Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[KrazyHorse]

Some did, some didn't.

It wasn't 90% for the commies, 10% for the Yanks

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm with MTG here. There's no evidence that this war has helped the WOT at all. If anything it has been a constant incitement, a rallying point which has drawn thousands of uncommitted middle eastern muslims, not just Iraqis into open conflict with western nations. There is no evidence that many of the "foreign elements" who have fought alongside of the insurgency in Iraq would ever have taken up arms against us had we not invaded Iraq. Furthermore it is unlikely that al-Qaeda is likely to prosper in Iraq should we leave. They have a lot of competition in Iraq, and I don't believe that they are really one of the stronger factions. I don't think they're even a dominant faction amongst Sunnis. If we leave it is possible that many of the factions fighting to drive us out will cease hostilities. Under such conditions al-Qaeda is unlikely to be able to maintain much of a presence in Iraq. If civil war breaks out al-Qaeda is still likely to lose, if only for the fact that they really don't have a common point with which to deal with the Shiite majority, and should they come out on top in a Sunnis dominated state in central Iraq I doubt that the neighboring Shiites would allow them to remain.

[lord of the mark]

Viet Nam is a complex case in itself.

1. Getting out when we did was dramatically helpful, cause it removed on of the few things preventing the Sino-Soviet split from becoming complete

2. Getting out of Viet Nam was harmful, as it reduced our prestige, leading to war in the ME, setbacks elsewhere (Iran, southern Europe)etc.

3. Getting out of Viet Nam was of little consequence in SE Asia beyond Indochina, as states like Thailand and Indonesia had solidified significantly since 1965.

Net net, staying longer in VN would probably have been a mistake. Going in in 1965 may not have been a mistake. The optimal date for departure is hard to fix, probably earlier than we did.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


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.

Oh, Oerdin for one. A USN HMC buddy of mine who just returned from his second tour in a Marine helo squadron doing CASEVAC, for another. Lots of 'em, actually. Some more than others, some less, some very little at all.

Are you going to seriously tell me that the distribution of risks, privileges, and living conditions is equal across all MOS in all services, whether deployed or not?

And "reputation?" Under an anonymous handle on an internet forum? I post what I want, when I want, if I want. I don't care who agrees or disagrees here, and don't think more or less of whoever posts regardless.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm with MTG here. There's no evidence that this war has helped the WOT at all. If anything it has been a constant incitement, a rallying point which has drawn thousands of uncommitted middle eastern muslims, not just Iraqis into open conflict with western nations. There is no evidence that many of the "foreign elements" who have fought alongside of the insurgency in Iraq would ever have taken up arms against us had we not invaded Iraq. Furthermore it is unlikely that al-Qaeda is likely to prosper in Iraq should we leave. They have a lot of competition in Iraq, and I don't believe that they are really one of the stronger factions. I don't think they're even a dominant faction amongst Sunnis. If we leave it is possible that many of the factions fighting to drive us out will cease hostilities. Under such conditions al-Qaeda is unlikely to be able to maintain much of a presence in Iraq. If civil war breaks out al-Qaeda is still likely to lose, if only for the fact that they really don't have a common point with which to deal with the Shiite majority, and should they come out on top in a Sunnis dominated state in central Iraq I doubt that the neighboring Shiites would allow them to remain.

1. Why have we seen no attacks on the US, and only a handful on Europe, and relatively few in the arab state adjacent to Iraq? I think its clear that AQ considers Iraq the main battlefront, is funneling as many resources as it can there. I think most of the foreign elements going there would have been hostile to us anyway, and many would have taken action.

2. They are certainly one of the stronger factions among the Sunni arabs, which is their arena of competition. Many of the other violent Sunni Arab factions are allied to them. To the extent there is real defiance of AQ among the Sunnis, that has grown stronger in recent weeks, as the US presence in Anbar has surged, and the US Marines ahve adopted a strategy of organizaing the SUnnis against AQ.

3. I see no reason to beleive that the absence of US troops would reconcile any of the violent Sunni groups to the Shiite-Kurd govt in Baghdad. When you look to see the grievances of the Sunnis they are all with the Iraqi govt.

4. I dont think its at all certain that the Shiites are strong enough to control the Sunni triangle. Unless you are contemplating the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni Triangle. Whichi is not implausible, I grant you, but would set off a regional conflagration that would far worsen the WOT.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VJ

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.

Well said.

