a manner that no one could do much to change it, short of another Russian invasion from the North. That's obviously a far cry from taking over the entire Middle East. The reason is: Air Strikes are easy to deal with = hide, get bombed, come out, move on. Some 18-year old with an itchy trigger finger and an M16, standing on your street, is not. That's an every day, all the time thing, and the only thing that saves you is the SD_Jarheads of the world, because the guys like me are too busy with their cigars and brandy.

 

If your objective is a landlocked country, it makes military sense to take over the country by the sea that's next to it so as to supply your army. It's as simple as that. It's the same reason that the early Crusaders kept conquering the Byzantines/sacking and taking over their ports = base of supply and communication.

 

I see this as exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And no, Jarhead, I don't see this as a play for Syria, (not to say that it couldn't have been an add-on at some point) otherwise we would have done a lot more with Turkey...as in promise to suppress all Kurd activity. The Turks think of themselves as Europeans, not Arabs, always have, and they would have let us seal the entire Iraq border if we promised to permanently solve their Kurd(Arab) problem. We didn't, so they didn't. The good news is that we are not the Persians, Romans, Huns, Mongols, Turks, Spanish, British, Germans, or Soviets, all of whom would have had no problem liquidating of an entire population merely to serve a military goal, as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions. We're still kicking our own asses over the Native Americans, as we should. But compare our behavior in total to the Empires I listed above. It ain't even close.

 

The key in any war plan, or for that matter any plan at all, is to provide for contingency, and that's precisely what we didn't do with regard to Iraq. There should have been a good, better, and best approaches, and plans to match, because it's not like we had the surprise thing going for us. Also, given the variables that, by definition, are politicians and diplomats, you need to make sure your plan limits its dependency as much as possible on variables you can't control.

 

My biggest question to Tommy Franks/Donald Rumsfeld is this: A Blitzkrieg style attack strategy is employed primarily when you don't want to go toe to toe with your enemy, and instead want to get behind him and attack his supply, cut his communication, marginalize his leadership, and destroy his retreating Army in pieces, rather than facing them all at once. We wanted to do the exact opposite in Iraq:

 

= we wanted go toe to toe and destroy as many fighters in the field as possible, and kill them BEFORE they become insurgents

= we wanted to secure each province and stabilize it before we moved on = Castling from province to province, which is also what would have been the exact right approach for that culture, as it perceives and distributes power along a regional, but centralized and therefore local structure = tribes = historically best reason for a castle.

= we wanted to use our "castles" to continuously draw their army into pitched battles that we were 100% going to win

= we didn't care about cutting his supply, communication, or his leadership-->so bad that the more of this, the better

= we wanted to destroy his army in the desert all at the same time, and that's just the Army doing it, never mind the friggin' Zoomies(Air Farce) and the completely unfair ass-whipping they get to lay down. (I simply cannot imagine being on the other side of that, and as much as I make fun of them, thank God they are on our side)

 

.... and, given all of that, why in the hell did we employ a strategy that was diametrically opposed to the obvious military objectives, and our tactical strengths?

 

The only thing I can think of is: to save money. History has punished a ton of generals/leaders for trying to fight a half-ass war, and apparently we didn't get past 9th grade history class regarding Iraq.

[chicot]

No I didn't say that, but thanks for providing an object lesson to others on what it's like to ride the European propaganda wave. Just pickin'

 

While you're at it: do you know that we actually have war plans on file right now to attack Canada with nuclear weapons? The HORROR! I know because I know. So there it is. We plan for everything so that we don't make shitt up as we go along. And that's funny , because looking back that's precisely what Rumsfeld appeared to be doing. Unfortunately, somehow the "attack Iraq" plan must have gotten chucked or misplaced.

 

Anyway, I said that the objective was to be able to apply significant land force threat to Iran in such a manner that no one could do much to change it, short of another Russian invasion from the North. That's obviously a far cry from taking over the entire Middle East. The reason is: Air Strikes are easy to deal with = hide, get bombed, come out, move on. Some 18-year old with an itchy trigger finger and an M16, standing on your street, is not. That's an every day, all the time thing, and the only thing that saves you is the SD_Jarheads of the world, because the guys like me are too busy with their cigars and brandy.

 

If your objective is a landlocked country, it makes military sense to take over the country by the sea that's next to it so as to supply your army. It's as simple as that. It's the same reason that the early Crusaders kept conquering the Byzantines/sacking and taking over their ports = base of supply and communication.

