Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart C'mon, Grandpa... in WWII we fought against the Aryan Germans, then spent 40 years preparing for war against the white Soviet Russians.

You're right that race isn't the only factor, but it certainly is one. Religion also figures into it (even into the Cold War against "godless Commies"), as does class.

We fought the Germans mostly because they declared war on the US and its allies.
America actually did very little fighting with Russians, and instead focused primarily on countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iran. During the Vietnam War, the people America atacked were sometimes called "Gooks," during WWII the government locked Japanese people in camps, and a lot of people feel the US is warring against Arab Muslims in general (which is even somewhat understandable).

Yes, in Afghanistan we sided with Muslim extremists against the Soviet state. But that was a proxy army full of darker-skinned people. Also, there are many poor or "minority" people in the US military currently. This might mean something.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart 1. Why would anyone assume that bin Laden is stupid? It makes total sense to me... why attack us on 9/11? As horrible as the attack was, the U.S. is so vast and economically powerful that a dozen such attacks would never really significantly hurt us. So what would hurt us? Well, Vietnam hurt us. Economically, politically, internationally, etc. And as both Vietnam and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan had shown, a determined people on their own turf, no matter how weak nationally, could defeat a super-power. Besides, how would anyone imagine the U.S. would respond to such an attack? 2. Someone had suggested that "no military personnel can establish political grounds for any state, except for non-democratic one." This seemed like an odd thing to say, considering that our own democratic state, the United States of America, was formed as a result of military action.

#1
That was you, suggesting O. bin-Laden's extra-oridinary and/or superior ability in strategic planning.
In reality, O. bin-Laden was "lucky". That is all.

If U.S. uses all the available means, there is no issue with Vietnam. It applies to Russia vs. Afghanistan war, as well.
Besides, it seems to be quite inaccurate to make such comparison.

#2
Someone needs to read a submitted text, again, prior posting his/her findings.
Hint : inner vs. outter military source

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 That was you, suggesting O. bin-Laden's extra-oridinary and/or superior ability in strategic planning. In reality, O. bin-Laden was "lucky". That is all.

Of course, silly me... our guys, skilled and daring. Their guys, stupid and lucky. I'm obviously not watching enough John Wayne or Rambo movies.

Quote by: Rainbow If U.S. uses all the available means, there is no issue with Vietnam.

All we had/have to do is use our assets like we did in WWII... ei: bomb and burn their cities, towns and populations into bite sized rubble, destroy their will by slaughtering them by the 100s of thousands indiscriminently, and don't be such bleeding heart worryworts about whether the PC world sees us as the new 4th Reich or not.

Thanks, Rainbow... got it.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart . 1. Of course, silly me... our guys, skilled and daring. Their guys, stupid and lucky. I'm obviously not watching enough John Wayne or Rambo movies. 2. All we had/have to do is use our assets like we did in WWII... ei: bomb and burn their cities, towns and populations into bite sized rubble, destroy their will by slaughtering them by the 100s of thousands indiscriminently, and don't be such bleeding heart worryworts about whether the PC world sees us as the new 4th Reich or not. Thanks, Rainbow... got it.

#1
I do not think O. bin-Laden is taken by U.S. governing body as an imbecile. However, over-rating bin-Laden's intellectual and/or strategic ability, seems to go beyond that guy real (cap)ability.

Additionally, if you can come up with a concept, so there are others that can match it, as well. That (alleged) bin-Laden's strategy was taken under consideration, prior entering Iraq.

#2
I do not think U.S. wants to copy either A. Hitler's and/or Stalin's "ideas", since a "muzzling policy" (even in its simplest form) brings not much but problems, if not supported by political solutions in order to make a progress.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 - I do not think O. bin-Laden is taken by U.S. governing body as an imbecile. However, over-rating bin-Laden's intellectual and/or strategic ability, seems to go beyond that guy real (cap)ability.

First off, Rainbow, while the idea that 9/11 was designed to provoke the U.S. into invading and occupying Afghanistan, so that the Warriors of Islam could repeat their defeat of that 'other' SuperPower, may seem cunningly clever, I've never thought of it as "diabolically brilliant". To the contrary, upon reflection it struck me as rather obvious. Say a bunch of veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan are sitting around wondering how to defeat the U.S., it's not that big a leap of imagination.

"We defeated the Mighty Soviet Union and (in their minds) caused their collapse. How'd we do that? