Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? - Page 5

Rick_the_new_guy · 10-23-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

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.

My thoughts exactly.

**leejo** · 10-23-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick_the_new_guy

My thoughts exactly.

That's kind of right. Partially correct.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...8412-2,00.html

Quote:

This guerrilla war, with women and children as collateral damage, is part of a broader military strategy to ensnare the U.S. in a larger East-West conflict. Roland Jacquard, president of the International Observatory on Terrorism in Paris, believes that bin Laden intended the Sept. 11 attack to be so "audacious, impudent and massively inhumane" as to ensure a "massive, inordinate" U.S. retaliation that would further inflame Muslim opinion against the U.S. and against the Arab regimes allied with Washington. Says Jacquard: "His design is to create sufficient instability to bring about Islamic revolution."

That and a U.S. retreat. Bin Laden has repeatedly described Americans as easily scared into submission. He cites the pullout of U.S. troops from Beirut after a 1983 truck bombing there killed 241 Marines, and the withdrawal from Somalia after 18 U.S. soldiers died there. He plainly thinks a large enough number of attacks will lead the U.S. to withdraw entirely from the Arab world and even fall apart as a nation. He connects the crumbling of the Soviet Union to Moscow's defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of local Muslim rebels he aided. In 1998, bin Laden told abc reporter John Miller, "There is a lesson here. We are certain that we shall prevail over the Americans and over the Jews...Instead of remaining united states, it shall end up separated states."

So it makes me sad to see how many of you are demanding this withdrawal.

xTYBALTx · 10-23-2006, 12:29 PM

Maybe if we just killed or captured Bin Laden this wouldn't be such an issue.

And, since Bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, were we similarly aiding him in those actions as well?

**leejo** · 10-23-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Maybe if we just killed or captured Bin Laden this wouldn't be such an issue.

And, since Bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, were we similarly aiding him in those actions as well?

Well, I guess we could have invaded France and Jamaica and thrown him totally off his game. Or done nothing. Haha UBL!!

I think we have to dig in our heels and see this through. I understand that many of you don't see it this way, and I doubt anyone is going to change your mind, or mine. But I do hope that someday the hyperbole about lying and torture and blood for oil, and all that will resolve into more mature and serious discussion. We have a real problem on our hands and pulling out of Iraq won't make it go away any more than pulling out of Beirut or Somolia made the problem go away. We have to deal with this and I'm waiting for a serious alternative to be presented.

xTYBALTx · 10-23-2006, 12:35 PM

Or invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

Or apprehended him?

Either of those options would've been pretty trick.

**leejo** · 10-23-2006, 12:51 PM

I doubt there's a person alive who supports the US interests who wouldn't like to catch or kill UBL. It's a question of allocating resources and priorities. Call my cynical, but I believe that the day UBL is caught or killed, the opposition party will be falling over itself to show how it really changes nothing. I don't buy this recent enthusiasm for placing 4 divisions (what IS the plan, anyway?) in Afghanistan in order to catch this man, who is probably not there anyway. Or wouldn't be if we sent that force in.

Catching UBL is a special forces job.

Going into Afghanistan but not Iraq is a decent scenario. But I do wonder how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for ignoring Iraq had he chosen that course of action. Remember, everyone was certain that he had WMDs, until he didn't.

And that doesn't solve the problem we face now. What are the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? What course of action best improves our position? If the only answer is "how about not going into Iraq in the first place?" then you've lost me. You say we're lost. You want to take the wheel. So you tell me, what's the plan?

Steeler · 10-23-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

But I do wonder how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for ignoring Iraq had he chosen that course of action. Remember, everyone was certain that he had WMDs, until he didn't.

None. Iraq was not an issue except for a few nutjobs like Cheney and Wolfowitz. WMDs only came up because they were a good conversation starter. And for the record, "everyone" was not certain. In fact, it was pretty flimsy. But we were told that we had to abide by some "1% doctrine" nonsense. It was an emotional appeal, not a rational one.

In any case, we are left with nothing but bad choices in Iraq, as most of the serious damage has already been done. Ideally, we need to suppress the violence, build infrastructure, and foment cooperation between the regional leaders. Philip Carter had an editorial in the NYT the other day explaining that this would require a level of ground-pounding and direct neighborhood intervention that we have shied away from. Read: it will take more casualties. It will take more troops and more equipment.

The biggest obstacle is the war between the militias. Disarming them in many cases means scattering the nascent army and police force, as their loyalties are local, not national. So you're talking about a second disbandment of the Iraqi army, allowing them to get absorbed into the militia network or even the insurgency.