 

I see this as exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And no, Jarhead, I don't see this as a play for Syria, (not to say that it couldn't have been an add-on at some point) otherwise we would have done a lot more with Turkey...as in promise to suppress all Kurd activity. The Turks think of themselves as Europeans, not Arabs, always have, and they would have let us seal the entire Iraq border if we promised to permanently solve their Kurd(Arab) problem. We didn't, so they didn't. The good news is that we are not the Persians, Romans, Huns, Mongols, Turks, Spanish, British, Germans, or Soviets, all of whom would have had no problem liquidating of an entire population merely to serve a military goal, as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions. We're still kicking our own asses over the Native Americans, as we should. But compare our behavior in total to the Empires I listed above. It ain't even close.

 

The key in any war plan, or for that matter any plan at all, is to provide for contingency, and that's precisely what we didn't do with regard to Iraq. There should have been a good, better, and best approaches, and plans to match, because it's not like we had the surprise thing going for us. Also, given the variables that, by definition, are politicians and diplomats, you need to make sure your plan limits its dependency as much as possible on variables you can't control.

 

My biggest question to Tommy Franks/Donald Rumsfeld is this: A Blitzkrieg style attack strategy is employed primarily when you don't want to go toe to toe with your enemy, and instead want to get behind him and attack his supply, cut his communication, marginalize his leadership, and destroy his retreating Army in pieces, rather than facing them all at once. We wanted to do the exact opposite in Iraq:

 

= we wanted go toe to toe and destroy as many fighters in the field as possible, and kill them BEFORE they become insurgents

= we wanted to secure each province and stabilize it before we moved on = Castling from province to province, which is also what would have been the exact right approach for that culture, as it perceives and distributes power along a regional, but centralized and therefore local structure = tribes = historically best reason for a castle.

= we wanted to use our "castles" to continuously draw their army into pitched battles that we were 100% going to win

= we didn't care about cutting his supply, communication, or his leadership-->so bad that the more of this, the better

= we wanted to destroy his army in the desert all at the same time, and that's just the Army doing it, never mind the friggin' Zoomies(Air Farce) and the completely unfair ass-whipping they get to lay down. (I simply cannot imagine being on the other side of that, and as much as I make fun of them, thank God they are on our side)

 

.... and, given all of that, why in the hell did we employ a strategy that was diametrically opposed to the obvious military objectives, and our tactical strengths?

 

The only thing I can think of is: to save money. History has punished a ton of generals/leaders for trying to fight a half-ass war, and apparently we didn't get past 9th grade history class regarding Iraq.

 

The Kurds are not Arabs and neither are the Turks. It's not a matter of them not seeing themselves as Arabs, as you put it. They simply are not. They have different cultures and language.

[Endzone Animal]

The Kurds are not Arabs and neither are the Turks. It's not a matter of them not seeing themselves as Arabs, as you put it. They simply are not. They have different cultures and language.

Neither are the Iranians or the Afghanis. "Moslem" would be a much better label to use than "arab", as the Koran is the one common denominator (despite shia/sunni friction over hadith).

[chicot]

Neither are the Iranians or the Afghanis. "Moslem" would be a much better label to use than "arab", as the Koran is the one common denominator (despite shia/sunni friction over hadith).

 

Exactly. Just being a muslim does not make someone an Arab. Otherwise the Pakistanis and Indonesians would be classed as "Arabs".

[Adam]

While you're at it: do you know that we actually have war plans on file right now to attack Canada with nuclear weapons? The HORROR! I know because I know. So there it is. We plan for everything so that we don't make shitt up as we go along. And that's funny , because looking back that's precisely what Rumsfeld appeared to be doing. Unfortunately, somehow the "attack Iraq" plan must have gotten chucked or misplaced.

 

Anyway, I said that the objective was to be able to apply significant land force threat to Iran in such a manner that no one could do much to change it, short of another Russian invasion from the North. That's obviously a far cry from taking over the entire Middle East. The reason is: Air Strikes are easy to deal with = hide, get bombed, come out, move on. Some 18-year old with an itchy trigger finger and an M16, standing on your street, is not. That's an every day, all the time thing, and the only thing that saves you is the SD_Jarheads of the world, because the guys like me are too busy with their cigars and brandy.

 

If your objective is a landlocked country, it makes military sense to take over the country by the sea that's next to it so as to supply your army. It's as simple as that. It's the same reason that the early Crusaders kept conquering the Byzantines/sacking and taking over their ports = base of supply and communication.

