Skinny men in scraggly beards and baggy army fatigues cause no end of trouble for military empires.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Russia left Afghan country and the taliban popped up.
[/quote]
The Taliban didn’t just “pop up.” They were a splinter group of the mujahedin, the group opposing the Soviet occupation. As has been mentioned, the United States played an active role in supporting the mujahedin, supplying advisors, armaments and money.
(According to some sources, including British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, one of the liaisons channeling guns and gold from the CIA to the mujahedin was a nondescript Saudi man by the name of Osama bin Laden.
So if Afghanistan was the Russian Vietnam, then the mujahedin would be the Vietcong, and the United States would be China. Perhaps bin Laden could be Uncle Ho? They have the same scraggly beard, anyway.)
During the civil war that followed the Soviet pullout, the Taliban broke off from and opposed the main mujahedin group, receiving major funding from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which also contributed volunteers for the cause. The United States, (apparently under the impression that a Taliban victory would be good for Unocal Corporation’s plan to build a gas pipeline in the region), also supported the Taliban.
In 1920, to protect British oil interests and to quell an insurgent uprising, Winston Churchill sent the Royal Air Force into Iraq. The RAF dropped nearly a hundred tons of high-explosive, mustard gas and chemical bombs on the stone and mud huts of the “enemy”, wiping out several villages, breaking up at least a dozen weddings, and killing upwards of 9,000 Arabs and Kurds over the course of a single summer. The raids cost the government more than it had spent in World War I to steal the country from the Ottoman Empire in the first place.
Although the British accomplished their mission (quelling the uprising), they did not “win” in a strategic sense, in that they gave up their Mandate in 1932. In 1941 they invaded Iraq (by this time independent), again to protect their oil interests. While they were successful in ousting the Nazi-sympathizing prime minister Rashid Ali, they again gave the country back to the Hashemites in 1947.
The United States, as the technological and ideological superior of the British Empire, apparently thought it could do a better job in taming the country and squeezing money out of it. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case.
Iraq has been the worst kind of bad news for everyone who has ever tried to grab a piece of it. I say we just give the bloody country back to the goddamned Turks, wash our hands and be done with it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote: Skinny men in scraggly beards and baggy army fatigues cause no end of trouble for military empires.
jre67t wrote:
Russia left Afghan country and the taliban popped up.
The Taliban didn’t just “pop up.” They were a splinter group of the mujahedin, the group opposing the Soviet occupation. As has been mentioned, the United States played an active role in supporting the mujahedin, supplying advisors, armaments and money.
(According to some sources, including British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, one of the liaisons channeling guns and gold from the CIA to the mujahedin was a nondescript Saudi man by the name of Osama bin Laden.
So if Afghanistan was the Russian Vietnam, then the mujahedin would be the Vietcong, and the United States would be China. Perhaps bin Laden could be Uncle Ho? They have the same scraggly beard, anyway.)
During the civil war that followed the Soviet pullout, the Taliban broke off from and opposed the main mujahedin group, receiving major funding from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which also contributed volunteers for the cause. The United States, (apparently under the impression that a Taliban victory would be good for Unocal Corporation’s plan to build a gas pipeline in the region), also supported the Taliban.[/quote]
I can confirm this, as a former Afghanistan-watcher. Varqanir is as usual spot-on. Just for your enjoyment, I can add that the point man in developing good relations with the Taliban was a certain Mr Khalilzad. I think he is looking after Baghdad now…
[quote]jre67t wrote:
I agree we have lost to some degree yet don’t you believe we have to recoup our losses? The lives lost, the hopes of the Shitees. If we pull out I truly believe the shit will hit the fan to the extreme.[/quote]
I don’t know how we would recoup our losses??? Besides the almost 3000 casualties and something like 30 thousand seriously wounded (can’t remember exact figure, can you) we’ve already spent 350 billion, with final estimates running over a trillion (all the equipment that will need to be replaced, the cost of redeploying or returning troops, etc). Some people say it could cost more than two trillion dollars, depending on how many troops we deploy, for how long. How do you recoup that? With the thanks of a grateful Iraqi nation?
