Defeatist traitor whines about Iraq

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The fact that its gone so wrong in Iraq is the factor that will do most to insure we do less of it in the near future. A few more such failures, and we'll never do it again.

This guy seems to think that if we are smarter, starting with the whole military transformation concept (take that Rummy) we COULD succeed in nationbuilding.

1. Perhaps true. And if we are involved in fewer nationbuilding interventions in the future than we otherwise would have, to me I guess that might be a minor positive arising from the big negative that is our adventure in Iraq. Meh.

2. I don't think "nationbuilding" is impossible. First off, it's a pretty fuzzy term that can include (and/or exclude) plenty of things. Second, every situation is different. I'm jaded about the whole "spreading liberal democracy" thing, it's true. But that doesn't automatically mean that my position is "nationbuilding doesn't work, PERIOD." I just think nationbuilding is difficult and expensive work that my fellow Americans don't really have any intention of paying for, unless it's a small relief operation for some natural disaster in central america or something like that. Iraq? If it had been properly planned for, budgeted, and presented to the American people, the vast majority would've balked (edit: this ignores the WMDs thing, since we're talking about nationbuilding. As the WMDs thing turned out to be bull****, in the end the operation became about nationbuilding anyway). Odd as it may sound, I may have switched over from anti-war to pro-war at that point, having finally seen a sign that the government had thought the matter through and intended to do it right.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

And yes, as LotM points out, this article isn't just about Iraq. It's really all about not planning for the last war.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Do you not find that comment the least bit ironic?

No

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/iz.html

Iraq Population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

The worst estimate have head is 100,000 dead. That is ridiculous but in this case lets use it.

http://www.os-connect.com/pop/p2.asp...0&sort=Country

Vietnam 42,577,000 in 1970

The figure I usually hear is that 2 million civilians were killed in the war. Shall we crunch percentages?

So even if we use the worst estimates, Iraq is nothing close to Vietnam, which is what th author of the OP article is comparing Iraq to.

[Arrian]

Well, one difference that jumps out there is that Vietnam is over, and Iraq is ongoing. Plenty of time for more death.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Well, one difference that jumps out there is that Vietnam is over, and Iraq is ongoing. Plenty of time for more death.

We would have to increase Iraqi casualties 1000% to be on par with Vietam. And our casualties would still be far less.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian

. I don't think "nationbuilding" is impossible. First off, it's a pretty fuzzy term that can include (and/or exclude) plenty of things. Second, every situation is different. I'm jaded about the whole "spreading liberal democracy" thing, it's true. But that doesn't automatically mean that my position is "nationbuilding doesn't work, PERIOD." I just think nationbuilding is difficult and expensive work that my fellow Americans don't really have any intention of paying for, unless it's a small relief operation for some natural disaster in central america or something like that. Iraq? If it had been properly planned for, budgeted, and presented to the American people, the vast majority would've balked
-Arrian

If thats true, it hardly makes sense to build a military to do something thats so hard and expensive that the American people will never approve doing it right - in which case the "lets build super weapons to fight China and forget this nationbuilding crap, and if we ever do have attack someone in the ME cause of WMDs, lets just bomb and leave" faction in the Pentagon is right, no?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/iz.html

Iraq Population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

The worst estimate have head is 100,000 dead. That is ridiculous but in this case lets use it.

http://www.os-connect.com/pop/p2.asp...0&sort=Country

Vietnam 42,577,000 in 1970

The figure I usually hear is that 2 million civilians were killed in the war. Shall we crunch percentages?

So even if we use the worst estimates, Iraq is nothing close to Vietnam, which is what th author of the OP article is comparing Iraq to.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Vietnam was the second least bloody conflict in recorded history.

The irony comes from you stating a 'record low', then promptly ignoring the records.

[Patroklos]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Vietnam was the second least bloody conflict in recorded history.

Care to name the other insurgency war of this scale the US was involved in? We could do Korea or WWII comparisons if you prefer...

The irony comes from you stating a 'record low', then promptly ignoring the records.

There are no records to ignore. Though I did use the worst possible scenario and my point still stands.

[Arrian]

If thats true, it hardly makes sense to build a military to do something thats so hard and expensive that the American people will never approve doing it right - in which case the "lets build super weapons to fight China and forget this nationbuilding crap, and if we ever do have attack someone in the ME cause of WMDs, lets just bomb and leave" faction in the Pentagon is right, no?

No.

If history shows (and I think it has) that the USA is going to intervene in other countries and "nationbuild" then I think we must prepare our military (and/or State Department or other relevant civilian agencies) for that purpose. As for cost, if we're talking about long term budgeting, I'm not so sure that preparing for nationbuilding is more expensive than the status quo procurement of more fighters, carriers, artillery, etc (conventional arms where we already have huge advantages).

For the record, I'm even more against "bomb and leave" than I am against nationbuilding. Given a choice between the two, give me nationbuilding.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

I can't find an overall number for personel having served in OIF/OEF

[Arrian]

Incidently, Patroklos, though I don't endorse this figure at all, the highest figure I've seen claimed for civilian deaths in Iraq is 600,000. Granted, it was on a chalk board on somebody's lawn, but hey...

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Are you kidding me, you can claim mission failure all you want, but to say this hasn't been one of the least painful conficts in the history of the mankind given scale is just ridiculous. What is the casualty rate, .20% for death, .90% for injury?

If you fail to accomplish the mission then you fail to accomplish it at an acceptable price. One is a subset of the other.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Care to name the other insurgency war of this scale the US was involved in? We could do Korea or WWII comparisons if you prefer...

So you are changing from [paraphrased] "conflicts in the history of mankind" to "WW2, Vietnam or Korea".

but to say this hasn't been one of the least painful conficts in the history of the mankind given scale is just ridiculous.

[Patroklos]

No, not really, though I bet anaylysis would lead to that. Though I did say "this scale" how many wars of this scale have there been pre 1900?

But I do have numbers for American conflicts. Well, what passes for numbers given the subject mater. In any case American casualty rates are accurate, I bet Hannibal of Belesarius or Darius or Wellington would have appreciated that kind of success.

If you fail to accomplish the mission then you fail to accomplish it at an acceptable price. One is a subset of the other.

The military doesn't set the goal posts. If you ask for the impossible, don't be suprised if it turns out that way.

[Arrian]

The military doesn't set the goal posts. If you ask for the impossible, don't be suprised if it turns out that way.

The basic point this guy was making is that the military should stand up and say the goal is impossible if they think it's impossible. Few did in this case.

-Arrian