You can quote meaningless numbers and casualty stats and journalists’ after-action reports on battles in Iraq, most of that stuff is ultimately completely irrelevant. Way too many people around here seem to have a tough time understanding that guerilla/Fourth Generation/low intensity/irregular warfare is fundamentally different from WWII etc. The battle is FOR the people, not against them. Even the most hawkish keyboard warrior on here will admit that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, we will leave.
No one has ever heard the famous exchange in Hanoi in 1975?
Colonel Summers (USA): “You know you never beat us on the battlefield.”
Colonel Tu (NVA): “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant.”
A political solution in Iraq outweighs any military progress there. I’m not saying we should be leaving. Though Anthony Cordesman’s “The Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq” makes much more sense, and is much more nuanced, than the O’Hanlon hyperbole. But if political progress isn’t made, all the “surges” in the world won’t make a difference.
[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
quote: “The U.S. military in Iraq is more successful than anyone wants to believe.”
What does that mean exactly? What’s the measure of success?
Car bombings are still a near daily occurrence; the Sunni contingent of the coalition government has walked out, leaving little prospect of a strong central government anytime soon.
From many reports, violence is down, but mostly in Sunni quarters. Unfortunately, even if the Sunnis shape up and stand up for themselves, you’re still looking at sectarian violence, or an all-out civil war if you pull out.
I mean, I’m not rooting for US failure, on the contrary, I’d love to see Iraq succeed and become a second or third strong western ally in the region, but I’m not seeing so much “success” as piecemeal improvements here and there. Unquestionably “Good Things,” but not promising for long-term stability. Another unfortunate thing appears to be that current troop levels won’t be sustainable for very long, barring a reinstatement of the draft, so whatever calming effect the surge is having might not last long enough to extend the stability to the other factions in the country.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
quote: “The U.S. military in Iraq is more successful than anyone wants to believe.”
What does that mean exactly? What’s the measure of success?
Car bombings are still a near daily occurrence; the Sunni contingent of the coalition government has walked out, leaving little prospect of a strong central government anytime soon.
From many reports, violence is down, but mostly in Sunni quarters. Unfortunately, even if the Sunnis shape up and stand up for themselves, you’re still looking at sectarian violence, or an all-out civil war if you pull out.
I mean, I’m not rooting for US failure, on the contrary, I’d love to see Iraq succeed and become a second or third strong western ally in the region, but I’m not seeing so much “success” as piecemeal improvements here and there. Unquestionably “Good Things,” but not promising for long-term stability. Another unfortunate thing appears to be that current troop levels won’t be sustainable for very long, barring a reinstatement of the draft, so whatever calming effect the surge is having might not last long enough to extend the stability to the other factions in the country.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The funny part is that vroom thinks it was his idea. Is he parroting the republicans now - 4 years after the fact? LMAO!!!
Holy shit, you two are ridiculous!
The interim government and the defence forces are not the issue I’m discussing whatsoever.
It’s the public. The neighborhoods. The people who live in those neighborhoods. People who are now risking their lives to point out the terrorists. It is those people, not the government, and not the security forces, that have to turn on Al Quaeda and the insurgents.
At least if you two are going to run around spending all day trying to mock me you could at least try to attack me on the right issue… but then, why start now?
By the way, while some did poke fun at the finger painting issue, I don’t think I was one. Basically, giving the people that chance to vote, and having so many of them do it, was pretty cool to watch. I could see poking fun at cheerleaders for thinking the situation was “resolved” when that happened.
We’ll see.[/quote]
It’s all the same issue, numb nuts.
How you can even propose to act like it was your idea in the first place is beyond me.
You and Al “I invented the internet” Gore…two peas in a pod if there ever were such a thing.
If you don’t want to get lambasted for saying stupid shit - try not saying stupid shit.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s all the same issue, numb nuts.
How you can even propose to act like it was your idea in the first place is beyond me.
You and Al “I invented the internet” Gore…two peas in a pod if there ever were such a thing.
If you don’t want to get lambasted for saying stupid shit - try not saying stupid shit.
[/quote]
I’m just stunned at the amount of insults and mischaracterizations I have to read whenever you spew at the screen.
You are letting your hatred get the best of you.
Anyhow, setting up infrastructure to manage the “liberated” Iraq is a far different thing than achieving active effort from individual citizens to bring about safety. The latter is something that isn’t imposed by military might.
[i]At least 200 people have been killed in a series of bombings apparently aimed at a Kurdish religious minority group in northern Iraq, officials say.
