War now appears unwinnable in light of new enemy offensive

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
. Unfortunately, the US invariably has the position of the Germans or Japanese in those comparisons.

Or of the brits in the mideast and India, or the US and Brits together in North Africa. Though in the latter theres the added complexity of an occupation on top of an existing colonial situation - thus the Anglo-Americans had to balance coopted Vichy leaders against exile Free French (and made a different choice than the US did in Iraq) yet these competing forces themselve represented a French minority (albeit a large one) ruling over an arab population whose wishes were disregarded, IIUC.

There also the situation faced by the Soviets in various parts of eastern europe, but like the occupations of Germany and Japan, thats really a post war situation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I thought this was a strategic discussion, not a moralist one, but then i didnt read the first post too closely.

Algeria and Viet Nam are certainly interesting comparisons. Arguably we are going through Tet, and the public and media reaction is far more sophisticated now. I do think Rummy is going to have go the way of McNamara though. There is of course no equivalent in Viet Nam to the upcoming elections (thats a strategic point NOT a moralistic point). Algeria is of course a poor analogy as that was a fight to retain the metropolitan power's sovereignty, NOT a fight over ideology. Similarly analogies to the West Bank or the Phillipines are inapt. Analogies to Afghanistan, BOTH the Soviet experience and the recent US experience are more apt, though differences are still great.


But are you saying that in insurgency wars, unlike great power conventional wars, it IS correct to focus on headlines rather than underlying strategic drivers?

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

If we are going to look for comparisons, then comparisons to irregular wars are endlessly more valid. Honestly, if the matter of elections is important to you in invalidating a comparison to Vietnam, then how could you even think of comparing this situation to WW2, were elections were never an issue?

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

Yes, these point to a sun breaking from the clouds....

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Or of the brits in the mideast and India, or the US and Brits together in North Africa. Though in the latter theres the added complexity of an occupation on top of an existing colonial situation - thus the Anglo-Americans had to balance coopted Vichy leaders against exile Free French (and made a different choice than the US did in Iraq) yet these competing forces themselve represented a French minority (albeit a large one) ruling over an arab population whose wishes were disregarded, IIUC.

There also the situation faced by the Soviets in various parts of eastern europe, but like the occupations of Germany and Japan, thats really a post war situation.

Fine, but in the end comparing the insurgents to the nazis falls apart. After all, in all the examples you just gave, the other don;t happen to be the German army, Navy, or airforce.

[Sava]

YOU'RE RIGHT SHI, WW2 IS THE SAME AS IRAQ... 9-11 WAS PEARL HARBOR AND BUSH ATTACKED IRAQ... ThAT'S LIKE ROOSEVELT ATTACKING KOREA INSTEAD OF JAPAN!

[Giancarlo]

If Saddam killed your family, Sava.. I think you would want an invasion. I sympathize with the millions of Iraqis who deserved liberation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


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

If we are going to look for comparisons, then comparisons to irregular wars are endlessly more valid. Honestly, if the matter of elections is important to you in invalidating a comparison to Vietnam, then how could you even think of comparing this situation to WW2, were elections were never an issue?

LOTM - Sigh. because when I was looking at WW2, I was looking at the broad question of the uncertainty and fog of war. In looking at VN, I was looking more at details, as you seem to be.


As for the underlying strategic conditions for Iraq:

1. An occupying power that did not gain control at the start

LOTM - certainly not adequate control. Had we achieved better control we would be far ahead now, IMHO. But thats not a statement about the current situation.

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.

4. A slow and uneven reconstruction effort

Someone should hang for that. But it seems to have picked up since Bremer left. The Iraqi force training effort has gone better since Petraeus took over, though results are still uneven. Also were getting more allied help on that now.

5. Internal secterian and ethnic divides
The most interesting question is going to be Sunni Arab turnout in the Jan 30 election. However I continue to see willingness to compromise on the part of Shias and Kurds, which is promising. Also some divides cross each other - for example a secular- fundie split WITHIN the Shia AND the Sunni communities.

6. Islamist trying to gain power violently

Well, er year. Like in Afghanistan, Saudi, Pakistan, and elsewhere. But that doesnt say what their level of support is locally, how much they rely on outside financing, armament and recruitment, what the loss of Fallujah meant, how successful the insurgents and the coalition forces are in developing intell sources, infiltrating each other, etc. Whats the quality level and motivation of the govt forces, and how is it changing, and how will it change in the next few months.


I hope you see Im NOT saying that we're "winning" or even that things are improving. ALL Im saying is that its difficult to gather whats going in underneath by looking only the headlines of the latest bombing, or even by looking at the factors you list (though thats a much more sophisticated approach than looking at headlines) And THATS where the analogy to WW2 comes it. In May 1941 the German bombing of the Houses of Parliament was much less signficant than the relative figures on Brit and German aircraft production. Someone privy to those figures would have known that the air war was shifting in Britains favor, and would have done so even if US and USSR had not come in. While a newspaper reader looking at what happened to the House of Commons would NOT know that.



Ok - what do you think the Sunni Arab turnout will be? And what do you think it has to be to improve the situation? Marginally? Decisively?

(I think the Sunni Arab turnout will be much higher than 50%, but significantly less than the SHia turnout, and will be particularly low in Anbar province, resulting in only a marginal improvement in the govts situation in the Sunni triangle)

[MRT144]

g dub killed my pet goat. I want an invasion.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
If Saddam killed your family, Sava.. I think you would want an invasion. I sympathize with the millions of Iraqis who deserved liberation.

that's a big "IF" there buddy...

But you are right... IF Saddam killed my family, IF he was a threat to America, and IF we weren't lied to... then maybe I'd support the war.

But... IF a pig had wings, would it fly?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Japher
The Battle of the Bulge was my favorite part of Band of Brothers:B:

Lt. Spears was the man was he not


Sticky fingers when it came to souviers perhaps

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
that's a big "IF" there buddy...

But you are right... IF Saddam killed my family, IF he was a threat to America, and IF we weren't lied to... then maybe I'd support the war.

But... IF a pig had wings, would it fly?

Bush didn't lie. We went on what we had. We went into a rightful war. The American people approved of it. Nearly all of the Iraqi people wanted it, except Saddam and his little gangs who are causing problems now.

[Sava]

lt. spears is my hero!

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava
YOU'RE RIGHT SHI, WW2 IS THE SAME AS IRAQ...

Glad you see the light.

[Sava]

Arlen Specter must be proud to have such fine people working for him.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
another hint - the invasion of Iraq was a surprisingly easy win, with a small number of troops used, and the Iraqi army collapsing quickly.

The British or the Ottoman Turks probably.

[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.