Will the US lose the war in Iraq by running out of soldiers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not likely. Why would they?

Each Mexican enlistee gets their own personal Bush (or relative) for a personal servant (maid or yardwork ).

[Berzerker]

This is a war of attrition, and a war of ideas. The big question is: can we suppress the insurgency long enough for the Iraqis to get some control so we can start leaving before enemy recruitment flourishes because the infidels are on Muslim lands? Most Muslims know Saddam was an ahole and deserved to go, some just cant stand the fact infidels are on "their" lands and will die fighting, but another group is on or near the fence. How long before they crossover? Our continued presence only entices more from this third group to join the fight, but given a billion Muslims in the world, it doesn't look like many really want to die for the fanatics...

Iran is another matter, I'd ignore them. Trying to prevent a Muslim nation like Iran from getting nukes is like holding back the tide. That little nutcase in N Korea got em and we should ignore him too. But he uses nukes to prop up his crumbling system with subsidies from the west and China - falling into the trap of buying them off merely prolongs the misery of the people living under their rule.

[Ted Striker]

I agree with your Berzerker.

There was an article in Time where they mentioned that there is a WAITING LIST for suicide bombers. There are too many recruits and not enough missions for them.

The terrorist in that article thought that the Americans would kill Saddam and then leave. But he says they were frustrated that they Americans stayed for so long.

I think that Iraq is still salvagable, but it's gonna cost. Those Iraqi security forces need trained and they need trained NOW. 170K or whatever it is isn't enough. That number needs to be 500,000, and that's just for a start. Get them out in the field, there's only so much you can train them on. Or, let them start working and then segment their training so they are working and training at the same time.

Last I heard there was still debate over whether to forgive some or Iraq's debts. And this is coming from US. We of all people need to forgive those debts. DUH.

We need to start working with people like Al-Sadr and the Sunnis. Supposedly this is happening. But dammit, it's way too late and not happening quickly enough. Like it or not, he owns certain neighborhoods in Baghdad and keeps the peace there. People look up to him.

If we had done the same thing in Afghanistan, with that, "you're with us or we're sending the Marines to kick your ass," crap, we would have gotten stuck in the same situation the Soviets were in there. But we played ball with the warlords becuase anything else would have meant a nightmare. Afghanistan isn't perfect but at least people aren't running around blowing up Iraqi civilians and our Coalition soldiers all the damn time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why the sudden favorable image of the US in India? Strange...

same reason as the bounceback in Indonesia, I think.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


While the PRC is progressing the US is regressing.

Antics of the Orient Vol. 4

Windows Dragon OS: Word Processing for the People

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Get them out in the field, there's only so much you can train them on. Or, let them start working and then segment their training so they are working and training at the same time.

Out in the field untrained (or less trained) and they'd FUBAR even worse. You can't blame them - urban combat/counterinsurgency ops takes ****-hot soldiers with high morale, solid equipment, individual initiative and an exceptional degree of cohesiveness. That takes time to build, and just throwing more meat into the grinder demoralizes them and encourages the enemy.

If we had done the same thing in Afghanistan, with that, "you're with us or we're sending the Marines to kick your ass," crap, we would have gotten stuck in the same situation the Soviets were in there. But we played ball with the warlords becuase anything else would have meant a nightmare. Afghanistan isn't perfect but at least people aren't running around blowing up Iraqi civilians and our Coalition soldiers all the damn time.

If we'd done the same thing in Iraq as we've done in Afghanistan, Saddam would appear to be releasing random audiotapes, and Uday and Qusay would be unaccounted for. The Green Zone would be pretty safe, but it would be about the only place we operated, and the Kurds would essentially have an autonomous zone in the north while the Shiites ran the south and the central government had no authority (by force or otherwise) over anyone.

They're both FUBAR, they're just different species of FUBAR, one has spots and the other stripes.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
There was an article in Time where they mentioned that there is a WAITING LIST for suicide bombers.

Jihadis to the left and be seated, please take a number and wait, one suicide belt each.

The problem is how does the coalition get out of Iraq now?