Parallel to that, you need to get the power on. You need to get the populace invested in the national government. They need to trust their elected officials. If they don't (and they have little reason to right now), the country will fracture. Right now, the police/militias are dragging people out of hospital beds in the middle of Baghdad, a city we are supposed to control, and shooting them in the hallways. How can you have faith in society in the face of that?

Also parallel to those two things, you have to get the parliament to get off its ass and govern - hard to do when many of them live overseas to escape the violence.

Now, I don't know tactically how you might go about any of this. If we want to commit a million troops we might be able to strongarm it. Curfew, snipers on every rooftop, an installed government in every city backed by US force. Not an effective long term strategy, and 2 steps down from Baathist Saddam. almost destined for open revolt. Partition, then? Instant civil war. Stay the Course? More of the same, break the army, and a gradual degradation into the aforementioned civil war.

Or get out, and let the Iraqis sort themselves out. Also a bad, bloody choice. So what sounds good to you?

xTYBALTx · 10-23-2006, 02:05 PM

This isn't a partisan issue for me. And I certainly don't want to take the wheel. Nor am I someone who recently became interested in putting four divisions in Afghanistan - that was something I felt we should have done from the get-go. Afghanistan need not be a special forces operation - we lost conventional battles on the ground there specifically because of this mistake. The war on terror should never have had it's focus changed from Bin Laden, Al Queda (and friends), and Afghanistan.

I certainly couldn't care less how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for not going into Iraq. Why would I care about that? Why is that relevant?

If the only apparent solution to a problem is "we shouldn't have gone down this road in the first place," then I don't see why I am at fault for that. I can not find any good solution to our situation. If you have any then I'm all ears.

**CingularDuality** · 10-23-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

None. Iraq was not an issue except for a few nutjobs like Cheney and Wolfowitz. WMDs only came up because they were a good conversation starter. And for the record, "everyone" was not certain. In fact, it was pretty flimsy.

OK, "for the record", can you name an intelligence agency from anywhere in the world that said that they didn't think Iraq had WMDs?

Steeler · 10-23-2006, 02:48 PM

Intelligence agencies aren't "everyone." Nor entirely reliable at this point. Let's not have this Sandbox dicussion again. What do you think of the rest of my post? What decision do you think we should make, tactically or strategically?

TheFatKidDeath · 10-23-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I doubt there's a person alive who supports the US interests who wouldn't like to catch or kill UBL. It's a question of allocating resources and priorities. Call my cynical, but I believe that the day UBL is caught or killed, the opposition party will be falling over itself to show how it really changes nothing. I don't buy this recent enthusiasm for placing 4 divisions (what IS the plan, anyway?) in Afghanistan in order to catch this man, who is probably not there anyway. Or wouldn't be if we sent that force in.

Catching UBL is a special forces job.

Going into Afghanistan but not Iraq is a decent scenario. But I do wonder how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for ignoring Iraq had he chosen that course of action. Remember, everyone was certain that he had WMDs, until he didn't.

And that doesn't solve the problem we face now. What are the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? What course of action best improves our position? If the only answer is "how about not going into Iraq in the first place?" then you've lost me. You say we're lost. You want to take the wheel. So you tell me, what's the plan?

What's the plan?

Load the troops and equipment onto airplanes and fly them immediately out of Iraq. Reposition the troops and equipment to bases outside of Iraq.

What are the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq?

It's going to be a disaster. But guess what? It's going to be MORE of a disaster if we stay. The US occupation is fueling the violence and our troops are now simply bystanders to a civil war. The US will withdrawl from Iraq, it's only a question of when.

**leejo** · 10-23-2006, 04:34 PM

You're incoherent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

The US occupation is fueling the violence and our troops are now simply bystanders to a civil war.

Well which is it? Our presence in Iraq is fueling a civil war? People are so mad at us that they shoot each other?

Of course this rhetoric completely dooms the people in Darfur. They're totally on their own. And the next victims of genocide will have to tough it out. A bit more spine or a little less hatred of GWB might have saved millions, as dictators became more, instead of less, fearful of a real, sustained, military response to their crimes. The next Momar Khadafi will surely have little reason to abandon his nuclear weapons' pursuits thanks to rhetoric like this.

How to defeat the USA? Scatter. Then snipe, and blow things up. Whenever possible, kill as many of your countrymen as brutally as possible. Say it's because the military makes you angry. Post nutty ideas on college web sites. Say it enough times and people will think it's true. Wait a few years for the "are we there yet?" crowd to get really pissed that we aren't there yet. Voila. Victory.

Bommando · 10-23-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

You're incoherent.