Also, you mention the hopes of the Shi’ites… why are we going to bat for the Shi’ites, when they are the ones who tend to feel kinship with Iran…
The whole mission never made a damn bit of sense in the first place, except if you bought into the notion that Iraq suddenly posed an immediate threat to us, requiring a rapid military response (and plenty of people never believed it, and tried to talk the president out of it).
According to Bob Woodward’s last book, Bush didn’t even know that there was a difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis until the eve of the invasion, basically. I can believe it, because I think Bush has been in way, way, way over his head, as president.
Well, what can I say except “duh”? I’m positively surprised and relieved that the new US Defense Secretary seems to have a better grasp on the situation than the old one - and the neocons who brought the US into that mess.
I’m just very sorry for all the civilians and soldiers who lost their lives during that learning process, and I hope that a policy change will help alleviate the suffering.
Makkun[/quote]
Good to see you, Makkun - you should drop in more often.
I will say this: I don’t think Iraq was a strategic mistake, but I think their have been tactical mistakes. Big ones.
Broadly stated, in my view, more troops should have been on the ground, more equipment, and we should have been more ruthless in taming the country.
Since we didn’t, and order was never established, we now have pockets of chaos that are threatening civil war.
The Iraqis - Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds, anyone - needed to be unconditionally defeated. And more than that, they needed to know it. That never happened - there never was unconditional victory because we let our politically correct impulses take over and we ignored human nature.
I don’t know how we would recoup our losses??? Besides the almost 3000 casualties and something like 30 thousand seriously wounded (can’t remember exact figure, can you) we’ve already spent 350 billion, with final estimates running over a trillion (all the equipment that will need to be replaced, the cost of redeploying or returning troops, etc). Some people say it could cost more than two trillion dollars, depending on how many troops we deploy, for how long. How do you recoup that? [/quote]
I think I have an inkling. Let me run these numbers by you.
Value of Iraqi oil: over 7 trillion dollars at current prices, much more as the price of oil inexorably continues to climb
That’s a mighty attractive return on investment, if you ask me. Or it will be, if the US military can only secure the oil. It’s proving more difficult than originally planned.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The whole mission never made a damn bit of sense in the first place, except if you bought into the notion that Iraq suddenly posed an immediate threat to us[/quote]
Also if you held a hell of a lot of stock in Exxon/Mobil or Unocal, it made all the sense in the world: somebody else to pay the taxes and do the fighting, while you finally get a chance at those Iraqi oil contracts you weren’t going to get from Saddam Hussein. Go get 'em boys! Support the troops! And if it didn’t work, the turmoil would cause oil prices to rise anyway: what you call a win/win situation. If you happen to be a giant multinational petroleum corporation, that is.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Iraqis - Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds, anyone - needed to be unconditionally defeated. And more than that, they needed to know it. That never happened[/quote]
Right. Shock and Awe wasn’t enough. What we needed was to be more ruthless. That will fix our problems. What we need are bigger and better wars. Bigger than Viet Nam! Better than Iraq I and II! New! Improved!! …
You’re stupid and you’re going to die out. You do know that, don’t you?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
That’s a mighty attractive return on investment, if you ask me. Or it will be, if the US military can only secure the oil.[/quote]
You were making such good sense, why did you stop? In each and every scenario, the oil remains the property of the Iraqi people, and you secure it for your own use by the simple expedient of paying for it with money.
There may be a lot of oil in Iraq, but the US taxpayer is stuck for that trillion.
We did it again — started a war and didn’t try to win. Instead, we dicked around, bleeding America’s finest, when we should have been going all out to win.
But, the soccer moms and latte-drinker libs would object to that. So the no-spine Republicans caved and we get this shit.
Dems and Republicans are excrement, the Dems for anti-Americanism and the Republicans for being a bunch of cowards and appeasers.
If we wanted to win “all out” as HH likes to say, blame the idiots in charge of the war and not your fantasy evil libs. We NEVER EVER had enough troops on the ground to win “all out.” Soccer moms had very little to do with that screwup.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We did it again — started a war and didn’t try to win. Instead, we dicked around, bleeding America’s finest, when we should have been going all out to win.