Bush is right when he says you can't just walk away. If you start something you have to finish it otherwise we'll have what happened when Russia prematurely pulled out of Chechnya - extremists claiming victory and suicide bombers coming to a major Western city near you.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why the sudden favorable image of the US in India? Strange...

Because 19th century liberal capitalism is experiencing a resurgence in India .Because you give us your jobs for free . And also because the people who are now returning to India from the USA have very good tales to tell of it . And lastly , because you at least try to fight terrorism outside your borders , no matter how botched the efforts , and indirectly help us by a) Killing terrorists and b) diverting the attention of terrorists from India .

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Out in the field untrained (or less trained) and they'd FUBAR even worse. You can't blame them - urban combat/counterinsurgency ops takes ****-hot soldiers with high morale, solid equipment, individual initiative and an exceptional degree of cohesiveness. That takes time to build, and just throwing more meat into the grinder demoralizes them and encourages the enemy.

You mean like the US Army ?

I would normally agree with you, but given the situation, there isn't much of choice left and the time was yesterday, we don't have the luxury of waiting.

You can rotate in individuals with the more experienced units, you wouldn't send out a wholly green unit by itself.

If we'd done the same thing in Iraq as we've done in Afghanistan, Saddam would appear to be releasing random audiotapes, and Uday and Qusay would be unaccounted for. The Green Zone would be pretty safe, but it would be about the only place we operated, and the Kurds would essentially have an autonomous zone in the north while the Shiites ran the south and the central government had no authority (by force or otherwise) over anyone.

They're both FUBAR, they're just different species of FUBAR, one has spots and the other stripes.

I don't know about that. The Iraqi Army could have been kept on a leash as long as they played ball. Instead the whole thing was disbanded and now we got a thousands of angry young men who hate us and are full trained with no jobs and lots of time on their hands to cause trouble.

Keeping a small footprint in Afghanistan was important, but believe me, nobody is more pissed than I am that a larger force wasn't deployed to grab that ****er and find him. The efforts directed towards Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan. I almost wonder if the force sent to Afghanistan was intentionally left small in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

[Alexander's Horse]

disbanding the Iraqi army was a huge error - that wasn't even done to the German army or IJA after WWII.

[notyoueither]

I call bull****.

[Agathon]

Bull**** emanating from NYE's mouth. What a surprise....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


You mean like the US Army ?

I would normally agree with you, but given the situation, there isn't much of choice left and the time was yesterday, we don't have the luxury of waiting.

You can rotate in individuals with the more experienced units, you wouldn't send out a wholly green unit by itself.

I was a proponent of higher troop levels from the outset, if you remember (as well as waiting for more favorable conditions/force levels to attack and preplanning more for occupation) The problem is there are too few experienced Iraqi units and too many green individuals. That balance will change, but it's going to be a slow process, and a lot of body parts to scrape up in the meantime.

Keeping a small footprint in Afghanistan was important, but believe me, nobody is more pissed than I am that a larger force wasn't deployed to grab that ****er and find him. The efforts directed towards Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan. I almost wonder if the force sent to Afghanistan was intentionally left small in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

Bingo on the latter, and **** the need for a small footprint. In the aftermath of 9/11, nobody was going to **** with us, and we should have dumpted the entire XVIII Airborne Corps in from Parachinar to the Khyber Pass and dared anybody (i.e. Musharraf) to stop us.

Using the NA/EA forces augmented by airpower and special forces was the most efficient approach, but a hammer is only as good as the anvil you drive the enemy against, and we drove Bin Laden and Omar against a mother****ing sponge, not an anvil.

We just needed to make clear to the Afghanis that we were there to take the heads of the al Qaeda leadership and the Taleban, and then they could have the country back with a few billion in aid.

[notyoueither]

Aggie,

Perhaps you can back Horsie up on his claim that the Wehrmacht was not disbanded?

Maybe a link to the IJA surviving 1945?

No?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We just needed to make clear to the Afghanis that we were there to take the heads of the al Qaeda leadership and the Taleban, and then they could have the country back with a few billion in aid.

Yeah -- we sure showed the world when we captured Osama bin Laden.



Er, wait a minute . . . . .