Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? - Page 3

**CingularDuality** · 10-22-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I admit, if the idea was correct it would have changed the world. If a stable democracy like Americas could (can) be established in Iraq the world would be changed forever.

But why did the administration think that this could be done now when it has not been done at any other time in history?

Never been done before, huh? I suggest you look at the map HERE and think about how many of those green countries had their freedom established with the heavy handed influence of other nations.

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't know what strategy can accomplish when there is no will. I'm beginning to despair that the American public, with significant help from the media, are simply unwilling to meet the challenge that this type of war presents. I've stated my believe many times that we are going to fight exactly this sort of war until we demonstrate that we can win it, and winning this sort of war is largely a matter of will, it seems to me.

Since I believe that the alternative is a truly horrible war within 10 years, I think it's important that we get this one right, and that requires perseverance.

So it's those of us who disagree with the war that are causing us to lose the war? What the public feels about the war has little to do with the execution of the strategy of the war by the military. I don't think the soldiers on the ground are suffering from a "lack of will" there in the least.

And we have (and have had) a truly horrible, and more importantly unnecessary and irrelevant war for three years now. Estimates of the Iraqi dead, none of whom were our enemies prior to our invasion, range from 40,000 to 650,000. Add to that >40,000 American wounded and 3,000 dead. That's what I'd define as horrible.

**CingularDuality** · 10-22-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

So it's those of us who disagree with the war that are causing us to lose the war? What the public feels about the war has little to do with the execution of the strategy of the war by the military. I don't think the soldiers on the ground are suffering from a "lack of will" there.

I think that you're really underestimating the degree with with public perception affects troop morale. Or that you're underestimating the degree to which troop morale affects their effectiveness.

Bommando · 10-22-2006, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I think that you're really underestimating the degree with with public perception affects troop morale. Or that you're underestimating the degree to which troop morale affects their effectiveness.

That begs the question as to whether the troops themselves believe they are doing something worthwhile or not. I believe that their enthusiasm is waning with every day spent and with every life they lose, not because of public perception.

Just because members of the public don't agree with the reason the troops are there doesn't mean they don't support the efforts of the troops themselves. The anti-war sentiment doesn't necessarily equate to anti-troop sentiment. I believe the soldiers are smart enough to differentiate the two.

**leejo** · 10-22-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

So it's those of us who disagree with the war that are causing us to lose the war? What the public feels about the war has little to do with the execution of the strategy of the war by the military. I don't think the soldiers on the ground are suffering from a "lack of will" there in the least.

And we have (and have had) a truly horrible, and more importantly unnecessary and irrelevant war for three years now. Estimates of the Iraqi dead, none of whom were our enemies prior to our invasion, range from 40,000 to 650,000. Add to that >40,000 American wounded and 3,000 dead. That's what I'd define as horrible.

I think you'll have to get used to a whole new vision of horrible soon enough. I think the anti-war crowd has helped embolden the enemy. I'm sure they can see light at the end of the tunnel now, thanks in part to posts like many of yours. Our enemy now has a playbook they know works: be obscene and outlast us.

Again, if anyone in this stupid forum would ever bother to read it, Military Operations In Low Intensity Conflicts discusses these issues. From the section "Low Intensity Conflict Imperatives":

Quote:

# Political dominance.
# Legitimacy.
# Unity of effort.
# Perseverance.
# Adaptability.

Political Dominance

In LIC operations, political objectives drive military decisions at every level from the strategic to the tactical. All commanders and staff officers must understand these political objectives and the impact of military operations on them. They must adopt courses of action which legally support those objectives even if the courses of action appear to be unorthodox or outside what traditional doctrine had contemplated.

Unity of Effort

Military leaders must integrate their efforts with other governmental agencies to gain a mutual advantage in LIC. Military planners must consider how their actions contribute to initiatives which are also political, economic, and psychological in nature. Unity of effort calls for interagency integration and coordination to permit effective action within the framework of our governmental system. Commanders may answer to civilian chiefs or may themselves employ the resources of civilian agencies.

Adaptability

Adaptability is the skill and willingness to change or modify structures or methods to accommodate different situations. It requires careful mission analysis, comprehensive intelligence, and regional expertise. Adaptability is more than just tailoring or flexibility, both of which imply the use of the same techniques or structures in many different situations. Successful military operations in LIC will require the armed forces to use adaptability not only to modify existing methods and structures, but to develop new ones appropriate to each situation.

Legitimacy

Legitimacy is the willing acceptance of the right of a government to govern or of a group or agency to make and enforce decisions. Legitimacy is not tangible, nor easily quantifiable. Popular votes do not always confer or reflect legitimacy. Legitimacy derives from the perception that authority is genuine and effective and uses proper agencies for reasonable purposes. No group or force can create legitimacy for itself, but it can encourage and sustain legitimacy by its actions. Legitimacy is the central concern of all parties directly involved in a conflict. It is also important to other parties who may be involved even indirectly.