But, the soccer moms and latte-drinker libs would object to that.[/quote]
So would US Special Forces, who understand counter-insurgency warfare requires limiting the toll paid by the civilian population, and making political solutions possible.
Our whole problem was that we did it exactly the way you wanted. Shock and Awe. Military occupation. Killed a lot of civilians. Abu Ghraib. Smart bombs and White Phosphorus against Kalashnikovs, IEDs and electric drills.
Your plan was tried already and it didn’t work out. Your plan is the reason we’re in this mess.
That’s the part that was done half-assed. Or rather half-booted. There weren’t enough troops to do the job correctly. It let the insurgency grow to it’s present day proportions. It also led to the rest of what you mentioned:
If you go to war, go to war to win. If you’re unable or unwilling to do what’s necessary to secure victory, then don’t go to war at all.
[quote]pookie wrote:
There weren’t enough troops to do the job correctly. It let the insurgency grow to it’s present day proportions…
If you go to war, go to war to win. If you’re unable or unwilling to do what’s necessary to secure victory, then don’t go to war at all.
[/quote]
Here is what victory would have amounted to: 1) Iraqi oil contracts given to Exxon/Mobil, Unocal, etc; 2) an indefinite American military presence in Iraq to keep Iran on its toes and make sure the locals don’t nationalize the oil bidness somewhere downstream; 3) a pliable local government (see “permanent bases”); 4) enough stability to pump oil and ship it out of the country.
Victory means happy oil companies. Victory means staying in Iraq forever.
How to achieve this wonderful victory? It’s not just a matter of will. Here’s what it takes to be a colonial power in the 21st century. We needed a lot of specially trained troops. We needed a lot of special forces. We needed a lot of police. We needed a lot of interpreters. We needed a different force altogether, in the second phase of the operation. It’s not just a matter of numbers.
Would it have wound up being a larger force than what we sent? Somewhat, maybe, but the point is we didn’t have such a force to send in any case. What we had was a lot of folks trained to fight pitched battles with other mechanized armies, and a lot of contractors to handle logistics. We didn’t and don’t have - in sufficient numbers - the kinds of troops that would have been needed, and it takes a long time to get and train them.
As the dear departed Rumsfeld used to say “you go to war with the army you’ve got.” The better choice would clearly have been not to go at all.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
That’s a mighty attractive return on investment, if you ask me. Or it will be, if the US military can only secure the oil.
You were making such good sense, why did you stop? In each and every scenario, the oil remains the property of the Iraqi people, and you secure it for your own use by the simple expedient of paying for it with money.
There may be a lot of oil in Iraq, but the US taxpayer is stuck for that trillion.[/quote]
Oh, pshaw. Don’t you recognize sarcasm when you see it? Somebody asked how the government expected to recoup its material expenditures, I gave an answer: “just take the oil.” Don’t think for a minute that this would be considered an original idea in Washington.
All military empires have enriched themselves using the even simpler expedient of smash-and-grab, without much regard to whose property it is, and my statement is that ours will behave no differently, if given the opportunity.
I am not recommending such a course of action, I am merely predicting it.
And anyway, when was the last time the government paid for anything with its own money?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We did it again — started a war and didn’t try to win. Instead, we dicked around, bleeding America’s finest, when we should have been going all out to win.[/quote]
We didn’t try to win??? Weird. If that’s true, who’s fault is that?
I don’t believe we “didn’t try” whatsoever… I think the problem was that the basic mission (to unite three opposing factions (Shi’ite, Sunnis and Kurds) in a democracy, using a hostile takeover is just simply ludicrous. I mean, that is the mission, right? Since it wasn’t just about non-existant WMDs, or deposing Saddam…?
That mission is friggin’ ludicrous.
Gimme a break. Bush, DeLay, Frist, Hastert, etc, have played cutthroat political hardball for the last 6 years at least. What planet have you been living on?
Ah, the old “Anti-American” thing… that old chestnut!
Pretty please, keep driving the GOP even further to the Right. I absolutely love it!!!
