Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
There are several indications that you are correct on this one, unfortunately. Well, mission accomplished, now how do we get our asses out without losing face?

We subjugate them and install a proxy government friendly enough to our goals for us to tolerate it, and stable enough to last long enough for it's eventual downfall to be attributable to something other than merely being our lackeys. And no, I don't particularly like it, but that's pretty much the way things work, as I see it.

They never invited you, so I can't blame them. But why didn't that happen to the Brits?

Actually, on several occasions it did - one Shiite mob killed six Brits in one go a while back, and there's been a few other plinkings, etc. The Brits are in the south, which is more anti-Saddam, logistically easier to manage, and easier to rebuild and restore services, etc. as a result of the logistical advantages.

I think we have discussed "winning every battle but losing the war on the polital side" before, haven't we? I think you are wrong here. If the soldiers don't work towards the strategic goal, then who will? The soldiers don't necessarily have to think about politics themselves, but their officers have to, and give orders that fit into the policy.

Taking a lax approach to force protection in high-risk areas isn't going to get us anywhere. As far as the political victory/defeat, this is far different from Vietnam, IMO. Vietnam didn't have oil. Seriously, there was a domestic political fallout, but not much of one - Nixon was undone by Nixon, not Vietnam, and LBJ's slightly early political demise and the whole 60's was really a lot more fluff than substance. In foreign policy, the world was a lot more happily simple and bilateral back then, so foreign policy fallout was predictable and ultimately minimal. Everyone had bigger fish to fry, so the only people who really got ****ed in the grand scheme of things were the Vietnamese themselves.

Iraq is a lot less simple on the grand strategic and political levels, so it's very possible for us to have political successes and political failures all at the same time. The happy, free, democratic Iraq as a beacon of stability and prosperity and the way to the future for the mid-east is a pie-in-the-sky happy horse**** fantasy, but so is generations of eye-bulging fanatic jihadists. Ultimately, everyone still has bigger fish to fry, but there's that little complication of oil. If oil prices get to a nice, fairly low and stable point, then we win. If they don't, we lose. The rest of it is ultimately all for show.

I have seen plenty of reports in Swedish and British media. And not only "leftist" media.

Most reporters don't know **** about warfighting, so I take any reporter's description with a ton of salt.

I can't remember you complaining before the war started, but perhaps I was too new to the OT forum to recognize you back then?

I was not a proponent of invading (in fact I thought sanctions were a waste of time after the first few years, because they were ineffective and tied up to much national ego), and when the invasion did occur, I thought (and still do) that we were seriously understrength on the ground. I just figure once you're in, that's all a moot point, so I don't ***** about it.

You don't seem to have a problem with using force on other occations, do you?

Not at all.

But I think that can be avoided to a large extent. Isn't there a cash award for turning things like RPGs and ordnance in to the occupation forces? Just extend that to AK-47's. And inform the public that they are illegal to own (which probably need a new law) and that anyone found with one will be imprisoned for a year or something.

There are several problems with this - ineffective personal security for most Iraqis, limited police resources, tradition, and the fact that the first people who disarm are then vulnerable to those who don't cooperate. If the only thing our forces have to face is one AK-47 per family as presently allowed, that would be a big improvement. Disarming the population to the currently legal level would be a big accomplishment, so let's get that done before deciding we need to push things even more, and possibly encourage even wider resistance.

[Alexander's Horse]

WILLARD
"How come they call you that?"

CHEF
"Call me what, sir?"

WILLARD
"Chef -- is that 'cause you like
mangoes an' stuff?"

CHEF
"No, sir -- I'm a real chef, sir
-- I'm a sauciere --"

WILLARD
"A sauciere --"

CHEF
"Yes, sir -- See, I come from New Orleans -- I was raised to
be a sauciere.. a great sauciere. We specialize in sauces.
Has to be a mango tree here somewhere...
I was supposed to go to Paris. Then my physical came up.
Hell I joined the Navy. Someone told me Navy had better food.
Cook school -- that did it."

WILLARD
"Oh yeah, how?

CHEF
"They lined us all up in front of a hundred yards of prime rib --
magnificent meat, beautifully marbled.. Then they started
throwing it in these big cauldrons, all of it -- boiling.
I looked in, an' it was turning gray. I couldn't ****ing believe
that one. I went into radio school..."

Willard hears something :

CHEF
"What is it ? Enemy ?"

Suddenly a tiger appears from the jungle. Willard
and Chef start running back to boat, Chef screaming :