This was in fact crystal clear before the invasion began. I remember it clearly because prior to that point I was undecided about the merits of an invasion of Iraq (I believed they were trying to develop WMDs).

I could hardly believe there was still talk of invading when the inspectors were finally invited back in. How the Hell was Saddam going to develop a large WMD program with those inspectors poking around everywhere?

I still cannot understand what anybody thought was to be gained by the invasion after that.

Ironically I assumed the Iraqis would be the only beneficiaries of the invasion at that point. I guess I still had visions of elated afganis dancing in my head or something. I may have opposed the invasion but I can hardly believe how much I underestimated what a fustercluck the country was going to become.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Ned, the govt of VN was dominated by RCs under Diem who was overthrown in 1963. The new military govt was mainly buddists, though of course RCs continued to support it against the Communists. Many of the refugees who came here were Buddists.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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

I think we should have gone into Afghanistan with a much heavier footprint, and sealed the country back when the whole proximity to 9/11 meant the weenier part of the world was prepared to give us a lot more slack, and when the potentially uppity part of the world wanted to steer clear.

We drastically overestimated the reliability of local forces and their will to do heavy fighting for us, and we drastically overestimated the ability/willingness of the Paskitanis to secure the border area.

Some time before the invasion stated, I posted in some detail on how I thought the war should be played out over on CFC.

Essentially, to control areas around Kandahar, Ghazny and Khowst, to deploy troops to act as the "anvil" in the Khyber pass, Tora Bora, and Afghan side of the border across from Parachinar, and to augment NA/EA forces as the "hammer."

Money spent to bribe local warlords to be half-assed, non-committal fighters to instead assuage their egos, bribe their fighters to take up a new hobby, and psyops and civil affairs efforts to assure them we didn't want them or to occupy their country. Only the certain *******s we were targeting.

How much "stability" you can really achieve in a country like Afghanistan is questionable, but we could have done far more there for less than the combined indecisive efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Meanwhile, if Saddam stayed in power a little longer, who really cared? It wasn't like he was a real threat, or in any position to become one.

[Patroklos]

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

Not worried. The bulk of the "readiness" issues is not equipment or training, but deployment lengths. I for one am not overly concerned with this as that what soldiers do during war, deploy. There is no clause in anyone's contact limiting how many months a year you are available for national tasking. I bet the average soldier form Korea/Vietnam spent more time in country than our current members.

And let me ask you what having a military that is now majority combat veterans does to readiness and training?

And then whose readiness are you talking about. Are we still not able to completely disable any country on earth with air/sea power in a few hours notice? We sure are, the army is not going to be much help with most other possible conflicts unless you think we will try occupying someone else after this little field trip.

current political and operational situations in Afghanistan and Iraq

I didn't expect anything different. Some cases they are doing better than I thought they might.

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.

The US national debt sufferers from far greater draws that the Iraq war, but that is another topic. Care to tell me what US forces are not being upgraded, especially those relevant to Iraq. I being in the Navy know a bunch of them, but I am curious if you do.

And why would I be angry about a bigger budget and enlarging the military. Dream come true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo
.

Ironically I assumed the Iraqis would be the only beneficiaries of the invasion at that point.

and there are STILL more Iraqis who think theyre better off now than under Saddam, vs those who think they were better off under Saddam. But its not the clear and overwhelming majority it was a year or so ago.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I think we should have gone into Afghanistan with a much heavier footprint, and sealed the country back when the whole proximity to 9/11 meant the weenier part of the world was prepared to give us a lot more slack, and when the potentially uppity part of the world wanted to steer clear.

We drastically overestimated the reliability of local forces and their will to do heavy fighting for us, and we drastically overestimated the ability/willingness of the Paskitanis to secure the border area.

Some time before the invasion stated, I posted in some detail on how I thought the war should be played out over on CFC.

Essentially, to control areas around Kandahar, Ghazny and Khowst, to deploy troops to act as the "anvil" in the Khyber pass, Tora Bora, and Afghan side of the border across from Parachinar, and to augment NA/EA forces as the "hammer."

Money spent to bribe local warlords to be half-assed, non-committal fighters to instead assuage their egos, bribe their fighters to take up a new hobby, and psyops and civil affairs efforts to assure them we didn't want them or to occupy their country. Only the certain *******s we were targeting.