 

I see this as exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

 

.... and, given all of that, why in the hell did we employ a strategy that was diametrically opposed to the obvious military objectives, and our tactical strengths?

 

The only thing I can think of is: to save money. History has punished a ton of generals/leaders for trying to fight a half-ass war, and apparently we didn't get past 9th grade history class regarding Iraq.

The "entire Middle East" comment was an intentional overstatement, but it is a large chunk. It is still something not all that great. The surge should have been instituted from the beginning, and the Bush regime has waged an incompetent war until recently- one that we shouldn't have been in, but we now have to deal in what is.

 

Bush's name will be mentioned alongside Carter and probably above him for his legendary ineptness

[USMCBillsFan]

Personally, I am getting tired of everyone blaming the media. Granted blood & guts stories sell newspaper and TV shows. However I would imagine that there are more bad stories to good.

 

Personally, I'm getting tired of tools like you that haven't been there and have no clue what's really going on over there.

[pBills]

Personally, I'm getting tired of tools like you that haven't been there and have no clue what's really going on over there.

 

 

So let us know what's going on then.

[SilverNRed]

The "entire Middle East" comment was an intentional overstatement, but it is a large chunk. It is still something not all that great. The surge should have been instituted from the beginning, and the Bush regime has waged an incompetent war until recently- one that we shouldn't have been in, but we now have to deal in what is.

I don't disagree that a lot of mistakes were made in planning the war (most notably, what to do after Saddam's government fell apart) but I'm not 100% convinced the surge would have had the same effect had it been implemented right from the start. I'm skeptical about how much of the country would have been willing to work with coalition forces the same way back in 2003.

 

Bush's name will be mentioned alongside Carter and probably above him for his legendary ineptness

I seriously doubt that. 100 years from now, when people are subjected to the daily "Bush is dumb" jokes or the loons who think he started a war in Iraq to help his friends make money, he'll probably seem like a much better president than what his approval ratings now would indicate. Or, at least, he has that potential.

[pBills]

I don't disagree that a lot of mistakes were made in planning the war (most notably, what to do after Saddam's government fell apart) but I'm not 100% convinced the surge would have had the same effect had it been implemented right from the start. I'm skeptical about how much of the country would have been willing to work with coalition forces the same way back in 2003.

 

 

I seriously doubt that. 100 years from now, when people are subjected to the daily "Bush is dumb" jokes or the loons who think he started a war in Iraq to help his friends make money, he'll probably seem like a much better president than what his approval ratings now would indicate. Or, at least, he has that potential.

 

 

 

Not to sure if he will be seen it a better light. Saying that because many people will blame him and Presidency for the economic problems that are happening now, the War, Job losses, etc., etc. Granted not all are directly his administrations fault but I am sure that it will be viewed that way.

[finknottle]

I don't disagree that a lot of mistakes were made in planning the war (most notably, what to do after Saddam's government fell apart) but I'm not 100% convinced the surge would have had the same effect had it been implemented right from the start. I'm skeptical about how much of the country would have been willing to work with coalition forces the same way back in 2003.

 

IMO there is a lesson which is constantly ignored by both the left and the right. You can't just send in peace-keepers and money and - God help us - conflict resolution specialists and expect things to work. Peace-keeping has only succeeded in states in which the population has already exhausted it's will to fight, and just want protection. Until they reach that stage, whether by fighting it out themselves or by being beaten into acquiesence by the international community, any attempt at peace-keeping is doomed to failure.

 

One of the big problems with Iraq was that their military was defeated so quickly and so painlessly that we were lulled into thinking that there would be no grass-roots resistence by the Sunni's. Saddam's government may have been a broken force, but they clearly were not.

[SD Jarhead]

The de-Baathification policy, in hindsight, may have been our biggest and most expensive blunder of the war. By shattering the existing structure there we had to quell the insurgency from those who were forced out of power, then fight Al Q, and essentially fight until the insurgents lost their will. From a Monday-morning QB perspective, had we worked with the existing Gov't we probably would've seen success there much earlier.

[pBills]

Posted on Drudge:

 

 

 

IRAQ MAY SET TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL

Mon Jul 7, 2008 12:45pm EDT

 

By Dean Yates and Ahmed Rasheed

 

 

 

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

 

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

 

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

 

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

 

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

 

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.

 

U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end" after he complained Iraq's sovereignty was being infringed by U.S. demands.