Perseverance

Low intensity conflicts rarely have a clear beginning or end marked by decisive actions culminating in victory. They are, by nature, protracted struggles. Even those short, sharp contingency encounters which do occur are better assessed in the context of their contribution to long-term objectives. Perseverance is the patient, resolute, persistent pursuit of national goals and objectives for as long as necessary to achieve them. Perseverance does not preclude taking decisive action. However, it does require careful informed analysis to select the right time and place for that action. While it is important to succeed, it is equally important to recognize that in the LIC environment success will generally not come easily or quickly. Developing an attitude of disciplined, focused perseverance will help commanders reject short-term successes in favor of actions which are designed to accomplish long-term goals.

Consider as objectively as possible how these imperatives have been attacked over the last three years. Especially "legitimacy". How often have you heard and/or repeated the notion that this war was "illegal", an oil grab, part of "Dick's" scheming, not truly linked to a strategic decision to democratize the region, starting with Saddam Hussein? Is there truly any basis ot these claims? Are they expressed in a responsible manner? Who may have started this discussion? Who benefits from the hyperbole?

Consider how domestic politics restrict "adaptability". Finally, consider why "perseverance" is so critical.

There is only one force on earth that can create the necessary conditions for victory in this conflict, specifically "perseverance", and that is American will. That was my point.

I recognize that not every protracted fight is a good fight. Sometimes it truly is necessary to cut bait and look for another angle. But in this situation I believe we are in a good fight, that pulling out would be disastrous for the people of Iraq and later for us, and that we need to stick with this.

The manual is a long, good, and important read for anyone who thinks we may be seeing more of this sort of fighting and wants to consider themselves an informed citizen.

Obi · 10-22-2006, 10:18 AM

Some people may be interested in this. It talks about plans for a change in strategy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...415689,00.html

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 12:23 PM

LOL That's the first time I've personally been accused of emboldening the enemy. As much as I'd like to think these posts in the sandbox have any significant effect on anything, I'm guessing these posts go unread by the Iraqi insurgents.

And that's a pretty myopic view dude, and what seems to be the tactic of last resort for many many war apologists: don't blame the failing war on poor planning (see "The Lost Year" Frontline, which aired last week), poor logistical support, poor intelligence, inadequate armor, having soldiers turn into policemen and jailers when they've never trained for that role, etc. Blame the failing war on people who have been pointing out those flaws.

The bottom line is we shouldn't be there in the first place, and the planning and execution of the conflict past the first three weeks has been grossly mishandled at the highest levels. The model of Rumsfeldian Military Transformation that worked reasonably well in Afghanistan (thanks in no small part to the part of the Northern Alliance) simply did not translate to Iraq. That is why we're losing the conflict there, not posts like this. 4,000 (and trending upward) insurgent attacks a month (usually IEDs) might have something to do with it too.

**leejo** · 10-22-2006, 12:44 PM

Eh that was a typo. I meant "the thoughts expressed in..." or something along those lines. No I don't think you're personally responsible for hooking the enemy up. I think you're collectively responsible.

Quote:

don't blame the failing war on poor planning (see "The Lost Year" Frontline, which aired last week), poor logistical support, poor intelligence, inadequate armor, having soldiers turn into policemen and jailers when they've never trained for that role, etc. Blame the failing war on people who have been pointing out those flaws.

This can be said of the war in Europe in late 1944. Read Citizen Soldiers for a pretty scathing indictment of upper command's decisions and failures in this area. These failures do not mean the effort isn't worthwhile or that matters would be improved by bailing. And, it's easy to armchair quarterback.

I disagree with your conclusions. I think we should be there, and since we ARE there anyway we should stick it out.

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 12:49 PM

Another great example of circular logic. We should be there because we're there. More soldiers should die because soldiers have died.

You mentioned worthwhile - I'd love to see a cost/benefit analysis of the war in Iraq. Or, really, any tangible benefits that we've acquired since going there. In my opinion we've essentially pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives for...what exactly?

Bommando · 10-22-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

And, it's easy to armchair quarterback.

must ... resist ...

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I think that you're really underestimating the degree with with public perception affects troop morale. Or that you're underestimating the degree to which troop morale affects their effectiveness.

How about the degree to which an ambiguous mission fighting an insurgency with no clear definition of success or any exit strategy affects morale?

Kerostasis · 10-22-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

And that's a pretty myopic view dude, and what seems to be the tactic of last resort for many many war apologists: don't blame the failing war on poor planning (see "The Lost Year" Frontline, which aired last week), poor logistical support, poor intelligence, inadequate armor, having soldiers turn into policemen and jailers when they've never trained for that role, etc. Blame the failing war on people who have been pointing out those flaws.

The bottom line is we shouldn't be there in the first place, and the planning and execution of the conflict past the first three weeks has been grossly mishandled at the highest levels. The model of Rumsfeldian Military Transformation that worked reasonably well in Afghanistan (thanks in no small part to the part of the Northern Alliance) simply did not translate to Iraq. That is why we're losing the conflict there, not posts like this. 4,000 (and trending upward) insurgent attacks a month (usually IEDs) might have something to do with it too.