Some 200 more were reported injured as at least four blasts hit areas home to the Yazidi sect near the city of Mosul.
The deadly attack was one of the most lethal insurgent strikes in more than four years of war in Iraq. [/i]
[quote]lixy wrote:
[i]At least 200 people have been killed in a series of bombings apparently aimed at a Kurdish religious minority group in northern Iraq, officials say.
Some 200 more were reported injured as at least four blasts hit areas home to the Yazidi sect near the city of Mosul.
The deadly attack was one of the most lethal insurgent strikes in more than four years of war in Iraq. [/i]
Stop deluding yourselves…[/quote]
Still having trouble reading linked articles?
The original article was about Ramadi.
Your article is about Mosul.
One city at a time. One city at a time.
I think you, and your murderous friends are the deluded ones.
Anyhow, setting up infrastructure to manage the “liberated” Iraq is a far different thing than achieving active effort from individual citizens to bring about safety. The latter is something that isn’t imposed by military might.[/quote]
You are exactly right - but the point is, this not a new idea. From trained police forces to neighborhood watches, trying to get Iraqis to do the normal, responsible jobs in civil society has always been a priority to end the insurgency and get a legitimate country going.
This has been in play for a while - again, not a new approach and has been common thinking among everyone trying to track the progress of Iraq.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m just stunned at the amount of insults and mischaracterizations I have to read whenever you spew at the screen.
You are letting your hatred get the best of you.
Anyhow, setting up infrastructure to manage the “liberated” Iraq is a far different thing than achieving active effort from individual citizens to bring about safety. The latter is something that isn’t imposed by military might.
[/quote]
It’s all the same thing. How can you be so…so…so…vroomalixious?
FYI - I’d have to give a shit about you before I could let hate get the best of me.
Anyhow - you have proved once again that you can bring nothing of substance to a debate, despite your best efforts to convince yourself, and others that you do.
I’m not going to spend the day, or even another post, trying to get you to see how idiotic your “see? even in the face of overwhelming opposition, I was right all along” post was.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You are exactly right - but the point is, this not a new idea. From trained police forces to neighborhood watches, trying to get Iraqis to do the normal, responsible jobs in civil society has always been a priority to end the insurgency and get a legitimate country going.
This has been in play for a while - again, not a new approach and has been common thinking among everyone trying to track the progress of Iraq.[/quote]
It may or may not be appropriate to lump it into the whole enchilada of having a civil society.
Listening to specific goals and strategies, in earlier years, we heard more about infrastructure, setting up government and so forth. Winning the hearts and minds was going to be done by rebuilding… and for years it wasn’t working.
This was a top down approach… instead of a bottom up approach. Going out and forging alliances with various groups and things of this nature seems to be more of a bottom up approach and it seems to be driven more by the military than the administration.
Perhaps it is all simply dumb luck… in that being the targets of car bombs and other violence for long enough, they finally realize it isn’t the US killing them. By this, I mean that perhaps no policy or effort caused it to come about.
This has been in play for a while - again, not a new approach and has been common thinking among everyone trying to track the progress of Iraq.
It may or may not be appropriate to lump it into the whole enchilada of having a civil society.
Listening to specific goals and strategies, in earlier years, we heard more about infrastructure, setting up government and so forth. Winning the hearts and minds was going to be done by rebuilding… and for years it wasn’t working.
This was a top down approach… instead of a bottom up approach. Going out and forging alliances with various groups and things of this nature seems to be more of a bottom up approach and it seems to be driven more by the military than the administration.
Perhaps it is all simply dumb luck… in that being the targets of car bombs and other violence for long enough, they finally realize it isn’t the US killing them. By this, I mean that perhaps no policy or effort caused it to come about.[/quote]
You originally stated that you had believed - by yourself, apparently - that Iraqis would have to get involved at the most basic levels of civil society for all this “to work”.
The only point made - again - was that there was nothing new or original, even “neocons” have been preaching this since 2003.
The “top down” versus “bottom up” disctinction is meaningless in the context of whether your idea was original, fresh, and new - the only thing the US can do is “top down” stuff, like infrastructure, etc. That doesn’t mean that “no one thought of getting Iraqis involved before”. “Bottom up” civil society had a hard time flourishing until some basic order was taken care of - that doesn’t mean the idea was absent from the planning.
