I’m curious as to which precepts you believe the Coalition has adopted, and which ones are working? I have had quite a few discussions on this with fellow Marine Officers who have commanded in Iraq.
In my opinion we finally recognized in 2005 that we are fighting an insurgency and have begun to adjust our tactics accordingly. That adjustment is paying off in successful operations such the one conducted against Al-Zarqawi.
Are we winning? You can’t make that judgement in an insurgent fight like this. Insurgent fights take time, if you look at examples from the article you provided, a great number of those wars lasted longer than 10 years.
The extreme examples are:
Vietnam: 30 years (1st the French, then the US)
Palestine: 33 years
Guatemalan Civil war: 35 years
Northern Ireland: 38 years and counting
Columbia Civil War: 42 years and counting
Fighting an insurgency takes patience and the willlingness to stay and fight for a long time. The American people have demonstrated in the past that they do not have the will to commit to an extended insurgent war. It is certainly within the capability of the US military to win this fight, but are the American people willing to wait?
However, first we won, now we are winning. We’ve been winning for years. What’s the point of winning if you can’t eventually WIN and go home.
Do you even have the foggiest fucking inkling of what I’m talking about? Winning, for the next ten years, is still a bad thing. Just because the word “winning” is being thrown around doesn’t make life great.
Hmmm. Hey vroom, how goes life? I’m winning man! Yeah, has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it… I think I’m going to start applying spin to my daily grind. I’m going to be “winning” for the next seventy years… the rest of you have fun “losing”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
In summary, the Good Guys are winning.
JeffR
Winning. I’ll accept that premise. Honestly.
However, first we won, now we are winning. We’ve been winning for years. What’s the point of winning if you can’t eventually WIN and go home.
Do you even have the foggiest fucking inklink of what I’m talking about? Winning, for the next ten years, is still a bad thing. Just because the word “winning” is being thrown around doesn’t make life great.
Hmmm. Hey vroom, how goes life? I’m winning man! Yeah, has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it… I think I’m going to start applying spin to my daily grind. I’m going to be “winning” for the next seventy years… the rest of you have fun “losing”.
First, I’d like you to think twice before publically agreeing with anything reckless has to say. He is a toxic Anti-American. If you doubt me, please search his/her posts.
It’s pretty sickening.
…
JeffR[/quote]
Pretty sickening? I challenge you to find one post that shows I’m Anti-American.
But I guess that’s just your way to say that you didn’t bother to read the post, since you know your carefully constructed view on global politics crumbles when faced with actual facts.
So I also challenge you to read the links.
I’m quite confident that both challenges will go unanswered.
Question for you Jeff. Do you have a curly wire hanging from your ear when you patrol the internet?
In it’s entirety so that context cannot be challenged.
"rainjack wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
There really isn’t much difference between you and Saddam, is there?
Am I an America hater for hoping that the leader of the free world wouldn’t stoop to Saddams level?
Oh - there are huge differences between me and Sadaam. You are just so narrow minded and lazy that this is the best you have to offer. This is why no one with a functioning brainstem takes you seriously here.
—No there isn’t. Like Saddam, you bend the rules as you please. You make up the law as you go along.—"
Please read the last two sentences (in case anyone had any doubt).
He is saying that Bush=saddam. Then he says Americans are de facto criminals.
[quote]He is saying that Bush=saddam. Then he says Americans are de facto criminals.
JeffR[/quote]
LOL. He didn’t say that at all. You drew your own inferences…
Anyway, without getting into whether he is right or wrong, if he says that he thinks Bush has done some things similar to Saddam, and he can point to those things, that does not make him anti-American.
Along the same vein, if he feels that Americans are willing to breaks the laws when it suits them, such as premptively invading another country, when there is serious debate about whether or not that actually happened, that doesn’t make him anti-American either.
However, I suspect he is against Americans exhibiting those behaviors, and I’m sure most Americans are too. I mean, who wants to be comparable to Saddam? Or, who wants to be a country of law, that has a problem following laws?
Learn to think Jerffy, and the world will make a lot more sense to you. Now, as to your main point, you might be right that wreckless is anti-American, but you did an extremely piss poor job of trying to show it.
Here’s our pal reckless making blanket commentary about the U.S. Army:
“So it’s not that they like to torture Arabs or something. They like to torture anybody they can. Perhaps you know some adolescent like that? There’s a great career for him in the US army. He just has to make sure he doesn’t get injured in training.”
So anyone injured in the U.S. Army will be tortured.
I stand by all I said.
Still don’t see where it makes me anti-American.
