Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

[Ned]

Oerdin, I think the main problem were 2) lack of US troops and 2) dismissing the Iraqi army. A greater number of US troops could have kept order better from the get go, and keeping the Iraqi Army intact would have least kept those troops on base and out of the insurgency.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo

1. What specifically do you mean? More detail.

Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. have a summitt where they draft up some rules about suppressing large-scale violence in Iraq. They'd come up with some peace-keeping troops, which might be backed up by Western support. Obviously the details would depend on what the regional powers would agree to, and I have no idea what those might be. As I was saying, the idea is that none of the parties want a civil war in Iraq, so they'd have a vested interest in making sure that this is successful.

2. Understood. We set this paper thing up like we did with VN and then let people blow it off, like we let the NVA do with the SV. I got that already. Carry on. (Sorry for being so dense, I didn't realize that you were being sneaky.)

As I was saying, that's the partition scenario as well. The difference between status quo and partition is that partition brings force balance way further out of equilibrium than the status quo. Therefore, the correcting path back towards equilibrium is going to be a lot longer and more unstable, i.e. far bloodier.

I got it already. We will do one of those paper figleaf things that never serves any purpose other then plausible deniability. Good thinking.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually I disagree with this. Just because we upset the apple cart, does not mean we have to tend it forever. The people involved lacked the will to throw Saddam off. And then had it done for them. If they lack the will to establish order, then that is their problem too.

a) Who said anything about forever? You have the responsibility to take care of **** until such point as it would be a reasonable expectation for them to take care of **** themselves.

b) It sounds like you're going ahead and blaming the victims here. Namely the ordinary Iraqis. I don't give a **** about the political leadership of Iraq. They're making their own beds. But Abdul Q Public living in Baghdad bears about as much responsibility for his situation as does his counterpart John in Nebraska. They're dying. You set up the situation. Running away before average Iraqis can be responsible for their own problems is cowardice of the highest order.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
What good does it do for Kissinger or others to whine and complain that we can't win? I really don't understand the negativism about the war in Iraq. Of course it's tough. War is always tough. WW2 was much much harder than Iraq is but we didn't quit. We didn't say "the war is unwinnable so let's cut and run." We had setbacks but we fought hard until we did win. We should do the same in Iraq. If we are in the process of losing in Iraq, the answer is not to quit, the answer is to figure out how to win and fight hard until we do win. We have the best military in the world. Destroying a bunch of armed militias is definitely doable. Let's have some faith in our military!

Yeah, lets go kill all those Iraqis who are part of political factions that may have in interest in taking up arms. After the first hundred thousand or so, we will be making real progress...

Oh, and for the lame WW2 reference.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, I think the main problem were 2) lack of US troops and 2) dismissing the Iraqi army. A greater number of US troops could have kept order better from the get go, and keeping the Iraqi Army intact would have least kept those troops on base and out of the insurgency.

Agreeing completely with Ned....
Must stop head from exploding....

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Actually I disagree with this. Just because we upset the apple cart, does not mean we have to tend it forever. The people involved lacked the will to throw Saddam off. And then had it done for them. If they lack the will to establish order, then that is their problem too.

a) Who said anything about forever? You have the responsibility to take care of **** until such point as it would be a reasonable expectation for them to take care of **** themselves.

b) It sounds like you're going ahead and blaming the victims here. Namely the ordinary Iraqis. I don't give a **** about the political leadership of Iraq. They're making their own beds. But Abdul Q Public living in Baghdad bears about as much responsibility for his situation as does his counterpart John in Nebraska. They're dying. You set up the situation. Running away before average Iraqis can be responsible for their own problems is cowardice of the highest order.

1. Well it's been long enough.
2. Yes, I am blaming the ordinary Iraqis in the sense that they are not taking control of their destiny. Saddam is gone. That's what they all *****ed about in 91, that we didn't back their play. Well, now they can get to it. And if they don't...well lots of people don't I guess.
3. They want us out anyhow.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, I think the main problem were 2) lack of US troops and 2) dismissing the Iraqi army. A greater number of US troops could have kept order better from the get go, and keeping the Iraqi Army intact would have least kept those troops on base and out of the insurgency.

Those two were whoppers, no mistake about it. It was extremely arrogant for Cheney and Rumsfield, neither of whom had any military experience or training, to laugh off the Pentigon's assessment that 500,000 troops would be needed to occupy and maintain order once the invasion was completed. That was a deliberate political calculation where the administration ignored and over ruled the military commanders to disasterous effect.

There can be no doubt that if public order was maintained and the looting and lawlessness had not occured then many Iraqis would have looked more favorably on the occupation force instead of the lawlessness becoming a huge issue which turned Iraqis against the occupiers. That said without creditable reconstruction in a timely manner we still would have lost many of those people. Bush made huge flowery speeches but then effectively did nothing meaningful towards reconstruction just as occured in Afghanistan.

We lost the bulk of the Iraqi people after law and order was restored and we lost them because the lights wouldn't work, the water faucit wouldn't work, and because there were no jobs. All three of those can be directly traced back to corrupt no bid contracts to companies who got paid billions but who never actually did what they were paid to do. It would have been far, far, far better just to hire local companies which would have employed locals to repair these systems quickly rather then pay 10 times the price to big defense contractors who never actually got much accomplished. Of course I am ignoring that for the first year the administration didn't even try to rebuild much of anything and thought they could get by without doing any meaningful reconstruction. That incompetance was what allowed the insurgency to get going.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was extremely arrogant for Cheney and Rumsfield, neither of whom had any military experience or training

Rumsfeld was a naval aviator, you moron.

[TCO]

We could have controlled looting, by shooting looters and hanging people. Just imagine the broohaha if we did that, though.

[Barnabas]

Well, obviously, you could have put order by killing dozens of thousands of people, but that is not well seen nowadays (I means killing dozens of thousands of people, not putting order)

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
We could have controlled looting, by shooting looters and hanging people. Just imagine the broohaha if we did that, though.

Cant' claim to be invading to get rid of Saddam and then act like Saddam.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO


1. Well it's been long enough.

*****.

[KrazyHorse]

You stick your dick into the mashed potatoes and then you don't have the guts to follow through. Is there any wonder people don't respect the US military despite the fact that it's so utterly dominant?

[KrazyHorse]

"Yeah, I know we broke it, but why hasn't it fixed itself yet?"

[Drake Tungsten]

You stick your dick into the mashed potatoes and then you don't have the guts to follow through. Is there any wonder people don't respect the US military despite the fact that it's so utterly dominant?

The Iraqis want us out. Time to go...