How much "stability" you can really achieve in a country like Afghanistan is questionable, but we could have done far more there for less than the combined indecisive efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Meanwhile, if Saddam stayed in power a little longer, who really cared? It wasn't like he was a real threat, or in any position to become one.

a. If we had done what you suggest, than many of the costs you attribute to the failed grand strategy would have been incurred anyway. that doesnt mean your proposed strat is wrong, but it does make it sound like youre double counting its benefits. Do you think that GIVEN only a light footprint in Afghan, we shouldnt have gone in?

b. Its still not clear to me that a heavy footprint right away wouldnt have caused a national rising among the Afghans, one which we have thus far managed to avoid.

I also think you underestimate the manpower needed to seal Afghanistan.

[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?

Assume the answer is that it doesnt. Does that prove that staying 24 months, instead of say, 6 months, is the wrong strategy?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Why have we seen no attacks on the US, and only a handful on Europe, and relatively few in the arab state adjacent to Iraq? I think its clear that AQ considers Iraq the main battlefront, is funneling as many resources as it can there. I think most of the foreign elements going there would have been hostile to us anyway, and many would have taken action.

Back in the pre 9/11 days, MWHC (how long has it been since he was around?) stated a pretty common attitude that AQ was essentially a big nothing. Their big accomplishments to date had been car-bombing two embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, with a space between operations on that scale of months to years.

The escalation to 9/11 was huge, and who is to say or assume it was intended as anything other than a one-off operation, with a few amateurish additional threats (Reid, Padilla, the Buffalo morons, the truckdriver checking out the Brooklyn bridge) intended for psychological effect? In other words, how hard has AQ been trying to hit us in the US with real operations, intended for execution, as opposed to one big bang to gain worldwide attention (and funding/support), and a bunch of token efforts involving low-level operatives which are successful if they merely make us go through the effort of stopping them?

AQ's focus (if you follow their ideological inspiration to al Maududi and al Qutb), have always been on first creating a pan-Islamic state along their lines among the existing Islamic populations in the ME. Everything else has been secondary.

2. They are certainly one of the stronger factions among the Sunni arabs, which is their arena of competition. Many of the other violent Sunni Arab factions are allied to them. To the extent there is real defiance of AQ among the Sunnis, that has grown stronger in recent weeks, as the US presence in Anbar has surged, and the US Marines ahve adopted a strategy of organizaing the SUnnis against AQ.

An enemy of my enemy... Their relationship with the Iraqi Sunni tribes in the context of a war against a foreign invader and heretics is somewhat different than would be their relationship in a predominately Iraqi fight, whether sectarian, or for the emergence of the next Iraqi thugocracy.

3. I see no reason to beleive that the absence of US troops would reconcile any of the violent Sunni groups to the Shiite-Kurd govt in Baghdad. When you look to see the grievances of the Sunnis they are all with the Iraqi govt.

And as long as the Iraqi government fails to be responsive to those grievances, the situation will not improve. We simply provide a buffer to that government that lets it avoid having to make some hard choices and hard concessions.

4. I dont think its at all certain that the Shiites are strong enough to control the Sunni triangle. Unless you are contemplating the ethnic cleansing of the Sunni Triangle.

They can control by isolation. Seal it off, starve it off. And/or make political and other concessions to weaken Sunni resistance and bring some areas under control. Active ethnic cleansing would probably entail larger regional interventions, but still wouldn't be "our" problem to a huge extent.

Which is not implausible, I grant you, but would set off a regional conflagration that would far worsen the WOT.

Shiite-Sunni sectarian fighting wouldn't necessarily spill over outside the region much more than any other scenario. Mind you, the NYMEX yuppies wouldn't like it, and global markets would run scared, but in strict terms, the ability or desire of Islamists heavily engaged in internal, local fighting to aggressively engage external targets isn't clear.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ned, the govt of VN was dominated by RCs under Diem who was overthrown in 1963. The new military govt was mainly buddists, though of course RCs continued to support it against the Communists. Many of the refugees who came here were Buddists.

Thanks. Didn't know this.

Actually I saw resent summary of the war by that CNN guy that was successfully sued by the US Commander for lying. He said that the war was against the colonial regime left behind by the French, namely the catholics. But, if buddists really were in the government at high levels, and I accept your assertion as fact, there was nominally no further reason for the war given the assumptions posited by the reporter, especially after the US withdrawal. Yet the war continued.

I think the perception remained was that the government was run by the catholics and/or was still a colonial government despite having buddists and being elected.

[Frozzy]

Is there actually anyone here who thinks Iraq can function as a democratic, unified and functional state?