Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? - Page 4

Private Book · 10-22-2006, 05:10 PM

You'll have to forgive my not being up on the lingo. I havent been to forums on this subject lately. What’s the GWOT? I know I've seen that somewhere else. Does that stand for the Great? Great war on terror? Grand? General? I mean I can't believe someone may have added the word "Great" to "war on terror" and that doesn’t raise any alarm bells. That doesn’t make people think there’s a bit of melodrama going on? I wouldn’t use the word fiction but melodrama yeah, especially if someone’s actually calling it the "Great" war on terror. That can't be what the stay the course folks are calling it is it?

Personally I think there’s 30% of the country who think we ARE re-fighting Vietnam and damn it this time the hippies aren’t going to stop them! Hell Woodward says Kissinger is a full time consultant in the white house now.

Leejo I’ve read "low intensity conflict" and there are a lot of reasons why it doesn’t apply well. Most importantly that this hasn’t been a low intensity conflict for two years now unless maybe your thinking native insurgency IS a low intensity conflict? (someone mentioned that a percentage of the fighters in Iraq are foreign but less then ten percent are foreign fighters) I think they are different animals. I'll pull it off the shelves tomorrow though because you got me curious about it again.

**CingularDuality** · 10-22-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Book

You'll have to forgive my not being up on the lingo. I havent been to forums on this subject lately. What’s the GWOT? I know I've seen that somewhere else. Does that stand for the Great? Great war on terror? Grand? General? I mean I can't believe someone may have added the word "Great" to "war on terror" and that doesn’t raise any alarm bells. That doesn’t make people think there’s a bit of melodrama going on? I wouldn’t use the word fiction but melodrama yeah, especially if someone’s actually calling it the "Great" war on terror. That can't be what the stay the course folks are calling it is it?

Global. Global war on terror.

**Rincewind** · 10-22-2006, 08:49 PM

Shoot. I could have swore it stood for Gigantosaurus-rex.

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You've got some pretty warped logic there, Beatnik.

I don't see where I made any logical assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

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.

Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of "going down the wrong path".

My suggestion is not that we don't try anymore. It's that there needs to be a significant shift in the brilliant "Stay the Course" (???) strategy. All relevant indicators of the conflict there are trending downward, and have been for over two years now. This requires a change. Preferrably Rumsfeld's resignation, but of course loyalty is valued more than competence in this administration so that won't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

No it's not circular logic. I think we should be there because I believe that ultimately success there will save millions of lives...

What millions of lives are going to be saved by our success there? The number of dead is climbing daily over there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

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.?

Multiple studies/reports have shown that this war has drastically increased terrorist recruiting (remember the 'cause celebre' in the Intelligence report a couple weeks ago?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

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.

First - I'm not on the "pull out now" side. Second - Please don't assume you know what camp I'm in, or assign their arguments to me. I don't advocate a "pull out now" strategy (necessarily), and I don't assert that the GWOT is a work of fiction (I don't even know what that means). I am not a democrat, although I have voted democratic. I've been disgusted with the democratic party for the last, say 3 years now for letting this war happen in the first place, and do not identify myself as a Democrat. Just because I oppose the current administration doesn't make me a partisan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

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?

I'm not going to respond to these appeals to emotion. But I will say that I believe that Bush's decisions are fitting precisely intp Al Qaeda's strategy. Look at the success they're having in recruitment. After Afghanistan (the proper first battle in the GWOT), Al Qaeda's position was severely weakend. Now, it's arguably stronger than ever. And the U.S. is caught embroiled in a quagmire in Iraq while the truly significant threats (N. Vietnam and Iran) are exploiting our weakened position.

**leejo** · 10-22-2006, 09:19 PM

I'm not assuming anything about you, bra.

But it's a fact that positions like these are a team sport: if you advocate against remaining in Iraq you tacitly support the "pull out now" crowd. If you advocate something in between, it's up to you to articulate carefully where you stand. Right?

To his credit, President Bush has more or less clearly articulated his strategy. If anyone wishes to be taken seriously I think it's important to articulate a clear alternative instead of mere criticism. That's armchair quarterbacking. Offering an alternative strategy is more serious. That's why the "pull out now" crowd are lacking. What do you propose?

Beatnik · 10-22-2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'm not assuming anything about you, bra.

But it's a fact that positions like these are a team sport: if you advocate against remaining in Iraq you tacitly support the "pull out now" crowd. If you advocate something in between, it's up to you to articulate carefully where you stand. Right?

To his credit, President Bush has more or less clearly articulated his strategy. If anyone wishes to be taken seriously I think it's important to articulate a clear alternative instead of mere criticism. That's armchair quarterbacking. Offering an alternative strategy is more serious. That's why the "pull out now" crowd are lacking. What do you propose?

I've clearly articulated my points already. Citing the very many examples of what's going wrong in Iraq while not a single significant strategy has changed is not armchair quarterbacking. It's citing evidence to advocate for change.

What do I propose? A significant change in leadership. Starting with Rumsfeld, and ending in two years with anyone but a Republican.

**Rincewind** · 10-22-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If you advocate something in between, it's up to you to articulate carefully where you stand. Right?

Not necessarily. Just if you don't you'll have your position filled in for you.

**leejo** · 10-22-2006, 09:44 PM

Fair enough. I'll vote my way and you vote yours.

Be careful what you wish for.

SmokingTarpan · 10-22-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Offering an alternative strategy is more serious. That's why the "pull out now" crowd are lacking. What do you propose?

I'm actually one of the "pull out now" (PON) crowd. First, my reasons for being in the crowd:

1. Never should have gone there in the first place.
2. War started on a false premise as presented to the public.
3. We don't need to be the world's police, deciding who gets to do what.
4. Other countries (see N. Korea, any number of countries in Africa) had similar or more pressing genocide/posturing/threatening activities going on, but we didn't invade them. Why?

Possible PON solutions:

1. Break the country into several smaller countries, ensuring that each manages to get an equal share of oil revenue and industrial support. None of these groups is allowed in OPEC.
2. Withdraw troops completely, set up borders akin to post-Somalia/Vietnam conflict, though more serious. Total embargo on all goods, aid and travel.
3. Build a wall around the entire area, let them fight each other like they desire. (unrealistic)
4. Withdraw troops to strategic positions to prevent spill-over into other countries, then let the civil war that's brewing boil over. Deal with the new government when it forms, if it forms.

The problem as I see it in Iraq: You have a bunch of, for lack of a better word, tribes. They each have their own bit of autonomy, and aren't willing to give it up. What we're doing is akin to someone attempting to get the US, China, Spain, France and Cuba to give up their independence and become one country under one rule. That's just not going to happen through talk and diplomacy; no one willingly gives up their autonomy at the drop of a hat. How does it happen? Force. One group asserts forceful dominance over the others until those others have no option left but to submit to the will of the conqueror or be wiped out completely.

An outside force cannot help in this and hope to add to the legitimacy of the winner. All those who lost will harbor the thought of "they couldn't do it on their own" that will eventually lead to an insurgency or outright rebellion. For this reason alone I'd be willing to bet real money that anyone the US puts in power in Iraq will be overthrown via coup d’État shortly after we leave.

I believe that what we're witnessing now is a US-induced Iraqi civil war. We took someone that had essentially been holding the tribes together through force and displaced him. Now, there's no one strong figure holding these different groups together. They'll continue to fight each other, and us, until there is a clear winner.

I believe that our troops are fighting and dying for nothing. I believe they were lied to in the beginning, and continue to be lied to daily by the administration. I want them home, now, safe with their families. I don't believe the Iraqi people care what we're presenting to them, nor do they want it. I believe that our presence in the region has done nothing other than antogonize the groups that already hate us even more, and embolden them to do greater harm. Instead of making them work their butts off for a slim chance to strike a target thousands of miles away, we have given them great chance to simultaneously strike thousands of targets one mile away (soldiers) and thousands of miles away (families, communities of said soldiers).

People feared the worse when we pulled out of Vietnam, and it didn't happen. I believe this is no different. While I may not have the best, most ready solution to the problem at hand, one thing remains clear to me: our current attitude and plan is not working, and needs to change very fast.

xTYBALTx · 10-22-2006, 11:52 PM

So does this mean that we're not the greatest generation?

**CingularDuality** · 10-23-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I believe that our troops are fighting and dying for nothing. I believe they were lied to in the beginning, and continue to be lied to daily by the administration. I want them home, now, safe with their families. I don't believe the Iraqi people care what we're presenting to them, nor do they want it. I believe that our presence in the region has done nothing other than antogonize the groups that already hate us even more, and embolden them to do greater harm. Instead of making them work their butts off for a slim chance to strike a target thousands of miles away, we have given them great chance to simultaneously strike thousands of targets one mile away (soldiers) and thousands of miles away (families, communities of said soldiers).

People feared the worse when we pulled out of Vietnam, and it didn't happen. I believe this is no different. While I may not have the best, most ready solution to the problem at hand, one thing remains clear to me: our current attitude and plan is not working, and needs to change very fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

So does this mean that we're not the greatest generation?

This is something to consider. The United States has won battles simply because we intimidated the enemy. The bravery of our troops in WWII paved the way for much easier victories in some battles later on, sometimes the with the enemy surrendering before a single shot was fired...

Now, we'll have the opposite problem. Everyone will look at the United States and say, "See... A handful of terrorist insurgents beat them down!", and we'll lose some of the advantage of intimidation on the battlefield (as well as in diplomatic circles).

I'm not saying that the decision should be made on this consideration, I'm just pointing it out...

Bommando · 10-23-2006, 05:32 AM

Since it's Beatnik's fault that troop morale is low, I propose we send him to Iraq and have him jump out of a cake like Erika Eleniak in Under Siege.

Rick_the_new_guy · 10-23-2006, 09:03 AM

Been gone for two days, so this post is really late.
this post is not dirctly at anyone from what they said early.

With reagards to the Tet offensive, I'll add that the North Vietnamese Army in its prime was a sick awsome force. And to boot, they had a civilian supplemental force (Victor Charles) that could get the job done also.

There is no way Iraq will have anything compared to Tet. Granted the enemy is organized well, but they are not all that mechanized. As someone posted earlier, the numbers are not there, and I believe the ability to get the pockets of resistance together in a mechanized manner cannot be done like the communist forces did in early 1968.

Sadly, the enemy the colition forces are seeing in Iraq is 100% cloak and dagger; As we all know all to well. It is big time civilian doing big time damage.

The best way to handle this is to take away the rebels/insurgents/terrist/bad guys/ support and civilan backing.

IMO, U.S.A. was the worst country to go into this Operation becuase the ability to presuade the civilian peps to not support the rebels would be the weakeast. To put it simlpy, they don't like us.

I remember, standing in the Physical Therapist outpatient clinic during my internship back in the spring of 2004 and seeing the Abu Grab stuff on the T.V. I thought, that did it, were done for.
That incident cost the colition big time when it came to slowing down recruitment and civilain rebel support.

The sad thing is that no matter how you look at it, this is going to get worse before it gets better.

Hopfully just like in Indochina 40 years after the Conflict (never legally a war) things will be a lot better now than then.

Steeler · 10-23-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Doesn't the fact that your decisions fit precisely into Al Quada, et al's, strategy bother you?

Bin Laden wanted a direct confrontation with the West that would rally the region under an Islamic banner and sweep to a decisive victory for fundamentalism. That pan-Arab armed apocalypse that you are so worried about. In that regard, the Iraq War (win or lose) fits perfectly into their strategy. Afghanistan wasn't a big enough rallying point, but Iraq is. We took the bait.

As for playing the blame game, you can see it starting among the war's cheerleaders: it's a crisis of national character, a lack of willpower, a media conspiracy, the fault of liberal weakness, an unwillingness to "get tough." Bull. The administration screwed up. They deposed a regime without understanding the strong underlying conflicts among the populace. They intended to install a democracy, but democracy isn't elections, it's based on a network of trustworthy institutions and reliable infrastructure. They appointed Republican party flacks to run critical government services. The power went out. The water ran foul. The oil slowed to a trickle. And they were incapable of stopping the lawlessness and the rise of the insurgency. Then the new Iraqi government came in and demonstrated a level of corruption that would make Jack Abramoff blush.

Americans kick down your door demanding that you turn in your neighbors. Robed figures order you to cover your women and stop watching soccer in your storefront. And the police rove the streets at night kidnapping and murdering people because they revere the wrong holy man. At what point does the average Iraqi start to think that maybe the US didn't do him no favors? And that's how you lose a fourth generational war.

SmokingTarpan · 10-23-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

This is something to consider. The United States has won battles simply because we intimidated the enemy. The bravery of our troops in WWII paved the way for much easier victories in some battles later on, sometimes the with the enemy surrendering before a single shot was fired...

Now, we'll have the opposite problem. Everyone will look at the United States and say, "See... A handful of terrorist insurgents beat them down!", and we'll lose some of the advantage of intimidation on the battlefield (as well as in diplomatic circles).

While I don't argue our soldiers' bravery, I've always thought that it was mainly our level of technology that was responsible for the majority of the intimidation. Granted, no one wants a crazy marine after them, but even more, no one wants a crazy marine that can kill you from miles away after them. Unfortunately, this time our enemy has figured out how to do the same thing we have been so good at: kill people without having an open battle. Roadside bombs, snipers, cloak and dagger maneuvers; tactics (in general) that we're not so used to fighting.

