Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

just the Catholics of Vietnam

Given that Catholics only comprised around 10% of the population of South Vietnam I'd say that this view is ridiculous.

Not if you know anything about the history of Vietnam and who was running SV.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Which democracy? Bremer's CPA? Or the current sham which virtually nobody other than American policy apologists takes seriously? i.e. the one that is riddled with Shiite radical elements, easily penetrated by insurgents and insurgent sympathizers in all factions, and which is corrupt and incompetent?

I know of no one making a serious claim that the balance of the current Iraqi parliament doesnt accurately reflect the political opions of the people of Iraq (except perhaps that the Sunni Arab representatives are somewhat more moderate overall then the Sunni Arab population). There is shiite radicalism in the parliament, because there is considerable shiite radicalism in the population.

Now it would have been possible, with great difficulty, to exclude SOME of the Shiite Radical elements (esp the Sadrists, but probably not SCIRI) from cabinet positions, had the Shiites not formed a block, the UIA. But Sistani and other Shiite leaders, fearing Shiite weakness, were insistent on the block. Things are starting to change in that regard now, but its not clear if that will happen far or fast enough.

As for penetration, of course its a weak govt that has difficulty vetting people. Thats hardly a surprise. Strong govts are rarely born overnight. However there has apparently been progress in cleansing some key ministries lately, and there is steady work going on in cleansing the police force.

[Pekka]

How is the war in Iraq going to help the WoT? Is it going to help or not? It's not trivial. Anyone who claims they know the answer are also the people who tell you stuff they can't vouch for, the fact is none of us really know.

The problem is when we start mixing up the Iraq thing with terrorism. Most likely the terrorists entered the zone after the war started, I mean individuals and groups that actually counts and not some rogue boyscouts.

There's even a possibility the war in Iraq has actually lifted the terrorism level and the support for it, thus ensuring bigger future resources. We do not know this. What we know for sure is that the people who have sympathies for west are less and less, so at least one more generation of recruits is guaranteed.

What could help the WoT is if Iraq becomes a stable country. However, this doesn't seem likely now, so there's two options: a) cut losses and get out or b) build up the strength multiple times and take control for years.

The first option seems to be the more realistic one. Since the coalition is not getting support, the word is when to get out and not about the build up, so there won't be a build up. It's a matter of time, and how much of a mental loss it'll be. The pragmatic approach is to cut losses to the minimum and face the reality of the situation as soon as possible and let the chips fall as they may. See what the future brings up with the new Iraq.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


What I don't understand is how we can withdraw without some guarantee that al Qa'ida will not set up bases in Iraq. Otherwise, we will simply have to re-invade.

AQ was relatively safe in Afghanistan. The northern alliance was the only serious opposition and they were well out of the reach of the NA.

AQ would not be as safe in Iraq as they were in Afghanistan. They would have to wait until one friendly faction dominated enough of Iraq to give them a secure area to base in. Otherwise the new Iraqi AQ base would be no more dangerous than their existing operations from pakistan, somalia and other areas where they have to keep a relatively low profile and restrain themselves enough to avoid discovery.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan


Excellent rebuttal! Your reponse is SO convincing...

I gave the original post all the effort it was worth.

Perhaps my family's long time history in the US military could help you calm down a bit. I may not be "in the sand" myself, but it doesn't mean I don't understand the implications. I'm well aware at how much war stinks.

Not really. There are a lot of REMF slots in all services, and family history ain't unique. 3200 deaths, or even more, could be justified if there was a proportionate result. 3200 deaths for no definite result, no signs of achieving a definite result, are a different story.

I'm also well aware of what happened to the last country we left early.

Which one? Korea? Still there. Vietnam? We're trade buddies now, and they were never a strategic threat since we left? Somalia? A useless festering ****hole then, a useless festering ****hole now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


I don't think so as the political realities would forbid it.
.

that is indeed one of the key questions. Would the "Iraq allergy' prevent any return against an AQ base? It also of course depends on what you think would be necessary. Im guessing that MTG thinks an occasional SpecOps raid would be adequate, and that that level of intervention would be politically manageable.

It would surely have to be something larger than Bill Clintons 1998 attack on AQ in Afghanistan.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


Not if you know anything about the history of Vietnam and who was running SV.

I know enough to know how influential the Catholic minority was. But they were hardly the only ones threatened by a takeover.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


AQ was relatively safe in Afghanistan. The northern alliance was the only serious opposition and they were well out of the reach of the NA.