 

Both sides later said progress was being made.

 

Maliki said the Iraqi and U.S. positions had gotten closer, but added "we cannot talk about reaching an agreement yet".

 

He said foreign forces would need Iraqi permission for many of their activities once the U.N. mandate ended.

 

"This means the phenomena of unilateral detention will be over, as well as unilateral operations and immunity," he said.

 

Maliki did not clarify who the immunity referred to.

 

Officials have said contractors working for the U.S. government would lose immunity from Iraqi law, but Washington is highly unlikely to let the same thing happen to U.S. solders.

 

MALIKI WOOS ARAB STATES

 

Maliki, dismissed as weak and ineffective for most of his tenure since taking over as prime minister in May 2006, has been increasingly assertive in recent months.

 

He has launched crackdowns on Shi'ite militias and also al Qaeda, with U.S. forces playing a mainly supporting role.

 

He has also called on Arab states to re-engage with Iraq.

 

Sunni Arab countries have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to the Iraqi government because of the U.S. presence, as well as Baghdad's close ties to non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran.

 

But Arab ties have begun to improve.

 

The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, officials said on Sunday. And Jordan's King Abdullah is expected to visit Baghdad this week, the first Arab leader to do so since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

 

Maliki did not specifically refer to the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, but they comprise the vast bulk of foreign forces in the country.

 

He indicated the memorandum of understanding would be used instead of the formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) being negotiated. The MoU could be a stop-gap measure given some of the difficulties getting a full SOFA deal in place.

 

Iraqi officials had said they would submit any SOFA to parliament, where it might be subject to long and bitter debate.

 

Maliki has long come under pressure from the movement of powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Sadr's movement quit Maliki's government last year when the prime minister refused to do so.

 

Luwaa Sumaisem, head of the Sadr bloc's political committee, welcomed Maliki's comments on possibly setting a timetable.

 

"This is a step in the right direction and we are ready to support him in this objective. We hope Maliki will show seriousness about it," Sumaisem said, without saying if the movement might then consider rejoining the government.

 

Washington and Baghdad are also negotiating a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties.

 

After five years in Iraq, the Bush administration had set an end-July target for wrapping up the negotiations. Some Iraqi officials had questioned whether the deadline could be met.

[SD Jarhead]

So what's your point in posting an article that could just as easily been linked?

[Tux of Borg]

The surge is working, less soldiers died in Iraq last month than Afghanistan. There is still alot of work to do in Iraq but things are looking better.

[pBills]

So what's your point in posting an article that could just as easily been linked?

 

 

Found it interesting, have a problem with that? If so, get over it. People do it here all of the time.

[pBills]

The surge is working, less soldiers died in Iraq last month than Afghanistan. There is still alot of work to do in Iraq but things are looking better.

 

 

 

I think that's the major problem now... Afghanistan. From what I have read it seems like things are slipping away there.

[finknottle]

I think that's the major problem now... Afghanistan. From what I have read it seems like things are slipping away there.

 

Yes they are.

 

But at this point, how does focusing on Afghanistan do anything more for the war on terror than Iraq? It sounds like just another fragile government fighting an insurgency of those who lost power. Other than being sympathetic to AQ at the grass-roots level, much as the baathists welcomed foreign jihadists, the reconstituted Taliban is *not* sitting around plotting bombings in western countries.

 

So to those who say we shouldn't be in Iraq, why should we be in Afghanistan beyond the role of specialized units looking for AQ remnants? If we are willing to pull our main forces out of Iraq, why not Afghanistan?

[VABills]

I think that's the major problem now... Afghanistan. From what I have read it seems like things are slipping away there.

So do you even know how many were dying there before hand, or are you just eating up what the media says. Maybe it's steady there and just declined so much in Iraq that it's made a difference. Of course I wouldn't be foolish enough to just say things are slipping without knowing what those numbers are.

[pBills]

So do you even know how many were dying there before hand, or are you just eating up what the media says. Maybe it's steady there and just declined so much in Iraq that it's made a difference. Of course I wouldn't be foolish enough to just say things are slipping without knowing what those numbers are.

 

 

Well, let's see Afghanistan had more combat deaths than Iraq. May was what around 19 or so. June was 28. The other day had 40 dead and I believe around 150 injured in another suicide bombing. For while you never really heard of anything coming out of Afghanistan except the positive. So yeah, it seems like things are slipping just a bit to me.

 

Media I guess lies about the number of people dying right. Can't eat that information up.