Iraq question

how long do you think the Iraq war will last? first they though abou leaving now they want to comit more troops. Maybe it will turn into another Veitnam?

 

US prolonged Iraq agony,now u got two tribed there,in ciwil war+ war against US.That is rather complicated situation and military ocupation will not solve the problem.It is not likely that will be new Vietam,coz terain there is not jugle,but desert,but probably will be urban gerila attacks on US army,what US try to reduce with their puppet goverment who put Iraqis to fight against Iraqis.
Time will show definitly.

 

Puppet government? The government was elected by the Iraqi people remember? There were lots of international observers and the election was free and fair. There was always enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites and the Kurds were oppressed by both. The only difference was that that under Saddam's brutal regime the minority Sunnis and Baath party were allowed to run the country as they pleased. Even if the Sunnis and Shiites cannot get along and share power there is no doubt that the long oppressed Kurds are far better off today.

 

Acctualy Kurds were semi independant since 1991 and basicly not much has changed for them (except enlarging and ethnicly cleanse their territory). When US led coalition left Sunnis and Kurds hanging out to dry (after inciting them to revolt). Kurds were more or less left alone, becouse of significantly beaten Iraqi army couldn't put down both rebellions at once and sunni area of S. Iraq was strategicaly much more important (port-Basra, and oil fields and facilities). Kurds at the time were not in control of oil reach territories of now their southern region and thus crushing them would not bring much significant strategic value.

Another factor was that even if Turks would favorably look on Iraqi army crushing Kurds they could not allow that since PKK party ( according to Turks Terrorist organisation) got significant opposition in other new Kurdish parties that sprung up after 1991 in Kurd controled part of Iraq and hoped to avoid angering Turky. After 1991 Turkish army openly operated on Iraqi side of the border thus forcing Kurds to almost stop terrorist activities in Turky.

Current Iraqi goverment is de facto (if not de jure) puppet regime. Reigns of power now lie in hands of Al Sadr and US military, basicly only large scale organised fighting forces in the country. Fault for this lies in stupid decisions of pro consul Bremer to disband old Iraqi army and ad hoc de Baatification proces (which coused a lot of low and mid ranking public servants without jobs and thus depraving iraqis without competent public services). Iraqi army had large numbers of trained and professional men and officers from all segments of Iraqi society (except Kurds who had their own semi independant state) who were not politicaly active in Baath party and could basicly keep country together. Only higher up comanding cadre should be replaced and then army should be gradualy changed. In disbanding the army a lot of trained military men were left without jobs and means to support their families. They are now bulk of Sunni and Shia (together with former Badr brigade) insurgency. Same goes for public officials.

Political climate in US does not allow withdrawl of US troops from Iraq. If that does happen Bush & co. (not so much US) would look week, so they will leave this problem for next president to deal with.
Another point is that immediate US withdrawl is impossible. Bush & co managed to completly f&%k up this war. What they managed to accomplish:
-Iran became regional superpower as they eliminated their chief enemy (Saddam) and allowed them to became huge factor in Iraqi internal matters.
Iran is watching US being bled white in Iraq and is well aware that US even if they manage to put together coalition can not fight simultanious wars in Iraq, Afganistan and Iran which emboldened them to defy US on range of issues (atomic program, Israel...).
Also Iran is still providing support for Kharzai goverment in Afganistan, holding back Shias in Iraq and calming Hezbollah and Hamas (at the moment). US will be forced to negotiate with them directly sooner or later. If they will do that sooner that can be done with dignity, if later it will be seen as sign of US being forced to do that after effectively puhing themselves into a corner.

- Israel is in far worse position becouse of eliminating Iraq (as secular country and turning it into muslim fundamentalist country) allowing Iran and Al Quida types to inch forward and with support of Israeli on Lebanon allienated few allies in the region.

-making sucessfull recruting campaign for Al quida by attacking Iraq and eliminating their sworen foe (Saddam and his secular and bloody regime). Basicly Taliban and Al quida were supported only by Pakistani secret services (now US best friand) and had wide suppoert only in Pakistani regions bordering Afganistan (thanks to US policies in the 80's). Taliban and Al quida were not liked by anyone (except for Pakistanis) and nobody made any noises when US attacked Afganistan. By attacking Iraq on false pretences (no matter how you spin it, it was just that), they rallied anyone who was dissatisfied by US actions in the region foe Al qiuda and making life for pro western regimes in the region much harder.

 

Sinissa, enough CNN?

The reason Vietnam got bad was because they were drafting civilians out of the populace and putting them to fight against a foe they seldom saw and had nothing against them. Also China & the USSR were giving the NVA weapons and other goods to fight the war. while the current war the Iranians & Syrians are giving barely anything to the Sunni Insurgency. The Shiites dont really much against the Coalition, because the coalition drove a brutal dictator out. During the beginnings that is, the Coalition had a war against the Sunnis then they moved some Shiite feathers, (who wanted in on the action) Then that gave them a reason to go and kill each other.

 

How long did we have to occupy Japan and Germany?

 

The Kurds are far better off now as they are not under threat of extinction by Saddam's regime. The no-fly zone helped keep them from being wiped out previously. The Kurds have indicated that they are satisfied and grateful so who are you to say they aren't?

The present government was elected in a free and fair election by the Iraqi people. No more needs to be said.