If you call me anti-American for hoping that Bush wouldn’t have stooped to Saddams level, well, that must mean that you DID hope he would do that.
Doesn’t that make YOU anti-American eff?
This quote was taken from a discussion where people (like yourself) were saying that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Al Ghraib “had it coming”.
I stand by what I said. And I don’t see where it makes me anti-American.
But if you feel that people can be held and tortured (you might claim there’s no proof, but the video’s are still floating on the internet) without being charged or without proof, well then just maybe, you’re a bit anti-American.
This quote was taking from a comment on an article where army recruits, injured in training complained about their treatment. I don’t have to look it up. One complained that he had stitches in his knee. He was told to sit on his knees and when he complained, was kicked in the knee by his sergeant.
I simply pointed out there was a pattern there.
I stand by what I said and I would suggest the soldier was treated, and the sergeant was shipped of to Iraq, where he could show his balls against armed ennemies instead of wounded subordinates. On second thought, we’ll probably see footage of him, defeating a bunch of Iraqi women and children instead. So better throw hin in jail right a way.
If this somehow makes me anti-American, it must mean it is the American way to kick wounded sub-ordinates in the knee? Is that what you think eff?
[quote]effR wrote:
Ok, I cannot read anymore of this abdomination.
Here is my last reckless for the evening.
Here is his fantasy for our Secretary of Defense.
WTF ! ! !
How DARE you call Rummy anti-American. I was literally citing him (changing names of course, but still).
I’m quite proud of what I said here, and I think it’s my greatest work, second only to dismissing everything Zap or Zeb has to say by calling it “famously biased”
Well, he only found his cojones after he entered the white house. Remember how he dodged the draft and then went AWOL.
That didn’t make him a coward like Kerry of course, but still, I’d like to test him a little.
Hey perhaps he and Saddam could duke it out. What do you say?
Or that skinny Iranian bastard. He looks like a pretty tough nail though.
And we could broadcast it. Think of all the money.
Lets get this train back on the tracks. Lets get back on subject.
Using comparisons with the selected insurgent wars listed in the article that JeffR posted a link to, can we draw a conclusion that we are losing or winnning at the three year mark in this current counter-insurgency fight?
I have this conversation with my Marines, it is very interesting to see it get carried out on a larger forum with a much more diverse set of view points.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Lets get this train back on the tracks. Lets get back on subject.
Using comparisons with the selected insurgent wars listed in the article that JeffR posted a link to, can we draw a conclusion that we are losing or winnning at the three year mark in this current counter-insurgency fight?
I have this conversation with my Marines, it is very interesting to see it get carried out on a larger forum with a much more diverse set of view points.
[/quote]
Good point. My first question would be to wonder whether we do not mix up the counter-terrorism fight with the war aims. Clearly, a brutal thug like al-Zarqawi is a legitimate target and getting rid of him worthwhile.
However, this is a nation that has done politics for 4000 years and has a more long-term perspective. From a Kurdish perpective, a Shia dominated Iraq is acceptable, as long as the natural resources in the North remain under Kurdish control and there is a de-facto autonomy.
For the Shia leadership, it makes sense to have the Americans fighting the insurgency as that conserves their own strength, while deflecting any blame. I would expect a Shia readiness to assume security duties and control in the southern Shia-dominated provinces. This would also strengthen their position regarding the southern natural resources.
The Sunnis are naturally reluctant to accept the loss of relative position in the country and regardless of whether they participate in any insurgent activity, most likely resent the Amercan presence.
From the radical insurgent perspective, the sensible tactic is to hit Americans and to drive a wedge between Sunnis and Shias. This has been successful.
I would expect that if the counter-insurgent effort would bear fruit, the Shia leadership would increase its crtiticism of the Americans as that would strengthen their internal position within the Shia community and serve as a bridge to the Sunnis. In the next elections, most candidates will probably campaign on how they resisted the occupiers…
Given this, you might be surprised to hear that I think the US should stay. It is too early to leave without precipitating a civil war. The Vermont farmer had it right:
“If I were going there, I wouldn’t start from here…”
Great post, that is the type of civil discussion that leads to people actually gaining something from a forum like this.
Are the shites going to grant autonomy to the Kurds? Iran has been fighting the Kurds throughout the years just like Iraq and Turkey have been. I would think that an all shite government in Iraq would eventually turn to supressing kurdish autonomy.
Good point about 4000 years worth of politics, that is something that is lost on a lot of us Americans.