AQ would not be as safe in Iraq as they were in Afghanistan. They would have to wait until one friendly faction dominated enough of Iraq to give them a secure area to base in. Otherwise the new Iraqi AQ base would be no more dangerous than their existing operations from pakistan, somalia and other areas where they have to keep a relatively low profile and restrain themselves enough to avoid discovery.

Im assuming the AQ base is the entire Sunni Triangle. Thats not certain, but its far from implausible. Can the incompetent, divided Shiite govt in Baghdad, now cut off from a Kurdistan that is virtually independent (even if it refrains from a UDI to avoid offending Turkey) really muster the strength to beat the AQ statelet? They can hardly keep control WITH US forces. Israel still hasnt reentered Gaza in force. I daresay the Govt of Iraq would have at least as much trouble in the triangle as Pakistan has in Waziristan EXCEPT A. Pakistan has been dealing with the pashtuns for 60 years, and has deep ties with the tribes, given in leverage that the hated Shia dont have in the SUnni triangle and B. Waziristan is far from anything of value - not of much concern to anyone outside Paki except the govt of Afganistan and the Nato Troops there. The Islamic Emirate of Iraq, capital, Ramadi, will be in close proximity to Saudi Arabia and much of the worlds oil supply, not to mention Jordan and its precarious political position.

[Patroklos]

There are a lot of REMF slots in all services

HA, nice MTG. Not only belittling service family members but now service members themselves. Is there any active duty/vetern other than you whose time in counts? What the hell makes you think you are so special? Your seriously hurting your reputation with crap like this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Been to Iraq lately? Does that mean my opinion automatically trumps yours?

Actually being on the ground in a conflict means nothing unless you demonstrate some acquired knowledge of the situation from it.

Same goes for war in general. So take that "I've seen war so I know and you don't ****," bull**** somewhere else unless you qualify it by saying something intelligent.

Bite me, squid.

So tell me, given the state of combat readiness of US ground forces in March 2003, the state of combat readiness of US ground forces now, the current political and operational situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the increase in US national debt, the delays in training/upgrading US forces, the effect of the bloated defense budgets (600 bil plus as is) on force enlargement, etc., what has been accomplished in either Iraq or Afghanistan in four plus years which justifies the US expenditures so far?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Wildbore
Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't.

Actually, yes he did and the inspectors said that. It's sad that after 4 years, some people still haven't listened what Hans Blix actually said.

Do you get your news from FOX NEWS, by any chance? I'm interested in who originally started spreading this lie.

[Nylan-Nolan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I gave the original post all the effort it was worth.

Then it obviously wasn't what I was referring to when I said "rebuttal", was it?

And until you have been "in the sand" throwing such terms around will do naught for you.

Not really. There are a lot of REMF slots in all services, and family history ain't unique. 3200 deaths, or even more, could be justified if there was a proportionate result. 3200 deaths for no definite result, no signs of achieving a definite result, are a different story.

The lack of a result is why we must procure one. If we leave now we admit defeat and failure, when we more than have the power to make things otherwise.

Which one? Korea? Still there. Vietnam? We're trade buddies now, and they were never a strategic threat since we left? Somalia? A useless festering ****hole then, a useless festering ****hole now.

Vietnam

Why do you assume "it doesn't affect us, so even if it sucks who gives a monkey?" It's rather self-centered. I for one actually care about the welfare of the people in both Vietnam and Iraq. Just because Vietnam doesn't threaten us doesn't mean it doesn't stink there.

[Patroklos]

Bite me, squid.

So tell me, given the state of combat readiness of US ground forces in March 2003, the state of combat readiness of US ground forces now, the current political and operational situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the increase in US national debt, the delays in training/upgrading US forces, the effect of the bloated defense budgets (600 bil plus as is) on force enlargement, etc., what has been accomplished in either Iraq or Afghanistan in four plus years which justifies the US expenditures so far?

Alright then, more like it. Sorry for that last respose, probobly a little to much but I didn't like the way you went off on that kid.

I am responding to your questions, give me a minute.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bite me, squid.

So tell me, given the state of combat readiness of US ground forces in March 2003, the state of combat readiness of US ground forces now, the current political and operational situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the increase in US national debt, the delays in training/upgrading US forces, the effect of the bloated defense budgets (600 bil plus as is) on force enlargement, etc., what has been accomplished in either Iraq or Afghanistan in four plus years which justifies the US expenditures so far?

You think we should never have gone into Afghanistan as well?

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I know enough to know how influential the Catholic minority was. But they were hardly the only ones threatened by a takeover.

I agree to the extent that communism per se is hostile to independent business. But the only real and immediate threat was to the government and that was in the hands of the Catholics. Besides, Buddists also opposed the Catholics and supported, IIRC, the communists.