Blah, blah blah. Everyone thinks they are a better judge and know what should have been done and they could have done a better job. Meanwhile they did nothing and as far as I'm concerned know nothing.

Nonsense. Bush cannot run for reelection anyway. He could easily withdraw if he thought it was the right thing to do. He doesn't think so and I agree.

Again, that is just more second guessing from people who accomplish nothing. The US isn't being bled white. That is nonsense. The problem is mainly political and internal to the US. The level of conflict in Iraq is low intensity as combat goes. There is no danger of a Dien Bien Phu or of being ejected like the Russians were in Afghanistan.
The problem with Iran has been brewing for some time and is not that much worse due to the war in Iraq. The biggest threat is from Iran developing nuclear weapons and I don't think that the US is the only one concerned about that possibility.

- Israel is in far worse position becouse of eliminating Iraq (as secular country and turning it into muslim fundamentalist country) allowing Iran and Al Quida types to inch forward and with support of Israeli on Lebanon allienated few allies in the region.

The Israeli/Arab conflict has been going on since I was a child. I don't think it is significantly worse and not nearly as bad as it was in 1967 or 1973.

 

But nobody but Bremer and his boss had decision making power. I realy wish you did some followup reading on the subject not just repeat what white house and Fox news say.
From Interview with lt.gen. James Garner (ret.) (remember him?):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/garner.html

On screwups on dealing with Iran:
Dealing with Tehran - Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options Toward Iran by Flynt L. Leverett, The Century Foundation, 12/4/2006 (.pdf)

 

Yes but Republican candidate still can run for a president and pulling out would sucesfully ruin any chances for him.

Now they just have "de jure" what they already had "de facto" after 1991. And i didn't say they were not happy ( i reread my text just to be shure). Please do point to pasage in my text saying that (if i missed it)!

BTW
Please don't go your ussual "i don't have time for reading" as you ussualy do when someone cites you a source (concerning my prewious post and links in it). I'm citing you my sources, so plase do return the favour.

 

It would be better for Bush to pull out for the republicans ( in only Political Terms)....I am Republican I support the war 100% but If we want to keep the presidency in '08, we need to think about that, bring the borderlines back to the republicans if we withdrew, which is complete crap to start with.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I have plenty of time for reading. I read at least two books per week. What I do not have time for and will not waste time on is mindless drivel which is what I consider most of the conspiracy theory stuff you are referring to from past posts. Insofar as American policy in Iraq well everyone is entitled to their opinion as far as I'm concerned. You can find lots of Americans that dislike Bush and that dislike US foreign policy. That is how things work in a democracy. It doesn't prove anything besidess the fact that there is a wide diversity of opinion amongst Americans on just about any subject, politics included.
I consider that to be a healthy thing, for the most part.
While I disagree with your conclusions regarding Iraq I don't really mind if you think that way. You have a right to your opinion but you don't have a vote in the matter of internal American politics

 

Those two links are not "mindless drivel". Garner was in Iraq as first civilian administrator. Flynt L. Leverett, was a Senior Director for the Middle East Initiative with the National Security Council untill early 2003.

His other contributions for Century foundation:
A View From the Inside (2003)

 

If you carefully reread my comments you will see that I was referring to your comments about previous posts in previous threads not to this thread. This thread deals with politics not conspiracy theories which is why I stated that you were entitled to your opinion regarding American politics but didn't have a vote in the matter.

 

Good posts TISO u folow world policy more i do :lol:

 

If us military is not bled white why is there a bit of a problem to find additional 32.000 troops for the new bump UPS "surge" of troops?

You don't need to lose a new Dien Bien Phu to lose a counterisurgency war. Insurgency who entangles itself into a conventional style of warfare like Dien Bien Phu in the open desert enviroment is not worth ist's name as it would ivariably lose such battle. For US it would be desirable to force or entice such battle as they have resouces that French lacked in Indochina. US tried that before in Falluja, but it didn't work as bulk of insurgents pulled out before the encirclement and battle, leaving rear guard units to fight to the end. And it was political dissaster on more than one level (not sucessfull in breaking insurgency, destruction of entire city, killing mass of civilians that were unable or reluctant to became refugees)

Soviets (not Russians) pulled out of Afganistan themselves (as US did in Vietnam) they were not ejected. Unless yopu think that US was ejected out of Vietnam as well.

Problem with Iraq war is that there was (and in my opinion is is) no viable plan for after invasion period. First they wanted to pull out in 6-12 months, then it was "stay the course" i.e. just going trough the motions basicly trying an attritional war on insurgency (not a very smart idea) not knowing what the tactical and strategical plan is.

 

The term "bled white" refers to losses. The reason that it is difficult to find an additional 32,000 troops is not due to losses but because the U.S. military is overextended for it's present size.

As to the advisabilty of the war and the tactics used I will leave that to history.

 

What r exsatly US losses in Iraq,i cant find any reliable source?

 

3000+ KIA

A LOT WIA (not exact but US military doesn't like to disscuss the matter much)

 

That why i asked it.And what about armor/venchiles losses?

 

On a related subject, I saw where an Indiana National Guard trooper was awarded a "Purple Heart" after being wounded in Iraq.
What made the award unique is that this trooper is a female... and is believed to be the first-female National Guard member to be awarded such. (She was wounded by shapnel during a mortar attack.)
Not sure if this "first" distinction is for the Indiana N.G. only, or nationwide.

Tim