Is the war in Iraq "winnable" for the US?

[riddler 0]

I mentioned to my mother that presidential candidate McCain wants to escalate the war in Iraq. From his own website:

Quote

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to ...

My mother's answer was "good, that will end the war sooner." Personally, I don't think this is a war that is winnable for the US. But my mom's statements helped me to better understand the position of those that support our current efforts in Iraq. I really didn't think anyone felt we can actually win, but then I realized that those that support the war probably believe we can.

I guess my own beliefs stem from my father's involvement in Vietnam. He was in a ground position and was severely wounded in an enemy ambush (about 13 bullets, IIRC). To me, Vietnam proved that we are capable of winning wars on a grand scale, but losing them against insurgents that fight with terrorist tactics and refuse to give up.

If you think the US can, with the assistance of more troops, money, equipment and time actually win the war in Iraq, can you tell me how? I'm only asking because I don't understand military tactics as well as I know many of you do.

I should also define "win" - I mean that we can restore peace enough to Iraq that our only continued military presense that is required is that which is necessary to protect our embassy and US interests. As examples, Japan and Germany count as "wins" in US War history, and although we have military bases there, peace exists in those countries to the point that they are not necessarily required.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 3]

Quote

As examples, Japan and Germany count as "wins" in US War history, and although we have military bases there, peace exists in those countries to the point that they are not necessarily required.

Japan and German count as "wins" because they surrendered and signed treaties.

Iraq is something entirely different. We installed a puppet government for a short time and allowed them to hold legitimate elections. They elected people that don't like us and the other people that don't like us in that country also don't like the people that were elected. It's a civil war.

-WE- can't win it.

We can stand in the middle and try to protect our interests there (the oil) but there's no way in hell -WE- can win some other country's civil war.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Japan and German count as "wins" because they surrendered and signed treaties.

Iraq is something entirely different. ... -WE- can't win it..

Brief guest appearance only guys...

There is a major difference between Germany/Japan in 1945 & Iraq 2003.

The invasion & occupation of Germany along with the attack & occupation of Japan were conducted with a defined intention -- the removal of those countries ability to fight, the subjurgation of their people and the removal of their entire governmental institutions. In effect the Allies set out to DEFEAT both Germany & Japan. Thus, any resistance would justify an overwhelming response.

For example in Germany a sniper fired on advancing US troops whereupon they withdrew and shelled the village, including the church. It isn't known if the sniper was killed in the shelling, but the surviving population showed no more resistance!

In contrast, the Coalition did NOT enter Iraq as an "invading army", but as a "liberating army". They trie3d to fight against a small part of Iraq while expecting the remainder to stand aside & take neithjer interest nor part in this liberation & occupation.

This optimism is what has caused the present stalemate.

I believe that there is now only one way to --WIN-- in Iraq; Withdraw all troops & equipment from Iraq back to neighbouring countries while reserving the right to return should the situation warrant it through either the behaviour of the resulting government or some breakdown of the country into civil war. At this time, the Coalition could enter as an INVADING army prepard to fight to ensure it's complete dominance in the country.

Only after such dominance and control is achieved can the introduction of democratic secular govermnents be started.

In short, if you want to repeat the successes of Germany & Japan, then you must repeat the whole attitude of the time and accept the resulting events. At present, the occupation of Iraq is repeating the US-Vietnam model.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My mother's answer was "good, that will end the war sooner." Personally, I don't think this is a war that is winnable for the US. But my mom's statements helped me to better understand the position of those that support our current efforts in Iraq. I really didn't think anyone felt we can actually win, but then I realized that those that support the war probably believe we can.

People still insist that we could have won in Vietnam if we somehow tried harder. The parallels between there and America in the 1770s is missed. Just about all of the remaining colonies escaped the 1st world after WWII.

The other problem with Iraq that wasn't an issue with the Germans or Japanese is that it isn't a unified nation unless there is a ruthless dictator in charge. You put any faction in charge and a significant portion of the people don't like it, and would rather fight a bit longer till their guys are on top. It's like fighting the heads of Hydra.

I expect Obama to run a lot of ads quoting McCain on two lines.

'We should stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary'

'I don't understand economics.'

These two make McCain, at this point in US history, completely unqualified to be President.

[riddler 0]

Quote

The other problem with Iraq that wasn't an issue with the Germans or Japanese is that it isn't a unified nation unless there is a ruthless dictator in charge. You put any faction in charge and a significant portion of the people don't like it, and would rather fight a bit longer till their guys are on top. It's like fighting the heads of Hydra.