You got called on an ignorant comment. No big deal, just say “oops”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You originally stated that you had believed - by yourself, apparently - that Iraqis would have to get involved at the most basic levels of civil society for all this “to work”.[/quote]
If you could leave out the childish digs, it would be a lot easier to have a reasonable discussion around these things.
Anyway, again, I’m not talking about involvement in a civil society, which implies involvement in a top down hierarchy. So, assuredly while other people had the same insight I did, they weren’t voicing it.
[quote]
The “top down” versus “bottom up” disctinction is meaningless in the context of whether your idea was original, fresh, and new - the only thing the US can do is “top down” stuff, like infrastructure, etc.[/quote]
The only thing the US can do is top down stuff? Well, then, I guess when proposing bottom up stuff, I’d certainly have been advancing something different then, wouldn’t I?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
One city at a time. One city at a time. [/quote]
If I read that correctly, you want to take it one city at a time, right? You’ve been there for nearly five years now and have not yet secured a single city. I didn’t do the count but there’s probably more than one city in Iraq. You’re planning on leaving in a few centuries?
[quote]vroom wrote:
The only thing the US can do is top down stuff? Well, then, I guess when proposing bottom up stuff, I’d certainly have been advancing something different then, wouldn’t I?
[/quote]
Bottom up is impossible with out some semblance of order. Every step that has been taken has been with the idea of empowering the Iraqis.
Slice it any way you want to, vroom. Your thoughts were never original. You were never the only voice.
How hard is it just to admit you over spoke about your greatness?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
One city at a time. One city at a time.
If I read that correctly, you want to take it one city at a time, right? You’ve been there for nearly five years now and have not yet secured a single city. I didn’t do the count but there’s probably more than one city in Iraq. You’re planning on leaving in a few centuries?[/quote]
As usual, you don’t read much of anything. You are a master of posting links, but rarely have you read anything but what your feeble mind wants to be told.
We have been in Europe and Japan for over 60 years. We have been in Korea for over 50.
It takes as long as it takes. But are not taking cities by your inference.
As for not securing anything - you are wrong.
Ramadi is as secure as we can make it without help from the people which - if you had read the articles - is precisely the goal. You know…allow the Iraqis the opportunity to determine their own direction? It’s happening in spite of all your propaganda to the contrary.
Why don’t you suit up and help the insurgents? I am sure they could use a few good delusional men.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bottom up is impossible with out some semblance of order. Every step that has been taken has been with the idea of empowering the Iraqis.
Slice it any way you want to, vroom. Your thoughts were never original. You were never the only voice.
How hard is it just to admit you over spoke about your greatness?
I’d settle for an “oops” as well. [/quote]
The two of you might have been able to get an oops if we hadn’t gone down the road we did. As it is, I don’t feel I owe you guys anything approaching civility.
Anyhow, I’m really not sure I can agree with you. The power comes from the people… if and when they choose to exercise it. Getting them to make that choice should have been high on someone’s priority list… perhaps the information ops group.
It shouldn’t have been left as a “if you build it they will come” feature as it seems that you and Thunder are describing.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
One city at a time. One city at a time.
If I read that correctly, you want to take it one city at a time, right? You’ve been there for nearly five years now and have not yet secured a single city. I didn’t do the count but there’s probably more than one city in Iraq. You’re planning on leaving in a few centuries?[/quote]
Maybe it’s the opposite tack: Let the cities crumble one by one until there are so few left that you can secure them.
Then proclaim: “We’ve made every city (all two of them) safe.”
If you could leave out the childish digs, it would be a lot easier to have a reasonable discussion around these things.[/quote]
You are a sensitive thing, aren’t you? You specifically stated that “call me a crackpot, but…” - which expressly states you had this belief in some political wilderness that no one else was considering.
Seriously, Vroom - enough.
No, “civil society” does not mean “top down”. It implies no such thing:
Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state’s political system) and commercial institutions.
[i]Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.
Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women’s organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.[/i]
Why not take the time to do a little self-education before inventing definitions and then running with them erroneously?
The only thing the US can control (can “do”) is top-down stuff - they can only try and encourage, via carrot and stick, Iraqis to engage in “civil society” (the real definition, not your fabricated one); they can’t command them to - it isn’t our society to form. But it has been clear to anyone following that the US has been encouraging - and expecting - Iraqis to do exactly what you think is an “original and new idea” for years now, including the dreaded “neocons”.
The US has been “proposing” bottom-up stuff for years, and unfortunately we have been very disappointed in the results. But it takes time.
Let it go, Vroom - just realize you boned one up. No big deal to just say “oh, whoops”.