From the radical insurgent perspective, the sensible tactic is to hit Americans and to drive a wedge between Sunnis and Shias. This has been successful.
I would expect that if the counter-insurgent effort would bear fruit, the Shia leadership would increase its crtiticism of the Americans as that would strengthen their internal position within the Shia community and serve as a bridge to the Sunnis. In the next elections, most candidates will probably campaign on how they resisted the occupiers…
[/quote]
I missed this point in my previous post. Excellent. I think you are correct, we are going to see a political arm of the various insurgent groups similar to the Sinn Fein and the IRA.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Are the shites going to grant autonomy to the Kurds? Iran has been fighting the Kurds throughout the years just like Iraq and Turkey have been. I would think that an all shite government in Iraq would eventually turn to supressing kurdish autonomy.
[/quote]
The autonomy is in the deal already reached and I can’t see the Shiites assess the cost/benefit of trying to impose a Shia rule in the North as anything but very negative.
PS. I think you may prefer to use two i’s in Shiite in order to avoid misunderstandings;-)
So now that all the foolish posturing and I’m smarter than you bullshit has hopefully come to brief pause. (You guys should really step back and read some of the crap you argue about sometimes.)
Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?
Bush is wrong is not an answer. Bush is right is not either. You must use your own brains for this.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
So now that all the foolish posturing and I’m smarter than you bullshit has hopefully come to brief pause. (You guys should really step back and read some of the crap you argue about sometimes.)
Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?
Bush is wrong is not an answer. Bush is right is not either. You must use your own brains for this.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?
Good luck.
[/quote]
Yeah, this is much tougher.
One thing I’d like is the disarming of all the various private militia units out there.
Perhaps as well, something similar to countries that require everybody to put a few years into the armed forces.
Combining these, you’d get all the young people (and the country is majority young people apparently) involved in the government and active in the war against terror.
The chances of getting them to understand the issues and side with the safety of populace increases.
It also greatly expands the size of the security forces. Heck, it would be fine if responsible and disciplined security forces were on every single street corner in every single city. It’s fine until they abuse the populace and foment insurgents themselves.
Also, pick small areas of Iraq and saturate the place with security. I mean Iraqi security. Make them absolutely responsible and give them massive overwhelming power in that region.
Put some percentage of the Iraqi security forces in these regions onto projects at the behest of the local populace. If they need new roads, build them. If they need new schools, build them. If they need a new hospital, you guessed it, build it. Do it by Iraqi hands as directed by the local population being protected, on days that they aren’t on security duty themselves.
In short, GET THE IRAQI MILITARY AND SECURITY SERVING THE PEOPLE. DEVELOP CO-GRATITUDE BETWEEN THE TWO, as traditionally this has not been the case.
[quote]vroom wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Can anyone give me an idea of what can be done differently than is being done now to “win” and get out?
Good luck.
Yeah, this is much tougher.
One thing I’d like is the disarming of all the various private militia units out there.
Perhaps as well, something similar to countries that require everybody to put a few years into the armed forces.
Combining these, you’d get all the young people (and the country is majority young people apparently) involved in the government and active in the war against terror.
The chances of getting them to understand the issues and side with the safety of populace increases.
It also greatly expands the size of the security forces. Heck, it would be fine if responsible and disciplined security forces were on every single street corner in every single city. It’s fine until they abuse the populace and foment insurgents themselves.
Also, pick small areas of Iraq and saturate the place with security. I mean Iraqi security. Make them absolutely responsible and give them massive overwhelming power in that region.
Put some percentage of the Iraqi security forces in these regions onto projects at the behest of the local populace. If they need new roads, build them. If they need new schools, build them. If they need a new hospital, you guessed it, build it. Do it by Iraqi hands as directed by the local population being protected, on days that they aren’t on security duty themselves.
In short, GET THE IRAQI MILITARY AND SECURITY SERVING THE PEOPLE. DEVELOP CO-GRATITUDE BETWEEN THE TWO, as traditionally this has not been the case.
Just some ideas.[/quote]
There are two major flaws in this. The first is that conscription is expensive. Both in terms of direct funding and in diverting the contribution of the soldiers from a more productive occupation. The second, and more serious, is that the Iraqi security forces cannot be seen as neutral national entities. This is the reason why it been extremely difficult to assign the ministry of defence and the interior ministry on a permanent basis.
While the defence ministry eventually went to a Sunni general with a good record (probably after heavy American pressure), the internal security post which would have to clean up the police has gone to a Shiite, who has been member of practically every party in Iraq and who in consequence, may lack the necessary clout as an enforcer.