There was a guy in charge in Iraq. He was a bad guy, no doubt. Deserved what he got, probably worse than he got. But he's gone now. Does that mean the war should be over? In Germany, the Nazis continued after Hitler was dead, but we're not still at war with Germany. In Japan, supporters of the emporer continued after the Potsdam terms were agreed to, but we're not still fighting a war there. Seems like the same results for Iraq - dictators dead, peace accord signed with new government, still supporters of the old regime, so why is there still war in Iraq? I don't think anyone can argue that Germans and Japanese were less determined to win than the Iraqis.

Quote

The invasion & occupation of Germany along with the attack & occupation of Japan were conducted with a defined intention -- the removal of those countries ability to fight, the subjurgation of their people and the removal of their entire governmental institutions. In effect the Allies set out to DEFEAT both Germany & Japan. Thus, any resistance would justify an overwhelming response.

Seems that was our goal in Iraq too:

1. the removal of those countries ability to fight - The Iraqi army was disbanded by Paul Bremer even after we declared victory with "mission accomplished".

2. the subjugation of their people - US raids into Iraqi homes continue every day. That's about the best example of subjugation I can think of.

3. removal of their entire governmental institutions - Saddam Hussein was the government, we caught him, the Iraqis executed him, old government's gone.

Still, no one wants to say that the Iraq war is winnable. Does anyone other than my mom believe we can win in Iraq?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 3]

Quote

Does anyone other than my mom believe we can win in Iraq?

I'd say roughly 30% of the country would use the term and say we could "win".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

That's the problem with the word "win".

It's not a traditional war, it is an occupation.

An occupation is not won, it is simply endured. The occupation will be over when we leave.

Until we leave, there will always be a lot of Iraqis fighting against us, as well as against one another. After we leave, the Iraqis will probably still be fighting one another.

So the "war" will not be "over" even with another surge. We are simply over there treading water, as we've done for years.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

No disagreement from me!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zipp0 1]

I guess you missed it when Bush landed on the carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner?? He swaggered about in his flight suit and so forth, and gave a speech. We were winners already way back then!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I guess you missed it when Bush landed on the carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner?? He swaggered about in his flight suit and so forth, and gave a speech. We were winners already way back then!

Yeah, too bad that banner was actually for the ship returning from a long deployment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

I love it when people rewrite history.

It's especially funny when there are things like speeches on video tape that show otherwise.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pirana 0]

Win as in resolve the situation - - Forget it, ain't gonna happen. Only the most arrogant of idiots could think we would go over there and in a few short years resolve a conflict that is over a hundred generations old.

Win as in bail out as soon as it appears likely we can do so without losing too much face - - Yes, and it will be easier to do that after Bush is gone. Good thing we have term limits or we could be stuck there a lot longer.

It is most unfortunate for the rest of us that the first order of politics is the superficial art of looking good.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The other problem with Iraq that wasn't an issue with the Germans or Japanese is that it isn't a unified nation unless there is a ruthless dictator in charge. You put any faction in charge and a significant portion of the people don't like it, and would rather fight a bit longer till their guys are on top. It's like fighting the heads of Hydra.

There was a guy in charge in Iraq. He was a bad guy, no doubt. Deserved what he got, probably worse than he got. But he's gone now. Does that mean the war should be over? In Germany, the Nazis continued after Hitler was dead, but we're not still at war with Germany. In Japan, supporters of the emporer continued after the Potsdam terms were agreed to, but we're not still fighting a war there. Seems like the same results for Iraq - dictators dead, peace accord signed with new government, still supporters of the old regime, so why is there still war in Iraq?

For precisely what I wrote- there are multiple factions - Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, along with foreign elements. They don't all want the same thing. Some prefer the war to peace.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I love it when people rewrite history.

It's especially funny when there are things like speeches on video tape that show otherwise.

I'm not referring to any speeches and I could care less about the speeches - the ship's crew requested the banner be made.

The 'rewriting of history' all seems to be coming from the libs, as usual...making a new meme out of anything they can to cast a bad light.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

I'm not referring to any speeches and I could care less about the speeches - the ship's crew requested the banner be made.

No. They didn't. That story is pure bullshit.

Read this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,384]

>the ship's crew requested the banner be made.

Well, let's see:

The White House first claimed that the crew had made and hung the banner.

They then retracted that and said that they had made the banner at the crew's request, and that they gave it to the crew to hang.

They then retracted that and said that they made and hung the banner themselves, but that the crew had asked for it.

I had a friend aboard that carrier. When I asked him about it, he said no one had asked him anything, or indeed mentioned the banner at all.

>The 'rewriting of history' all seems to be coming from the libs, as usual.

For some reason, this reminds me of the maxim that any post that criticizes spelling will include a spelling error.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not referring to any speeches and I could care less about the speeches - the ship's crew requested the banner be made.

