Do you find yourself having to remind yourself not to support the plucky underdog?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
While it's not a very nice standpoint I do hope that it will be a bit to costly for the US to start behaving like this everywhere. The american and british troops are volounteers after all. They get paid for taking this risk. The Iraqi civilians are not and they'll lose either way.

Do you want Sprayber to die? I don't.

[Kropotkin]

I don't have the desire for anyone to die (well OK, maybe a few) but it's a war and someone is bound to die. At least Sprayber unlike some others are there by an active choice.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Anyone mind if I interject some reality into this naive little leftist love-fest?

Interviews of Iraqi EPW's from Gulf War I established that militia and conscript units are compelled to fight due to threats of retribution against their families, summary execution for perceived cowardice, etc. There are far more of them motivated out of fear than out of a desire "to defend their country."

US combat forces are in fact outnumbered even by the hardcore - the IRG, Iraqi security services, and various militarily trained political units and special police forces number some 180-200 thousand.

Most of the US forces haven't even gotten into action yet, so the US has relied on coordination and superior firepower, not numbers. If the Iraqis continue to put up stiff resistance, the only choice will be to increase the force and firepower applied to them, to an overwhelming level. That will result in a lot more of your "plucky underdogs" becoming crispy critters, and the delay in the war and securing territory will result in a rapid increase in civilian loss of life, due to lack of food and medical care. There is no benefit to any side by prolonging this war.

On the political side, the US is already being forced to rethink a lot of things - the lack of allied cooperation is hurting, because we don't have anything near the pace of air operations we had when we had access to Saudi and Turkish airbases.

This new, chickenhawk inspired razzle-dazzle rock 'em sock 'em style of warfare is so far showing itself to be so much hooey, as DanS and I discussed a little while back. Yeah, we can move faster and put up impressive fireworks shows, but the refusal of the chickenhawks to pay attention to the ugly old-fashioned detail of securing territory on the ground is hurting us - without bombing the **** out of them, or overwhelming them on the ground, the dispersed IRG, SRG and ISS fighters still have the ability to disrupt supply lines and slow things down. Ultimately, it will take a lot of ground forces (something decidedly out of fashion with the chickenhawks) to secure the country.

You don't need a lot of casualties to make the US rethink things. You've got the reaction of the financial markets, the discussions of next year's federal budget (starts in October of this year) in the Congress, and that 75-90 billion initial price tag for Iraq, and the simple fact that most of the ground forces of the US are tied up for the indefinite future. Now if you want casualties, that's on you, but there's no benefit to anyone, anywhere.

Probably in excess of 95% of Iraqis will be better off with Hussein and sanctions gone, and most Iraqis know this without question. There are a few percent who have been the major beneficiaries of this regime, who have no future, or much less of one, in a post-Hussein Iraq, so they'll fight.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by problem_child
Not surprising when America is dropping MOABs on Bagdad now.

Source please.

[Flubber]

Nope

although Canadian troops are not involved, and I am far from a supporter of this war, once the fighting started, I am vehemently for the coalition forces.

My hope now is that they crush the Iraqi regime in as little time as possible and with a minimum of casualties on all sides.

" Teaching the US a lesson" costs lives and I don't think any lesson is worth wishing more American troops to die

[DaShi]

Plus, the US still ain't gonna learn nuthin'.

[dr. blackclove]

Hoping for body count is not only not constructive but disgusting. Some of our European apolytoners seem less interested in the fate of innocent people than they are in seeing Americans and Brits suffer for defying Europe. As human of a response as it may be to get angry, there are constructive ways to channel your anger (pushing for better diplomacy, putting political pressure on the US and UK not to do this sort of thing again, arguing for effective humanitarian aid, pushing for a role in post-war Iraq to monitor for atrocities) and there are shortsighted destructive ways (hoping for people to die in a war to "teach the yanks a lesson", blowing up McDonalds restaurants and Citibank branch offices). Making statements like some of those I've seen here only reinforces the view of Americans and some British citizens that the rest of Europe is less interested in morality and justice than they are in their own influence and power.

[Berzerker]

Hmm...I always thought rooting for the underdog assumed the underdog was moral, or at least more moral than the big dog (or with no morality at play like in a sporting event). If you guys think the Iraqis are more moral than the coalition, your moral compass is out of alignment. The next time you feel like rooting for the underdog, think about the Shi'ites and Kurds who rejoice upon seeing coalition forces enter their town. Think about the millions of Iraqis who want Saddam and his sons gone but can't say so on camera because they and/or their families will be tortured and murdered. Would you root for the likes of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy because they were outnumbered? Judge, but judge wisely...

[Kropotkin]

The morality on the battlefield is not necissarly a extension of the morals on the national level.

[monkspider]

Yep, I am rooting for the plucky underdog.

[Berzerker]

And you think the Iraqis are more moral on either level?

[Kropotkin]

On the national level, not at all. On the battlefield morals is based on each individual situation. I hardly consider the american or british soldier morally better before hand compared to the Iraqi soldier. The latter is probably there with a threat against him and possibly his family. On the other hand they are probably more likely to commit war crimes.

If n people will die in this was I have the not so very nice desire for the proprtion of americans and british dead to be on the scale enough to hinder them from acting unilaterly in the immidiate future. Very selfish of me of cource.

[Jac de Molay]

I'm not rooting for saddam per se, but I dont like what's going with the media presentation of the war as this hands free, high-tech new war that is easily won. They seem equally hesitant to show the real, ground-view effects of these early battles.

I would never root for excess American casualities, but the media, and the public at large who have tuned out the war in many ways, could use a swift kick in the ass about the horrible toll that war, in any age, inflicts. Maybe a few bloody conflicts will bring that harsh reality into the light.

[Berzerker]

I hardly consider the american or british soldier morally better before hand compared to the Iraqi soldier. The latter is probably there with a threat against him and possibly his family. On the other hand they are probably more likely to commit war crimes.

I'm not really talking about conscripts who don't want to be there, those guys surrender the moment the opportunity arises.
But let's not forget that the Republican Guard and Saddam's more loyal military personnel are brutal SOB's who've been mis-treating Iraqis for decades and compare how they treat POW's with how we treat them.

If n people will die in this was I have the not so very nice desire for the proprtion of americans and british dead to be on the scale enough to hinder them from acting unilaterly in the immidiate future. Very selfish of me of cource.

Why does it matter if a brutal dictator and his thugs are ousted unilaterly or by consensus?

[Kropotkin]

Since I don't think the unilateral action isn't for the good of mankind or the people of Iraq I do think it matters. As might be pointed out my selfishness pales in comparison with some others in this world and on this issue. Just my opinion of cource but that is as good as anyone else.