We've lost conflicts before in recent history (or at least were unable to win them), and we weren't brought down in power. Problem is that in the majority of those conflicts, we were either the defender or coming to someone else's aid. The American people readily rally behind their troops when the cause is a just defense of an ally. Here, however, there is absolutely no question that we are the aggressor. We were not asked to help one side or another in a conflict, we simply invaded and thought that the Iraqi people would welcome essentially being conquered. Now we're seeing the downfall of being arrogant and wrong.

10-22-2006, 05:10 PM	#46 (permalink)
Private Book Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: California Posts: 77	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? You'll have to forgive my not being up on the lingo. I havent been to forums on this subject lately. What’s the GWOT? I know I've seen that somewhere else. Does that stand for the Great? Great war on terror? Grand? General? I mean I can't believe someone may have added the word "Great" to "war on terror" and that doesn’t raise any alarm bells. That doesn’t make people think there’s a bit of melodrama going on? I wouldn’t use the word fiction but melodrama yeah, especially if someone’s actually calling it the "Great" war on terror. That can't be what the stay the course folks are calling it is it? Personally I think there’s 30% of the country who think we ARE re-fighting Vietnam and damn it this time the hippies aren’t going to stop them! Hell Woodward says Kissinger is a full time consultant in the white house now. Leejo I’ve read "low intensity conflict" and there are a lot of reasons why it doesn’t apply well. Most importantly that this hasn’t been a low intensity conflict for two years now unless maybe your thinking native insurgency IS a low intensity conflict? (someone mentioned that a percentage of the fighters in Iraq are foreign but less then ten percent are foreign fighters) I think they are different animals. I'll pull it off the shelves tomorrow though because you got me curious about it again. __________________

10-22-2006, 08:49 PM	#48 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,783	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Shoot. I could have swore it stood for Gigantosaurus-rex. __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

10-22-2006, 09:19 PM	#50 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,669	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? I'm not assuming anything about you, bra. But it's a fact that positions like these are a team sport: if you advocate against remaining in Iraq you tacitly support the "pull out now" crowd. If you advocate something in between, it's up to you to articulate carefully where you stand. Right? To his credit, President Bush has more or less clearly articulated his strategy. If anyone wishes to be taken seriously I think it's important to articulate a clear alternative instead of mere criticism. That's armchair quarterbacking. Offering an alternative strategy is more serious. That's why the "pull out now" crowd are lacking. What do you propose?

10-22-2006, 09:44 PM	#53 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,669	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Fair enough. I'll vote my way and you vote yours. Be careful what you wish for.

10-22-2006, 11:52 PM	#55 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,833	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? So does this mean that we're not the greatest generation? __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West." Last edited by xTYBALTx; 10-23-2006 at 12:08 AM.

10-23-2006, 05:32 AM	#57 (permalink)
Bommando Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Age: 30 Posts: 4,294	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Since it's Beatnik's fault that troop morale is low, I propose we send him to Iraq and have him jump out of a cake like Erika Eleniak in Under Siege.

10-23-2006, 09:03 AM	#58 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Been gone for two days, so this post is really late. this post is not dirctly at anyone from what they said early. With reagards to the Tet offensive, I'll add that the North Vietnamese Army in its prime was a sick awsome force. And to boot, they had a civilian supplemental force (Victor Charles) that could get the job done also. There is no way Iraq will have anything compared to Tet. Granted the enemy is organized well, but they are not all that mechanized. As someone posted earlier, the numbers are not there, and I believe the ability to get the pockets of resistance together in a mechanized manner cannot be done like the communist forces did in early 1968. Sadly, the enemy the colition forces are seeing in Iraq is 100% cloak and dagger; As we all know all to well. It is big time civilian doing big time damage. The best way to handle this is to take away the rebels/insurgents/terrist/bad guys/ support and civilan backing. IMO, U.S.A. was the worst country to go into this Operation becuase the ability to presuade the civilian peps to not support the rebels would be the weakeast. To put it simlpy, they don't like us. I remember, standing in the Physical Therapist outpatient clinic during my internship back in the spring of 2004 and seeing the Abu Grab stuff on the T.V. I thought, that did it, were done for. That incident cost the colition big time when it came to slowing down recruitment and civilain rebel support. The sad thing is that no matter how you look at it, this is going to get worse before it gets better. Hopfully just like in Indochina 40 years after the Conflict (never legally a war) things will be a lot better now than then. __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html Last edited by Rick_the_new_guy; 10-23-2006 at 09:31 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links