No. They didn't. That story is pure bullshit.

Read this.

And the Times is, of course, purely non-objective in their reporting...

I suppose the Pentagon saying the Lincoln requested the banner is bullshit, too...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Muenkel 0]

I think if you really want a truthful answer, it would be best if you asked the General's on the ground and the Intelligence experts rather than a bunch of skydivers who will only answer according to how they feel about the current president.

_________________________________________
Chris

[mnealtx 0]

Too bad neither you nor Quade visited the ship's website.

Quote

The marathon deployment ended May 2003 with a historic visit by President George W. Bush, congratulating the ship for its mission accomplished.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Skyrad 0]

No it is not. Why?

"Rebellion must have an unassailable base . . . in the minds of men converted to its creed. It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfil the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the area effectively from fortified posts. It [the insurgency] must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent active in a striking force, and 98 per cent passively sympathetic . . . Granted mobility, security . . . time, and doctrine . . . victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain."
T E Lawrence
(On the invasion of Iraq by the British in 1920)

Also in a letter he wrote to The Times the same year..

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour," he wrote. "They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows . . . We are today not far from a disaster."

History repates itself.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think if you really want a truthful answer, it would be best if you asked the General's on the ground and the Intelligence experts rather than a bunch of skydivers who will only answer according to how they feel about the current president.

Huh? Those people are just as affected by politics as skdivers are, if not much more since their jobs are on the line.

Ask the NCOs in the field. They're the ones whose lives are on the line.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I think if you really want a truthful answer, it would be best if you asked the General's on the ground and the Intelligence experts rather than a bunch of skydivers who will only answer according to how they feel about the current president.

Huh? Those people are just as affected by politics as skdivers are, if not much more since their jobs are on the line.

Ask the NCOs in the field. They're the ones whose lives are on the line.

From that perspective (or a Lieutenant or Captain/Company Commander) you get tremendous depth and situational context for that specific area, right then +/- some narrow window of time.

Is it at the expense of the breadth and larger situational awareness/context that other perspectives are likely to bring?

It's a balance to strike.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,384]

>The marathon deployment ended May 2003 with a historic visit
>by President George W. Bush, congratulating the ship for its mission
>accomplished.

Let's see what Donald Rumsfeld, who reviewed the photo op before it was finalized, said about it:

"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. . . they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

Hmm. Looks like you better get on the horn to Rumsfeld and tell him that you are a better judge of what it meant than he was.

It's always easier to rewrite history if the players themselves don't say (and document) annoyingly accurate things.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>The marathon deployment ended May 2003 with a historic visit
>by President George W. Bush, congratulating the ship for its mission
>accomplished.

Let's see what Donald Rumsfeld, who reviewed the photo op before it was finalized, said about it:

"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. . . they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

Hmm. Looks like you better get on the horn to Rumsfeld and tell him that you are a better judge of what it meant than he was.

It's always easier to rewrite history if the players themselves don't say (and document) annoyingly accurate things.

They fixed the speech? It sounds like "game over, we won and thanks a bunch" to me. Here's the first part.

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, and speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.

This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld, for General (Tommy) Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done."


Now I know that this conversation is really of little consequence since most everyone is able to recognize that 43's modus operandi relies heavily on rhetoric and photo opportunities, i.e. "propaganda". But I'm just wary of those who will be quick to re-write this history. You don't learn from your mistakes if you bury them.

[nerdgirl 0]

I have a bit of heretical view: the US-led coalition ‘won’ the war against Iraq. That is, very specifically, the existing government in power was removed by force, dismantled, and control of territory was obtained, i.e., the US-led coalition had nominal control of the state until 30 June 2004.

Iraq is now engaged in an internal insurgency. The insurgency is not the US’ to win or lose.

I reject the term ‘civil war’ because the opposition to the sitting government is too fractured and too disorganized, w/limited possible exception of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army; al-Sadr's Jaysh al Mahdi (JAM) is Shi’a like al-Maliki’s Dawa party. Heck, Shi’a anti-Saddam Hussayn sectarian groups are fighting each other (Dawa and ISCI[nee SCIRI] versus Sadr/JAM), nevermind the Sunnis or the Kurds (PKK v Turkey).

If the US forces were removed from Iraq, would the al-Maliki government collapse? (There’s more than a 50% chance, imo.)
Would the fragile state of Iraq become a failed state?
Is Iraq essentially a client state of the US?

Will the US lose the struggle for nation-building (i.e., security, stabilization, transition, & reconstruction [SSTR]) in the Middle East? is a more accurate & precise question, imo.

But words are powerful. “War” is a powerful word … & it should be.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying