Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

    Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

    The Feds are using a phrase that goes a little something like this: “At this point it is all in the Iraqi people’s hands. We can only do so much for these people.” This makes me believe that US policy is not to blame.

    My question is: Do you believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a complete failure and that the US Feds would have to take full responsibility for the failure, if Civil War were to bring the country to Chaos. Or do you believe that US did all that they could do, but the Iraqi people were the X factor that ruined everything by not trying hard enough.

    I believe this is 100% failure by the Feds. A project was started, it was not finished. Therefore it failed to be completed. The faction that started the project is responsible for the failure.

    When taking upon a task, one most have a good handle on all the variables. Anticipating that the US would be seen as liberators was the variable that US foreign policy dropped the ball on and has made this operation compromised from the beginning.

    What is your answer?
    (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:
    Squad Leader pledge to their team:
    Commander pledge to their SL:

  • #2
    Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

    I think that it's very possible to take on a task that fails through no fault of the initiator.

    But I know that mistakes have been made in Iraq.

    But how do we define whether or not our actions are a failure? What would the region look like if we never touched Iraq? What if we went there a year later? What if Iran invaded Iraq? What if we caught Bin Laden in Pakistan?

    There are a billion ways that things could have gone. If everything was a sure thing, we'd have no need for leaders.
    Become a supporting member!
    Buy a Tactical Duck!
    Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
    TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

      Our government has done a particularly pathetic job at maintaining security in Iraq. However, this is more of an issue of their ignorance and US politics than any theory of a deliberate intention to ruin the country. They believed that the Shiites would be able to hold back their anger and last out against a Sunni insurgency that indeed is weakening. What the U.S. did not predict (pathetically, in my opinion) was that the Shiites could hold out for as long as they had. We lowered our own troop patrols in places like Baghdad, probably as the result of a political aim of minimalizing casualties. This is particularly ironic, because as a result of this attempt to save our own skilled troops the Shiites were the ones who became victimized.

      Now what has happened is that the Shiite people are finally striking back in their rage. While I can't say if this will lead to civil war, I can say that things shouldn't have had to go this way in the first place. There is too much anger now, and as a result the people who lose a loved one can no longer say "I will take it so I can bring peace" they will say "I am sick and tired of this, I am going to go and make them suffer". They suffered through hell for too long, and since no one can deal with hell forever this had to happen. Our government expected the Shiites to put national unity above their own pain, which can only last so long. We should have been stricter, we should have been as rigid as the Israeli's with the Palestinians to every person in contested regions. More checkpoints, more patrols, random vehicle inspections, random individual inspections, random raids on suspicious installations, more interaction between our soldiers and the people (translators?), and more information gathering.

      If more American troops had to die...well I think we are more likely to lose even more now that this have gotten so unstable from what was a plan to SAVE their lives by putting the burden on an already suffering people. We should have mimicked the Israel strategy, because the difference would have been that rigid restriction for a few years would have resulted in a safer country and, much unlike Israel, we would have been able to leave them to have the country that is rightfully their own.
      -Zephyr
      You were once like the newbie who needed a hand from above and TacticalGamer gave you it.

      You owe the newbie who comes after you that same outstretched hand from above on your honor as a Tactical Gamer.

      Tactics at TG come from trust and friendship, not meticulous detail and rigid discipline.

      Everyone should be assumed mature until proven otherwise.

      We are no clan.
      We are not a single game.
      We are mature, intelligent, and cooperative individuals.
      We are TacticalGamer, a community above and beyond its name.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

        This is what happens when you change end goals mid-stride in your conflict without a plan to actually do anything. Switching from finding and destroying WMD's to "liberation" on the fly smells of an excuse to stay in the country. That's all well and good if there had been a plan to deal with this beforehand, but this scenario is a prime example of the "well crap, what now?" ending.

        I'm also of the firm belief that you can't just give people freedom and peace, they have to want it. I don't believe that the Iraqi people want either of those things. Had a civil war erupted first and we decided to intervene on the side of "good", there's the possibility I could have been okay with that (though I'm rather firm on the stance that we should never intervene in a civil war). Instead, we show up, knock out the only power structure that's held together these fighting clans reasonably well, and declare them free. Now we get to sit back and watch the civil war that we initiated.