You've got some pretty warped logic there, Beatnik. You want to criticize the tactical decisions on how to fight the war? Ok. You want to criticize the logistical support given to the war effort? By all means. But how do you translate that into saying that the war itself is pointless?

A war can be very poorly fought and still be very valuable to win. See World War One...perhaps one of the most poorly fought wars of all time. Over the Top Men!

So if you have suggestions on how better to acheive victory, by all means fire away. But if you merely want to suggest that because we've botched the job so far, that we shouldn't even TRY anymore, then you're going down the wrong path.

**CingularDuality** · 10-22-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

How about the degree to which an ambiguous mission fighting an insurgency with no clear definition of success or any exit strategy affects morale?

I don't know that it's an ambiguous mission. The definition of success/exit strategy depends on many variables, to be sure, but I think the world knows that our troops are there to help ensure a stable government is set up in Iraq.

**CingularDuality** · 10-22-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bommando

Just because members of the public don't agree with the reason the troops are there doesn't mean they don't support the efforts of the troops themselves. The anti-war sentiment doesn't necessarily equate to anti-troop sentiment. I believe the soldiers are smart enough to differentiate the two.

This sounds good in theory, but morale is an emotional thing. If the troops don't think that the American people are supporting their entire reason for being there, it hurts morale. This was a major factor in the Vietnam War, and I think it could become a major factor in this one.

**leejo** · 10-22-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik

Another great example of circular logic. We should be there because we're there. More soldiers should die because soldiers have died.

You mentioned worthwhile - I'd love to see a cost/benefit analysis of the war in Iraq. Or, really, any tangible benefits that we've acquired since going there. In my opinion we've essentially pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives for...what exactly?

No it's not circular logic. I think we should be there because I believe that ultimately success there will save millions of lives, and failure will take us another step toward a wider, and more total, war involving many countries and widespread brutal slaughter - cities levelled. You believe that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, apparently. It may be that you're right but it doesn't change the fact that failure there will have serious consequences. What do you see happening in the region after a US pull-out? How will it affect terror groups' recruiting? Will those groups be more or less inclined to pick fights in the USA, Europe, Australia, etc.?

I think it would be a disaster.

With regard to running cost/benefit analyses on war, this is how McNamera attempted to run the military in Vietnam. I think it's a bad idea.

I think it's perfectly fair to ask the questions you're asking, and of course you don't throw blood and treasure into a meat grinder forever without asking if there's another way to solve the problem. What I'm not getting is that anyone on the "pull out now" side of the argument is very serious about solving the problem. "Catch Bin Laden" isn't a strategy to win the GWOT, and in fact very many in your "camp" argue repeatedly that the GWOT is itself a work of fiction. The anti-Iraq drumbeat strikes me more as an expeditious strategy for returning Democrats to office than a serious attempt to improve our strategic position.

Isn't there any part of you that is determined to make the soldiers' wounds and death have been for something important? And don't you want to ensure that Zarqawi died for nothing? Doesn't the fact that your decisions fit precisely into Al Quada, et al's, strategy bother you?

10-22-2006, 10:18 AM	#36 (permalink)
Obi Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Scotland Age: 20 Posts: 2,065	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Some people may be interested in this. It talks about plans for a change in strategy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...415689,00.html __________________

10-22-2006, 12:23 PM	#37 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,312	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? LOL That's the first time I've personally been accused of emboldening the enemy. As much as I'd like to think these posts in the sandbox have any significant effect on anything, I'm guessing these posts go unread by the Iraqi insurgents. And that's a pretty myopic view dude, and what seems to be the tactic of last resort for many many war apologists: don't blame the failing war on poor planning (see "The Lost Year" Frontline, which aired last week), poor logistical support, poor intelligence, inadequate armor, having soldiers turn into policemen and jailers when they've never trained for that role, etc. Blame the failing war on people who have been pointing out those flaws. The bottom line is we shouldn't be there in the first place, and the planning and execution of the conflict past the first three weeks has been grossly mishandled at the highest levels. The model of Rumsfeldian Military Transformation that worked reasonably well in Afghanistan (thanks in no small part to the part of the Northern Alliance) simply did not translate to Iraq. That is why we're losing the conflict there, not posts like this. 4,000 (and trending upward) insurgent attacks a month (usually IEDs) might have something to do with it too. __________________ -F- Beatnik Last edited by Beatnik; 10-22-2006 at 12:41 PM.

10-22-2006, 12:49 PM	#39 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,312	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Another great example of circular logic. We should be there because we're there. More soldiers should die because soldiers have died. You mentioned worthwhile - I'd love to see a cost/benefit analysis of the war in Iraq. Or, really, any tangible benefits that we've acquired since going there. In my opinion we've essentially pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives for...what exactly? __________________ -F- Beatnik

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links