War now appears unwinnable in light of new enemy offensive

Lefty Scaevola · December 17, 2004, 16:28

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not WWII, with that order. Was it after they beat Napoleon?

You people are hopeless. In WW2, The Commonwealth invaded Iraq after a a pro axis coup (the brits already had an RAF presence there in the protectorate or whatever its status was); Then they invaded Syia-Lebanon which was Vichy alligned, but the somewhat more pro Axis governor was allowing Geramn transhipment; and then they, with the Soviet Union, invaded and occupied Iran; and in late 1942 rolled back into Libya (for the actually third time in the war).

Whoha · December 17, 2004, 16:29

anyway, to end the thread, you are all nazis.

lord of the mark · December 17, 2004, 16:30

Originally posted by GePap

2. An occupying power unable to involve itself in any further major wars because its forces are overstreched

I thought we were talking specifically about the situation in Iraq, rather than the global situation. While I do think another of Rummys mistakes was to not increase the end strength of the Army, Im not sure theres anywhere that i would like to see US ground troops intervene in the next 12 to 18 months.

3. Nervous or hostile neighbors trying to secure their own interests

Yes, thats a problem to manage. Fortunately all subject to pressure by the US, and all have interests in their own survival. Also, the more overtly they intervene, the more the arouse resentment in Iraq.

These are connected- the fact the US simply can not realisticly threaten Syria or Iran with military action due to our overstretched in Iraq itself means Both are capable of messing in Iraq with far more impunity than if we were not streched so far.

Historically when Israel wanted to punish Syria for going too far in support of "militant" groups, or for allowing bombardments on the Lebanese border, they used air power or covert actions, not ground forces. I presume we would do the same, wrt to Syria or Iran, and that whats holding us back is politics (the international variety) rather than a shortage of suitable military assets. In particular we are still trying to work with the Euros on Iran, where we have quite a number of issues, and weve been trying to get Syria to cooperate on Pal Israel situation.

lord of the mark · December 17, 2004, 16:35

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
You people are hopeless. In WW@, The Commonwealth invaded Iraq after a a pro axis coup tehy (the brits already had an RAF presence there in the protectorate or whatever its status was);

It was independent, but they had a treaty with the brits that gave the brits an airbase (not too far from Fallujah!!) and the right to move troops through the country - enabling them to land troops from India at Basra, and then send them via Jordan to Palestine, and thence to Egypt. When a pro axis general took over, the Brits decided it was too dangerous to move the troops in from Basra, one unit at a time, and had them sit in Basra - the Iraqis said move em or take em out. Winnie refused, and the Iraqis attacked the airbase.

One could make a good case that UK was in the wrong on grounds of international law. Here, as in many other cases, Churchill decided that necessity trumped law.

Shi Huangdi · December 17, 2004, 17:31

Originally posted by Sava
Arlen Specter must be proud to have such fine people working for him.

Not anymore, I was only working for his campaign, and all the campaigns are completed now. We were sucsessful in that, helping Arlen Specter achieve a double digit Pwnination of Democrat Joe Hoeffel.

GePap · December 17, 2004, 17:42

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Historically when Israel wanted to punish Syria for going too far in support of "militant" groups, or for allowing bombardments on the Lebanese border, they used air power or covert actions, not ground forces. I presume we would do the same, wrt to Syria or Iran, and that whats holding us back is politics (the international variety) rather than a shortage of suitable military assets. In particular we are still trying to work with the Euros on Iran, where we have quite a number of issues, and weve been trying to get Syria to cooperate on Pal Israel situation.

Israel does what it does because a land attack would mean a far greater issue than what they are trying to punish Syria for. The US is not actually in the ME, hence our actions need not hqave any similarity to Israeli actions.

germanos · December 17, 2004, 18:21

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You invade Iraq first. Then Syria. And only after that Iran. Guess who followed that policy before?

Wait with Syria for at least six months (or I'll have to do a Oerdin-style blog from the terroriststs-side)

Kuciwalker · December 17, 2004, 21:28

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
You people are hopeless.

I knew we invaded Libya first in WWII, so I thought that it couldn't be that.

Ted Striker · December 17, 2004, 21:35

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner

and don't generally make sense...like this one

Urban Ranger · December 17, 2004, 21:45

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I sympathize with the millions of Iraqis who deserved liberation.

You mean all those Iraqi civilians killed or wounded by coalition forces?

Straybow · December 17, 2004, 21:49

Originally posted by GePap
As for the underlying strategic conditions for Iraq:

1. An occupying power that did not gain control at the start
2. An occupying power unable to involve itself in any further major wars because its forces are overstreched
3. Nervous or hostile neighbors trying to secure their own interests
4. A slow and uneven reconstruction effort
5. Internal secterian and ethnic divides
6. Islamist trying to gain power violently

All either wrong or irrelevant.
1. Was there a functioning government in opposition at the end of major action? A viable army? No. The US and Britain had complete control. Assymmetrical warfare is the only thing that troubles us.
2. An occupying power that doesn't have to involve itself in another major war.
3. Neighbors only influence the desire to retain Iraq as a single polity instead of 3 nationalist polities.
4. Pace of reconstruction is much better than the media reports (bad news is good news), and is irrelevant to the strategic situation.
5 & 6. Welcome to the real world. Nobody can change the situation, nor blame the US and Brits for it with an ounce of credibility (but you still try anyway).

Comparing a conventional war between industrial powers and their mass armies and a situation of occupation forces fighting insurgents is inherently wrong.

I'm glad you've already ceded my points on 1 & 2.

If we are going to look for comparisons, then comparisons to irregular wars are endlessly more valid.

Which of US's irregular wars involved only a tiny percentage of the native population and a few thousand foreigners?

The best comparison is that made in the OP article. The Dems and the libs in the media are so eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all just to snub the Reps and the "great unwashed."