        Personally, I say we pull out our troops, let the sides duke it out and deal with the winner. The only other option is to send more troops in and conquer/occupy the country, setting up a puppet government. We really need to quit toppling governments, it doesn't work out so well.
        [squadl]
        "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

          Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
          Personally, I say we pull out our troops, let the sides duke it out and deal with the winner. The only other option is to send more troops in and conquer/occupy the country, setting up a puppet government. We really need to quit toppling governments, it doesn't work out so well.
          And if the winner is just as bad or worse than the jerk who was removed, then what do you do?

          I agree with the sentiment though. In an environment like that, where brutal dictatorship is the only thing preventing civil war, you can't expect to be able to control things unless you install your own equally brutal dictator. The only thing which can resolve the problem is war among themselves. Unfortunately, there are neighboring countries who want Iraq back the way it was, and they are contributing whatever they can to help that happen.
          Peace through fear... since 1947!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

            Just for argument's sake, is civil war always bad? Should the UN come running everytime two factions start shooting each other?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

              Originally posted by icky
              And if the winner is just as bad or worse than the jerk who was removed, then what do you do?
              Deal with it? Heh, there are lots of people we don't like that are in control of countries (N. Korea, to name one), yet we don't just march in there and start a war. At some point you have to decide to either accept who's in power and deal with it as best you can, or conquer the world. We see how well conquering the world worked for Rome, Germany and other empires.

              We don't have a very good track record when it comes to securing peace by toppling a government/dictator. Unfortunately, we have an even worse track record when it comes to realizing that.
              [squadl]
              "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                I wasn't saying anything otherwise. I was just wondering what your opinion was.
                Peace through fear... since 1947!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                  Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
                  We see how well conquering the world worked for Rome, Germany and other empires.
                  The Roman Empire lasted, what? 2000 years? That's pretty damn good for a "global" empire. America will be lucky to last half that.

                  Before you can ask if we succeeded or failed, you have to know what our objective was going into the war.

                  Was it to find WMDs? If so, we failed (even though I'm pretty sure Sadaam took the 15 years he had to get rid of them).
                  Was it to remove Sadaam? If so, then we succeeded.
                  Was it to liberate the Iraqi people? If so, then we're in a huge gray area.

                  What I do know is that American (and British, Canadian, and Australian) soldiers are dieing and we can't even come up with an answer on what we're truely trying to accomplish. Iraq has been one pathetic "moving the goalpost" attempt by the Bush administration. If it looks like we aren't going to accomplish one goal, then say we're ACTUALLY trying to accomplish another, then claim that's the goal we were always working for.

                  Looks like Bush tried to speed read 1984. And with his reading comprehension.... man... I just don't know if I'm being sarcastic anymore...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                    Originally posted by leejo
                    Just for argument's sake, is civil war always bad? Should the UN come running everytime two factions start shooting each other?
                    I don't believe they should, actually. Civil war can be both good and bad, but regardless, I don't think that outside influences have any business sticking their hand into the pot. Civil wars should be factions within a country deciding the future of the entire country, not Powerhouse X pushing their agenda by helping one side or another to win. I don't think we would have appreciated it if a foreign country sent in troops to help the South in our civil war.
                    [squadl]
                    "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                      Originally posted by SmokingTarpan
                      I don't believe they should, actually. Civil war can be both good and bad, but regardless, I don't think that outside influences have any business sticking their hand into the pot. Civil wars should be factions within a country deciding the future of the entire country, not Powerhouse X pushing their agenda by helping one side or another to win.
                      America (among other "powerhouses") does that all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how Sadaam got into power in the first place?

                      I don't think we would have appreciated it if a foreign country sent in troops to help the South in our civil war.
                      Hence why Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation when he did. Britain wasn't about to help the side that supported slavery.

                      But I'm sure the SOUTH would have appreciated the help.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                        The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years tops, and was not by any stretch a global empire. It principally dominated the Mediterranean area, with brief and light control over non-mediterranean England.

                        Map.


                        *Map link fixed
                        A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

                        "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                          Originally posted by TheFeniX
                          Hence why Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation when he did. Britain wasn't about to help the side that supported slavery.

                          But I'm sure the SOUTH would have appreciated the help.
                          The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in revolting states only. Slaves held in Union states were excluded from the Emancipation Prcolomation.

                          Originally posted by Wikiality
                          Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Specific exemptions were stated for West Virginia, and also for New Orleans and nearby areas already under Union control.
                          A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

                          "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                            I forgot what I was going to say.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom Question:

                              Originally posted by xTYBALTx
                              The Emancipation Proclomation freed slaves in revolting states only.
                              Yeah well I don't think so much of California either. :row__536:

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X