For someone who gets all huffy when I take my 'arrogant' and 'rude' tone in response to your posts, the above statement does little to gain you respect.

While I see nothing wrong with saying an argument makes no sense, this kind of statement oversteps the line between typical Sandbox jabbing and outright hostility.

**leejo** · 10-23-2006, 04:52 PM

(in·co·her·ent) (in²ko-h[emacr]r¢[schwa]nt) [in- 2 + cohaerere to cling together] without proper sequence; incongruous.

I meant precisely that. I have noticed that you only chime in when you feel able to take a quick potshot at me. I continue to try to have a respectful conversation with you. For some reason.

SmokingTarpan · 10-23-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Well which is it? Our presence in Iraq is fueling a civil war? People are so mad at us that they shoot each other?

Our presence induced civil war. We toppled the group that held the country together via force. Now there's nothing there to keep the infighting down. They'll fight each other due to hate now that there's no one to tell them no, and they'll fight us for being the outside influence/destablizing force. Whether we stay or leave, the civil war remains. I see no reason to lose American lives to intervene in a civil war, even one we caused. I would hope that we learn enough about our big arrogant boo-boo here to never do it again in the future. Sadly, I think that's too much to ask.

As to the genocide comments, again, I'll refer you to any number of crappy countries in Africa. If our mission as world police is so important, why aren't we in those countries as well?

10-23-2006, 12:29 PM	#63 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,852	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Maybe if we just killed or captured Bin Laden this wouldn't be such an issue. And, since Bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, were we similarly aiding him in those actions as well? __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

10-23-2006, 12:35 PM	#65 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,852	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Or invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq? Or apprehended him? Either of those options would've been pretty trick. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

10-23-2006, 12:51 PM	#66 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,709	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? I doubt there's a person alive who supports the US interests who wouldn't like to catch or kill UBL. It's a question of allocating resources and priorities. Call my cynical, but I believe that the day UBL is caught or killed, the opposition party will be falling over itself to show how it really changes nothing. I don't buy this recent enthusiasm for placing 4 divisions (what IS the plan, anyway?) in Afghanistan in order to catch this man, who is probably not there anyway. Or wouldn't be if we sent that force in. Catching UBL is a special forces job. Going into Afghanistan but not Iraq is a decent scenario. But I do wonder how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for ignoring Iraq had he chosen that course of action. Remember, everyone was certain that he had WMDs, until he didn't. And that doesn't solve the problem we face now. What are the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq? What course of action best improves our position? If the only answer is "how about not going into Iraq in the first place?" then you've lost me. You say we're lost. You want to take the wheel. So you tell me, what's the plan?

10-23-2006, 02:05 PM	#68 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,852	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? This isn't a partisan issue for me. And I certainly don't want to take the wheel. Nor am I someone who recently became interested in putting four divisions in Afghanistan - that was something I felt we should have done from the get-go. Afghanistan need not be a special forces operation - we lost conventional battles on the ground there specifically because of this mistake. The war on terror should never have had it's focus changed from Bin Laden, Al Queda (and friends), and Afghanistan. I certainly couldn't care less how many times Bush would have been flogged by the left for not going into Iraq. Why would I care about that? Why is that relevant? If the only apparent solution to a problem is "we shouldn't have gone down this road in the first place," then I don't see why I am at fault for that. I can not find any good solution to our situation. If you have any then I'm all ears. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

10-23-2006, 02:48 PM	#70 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? Intelligence agencies aren't "everyone." Nor entirely reliable at this point. Let's not have this Sandbox dicussion again. What do you think of the rest of my post? What decision do you think we should make, tactically or strategically? __________________

10-23-2006, 04:52 PM	#74 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,709	Re: Not a good sign. Why are we there, again? (in·co·her·ent) (in²ko-h[emacr]r¢[schwa]nt) [in- 2 + cohaerere to cling together] without proper sequence; incongruous. I meant precisely that. I have noticed that you only chime in when you feel able to take a quick potshot at me. I continue to try to have a respectful conversation with you. For some reason.

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Taking the leap... first PC build	Mirfee	Hardware & Software Discussion	37	07-02-2006 08:25 PM
Tac Mod June 05 2006	Rick_the_new_guy	Battlefield 2 - After Action Reports	7	06-05-2006 09:20 PM
good news becomes bad news	leejo	The Sandbox	1	10-14-2004 05:17 PM
Good times...good times...	TG_JBRanger	Joint Operations - General Discussion	5	09-24-2004 11:53 AM
Wow stress test sign up	Polska	General Discussion	45	09-12-2004 06:31 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links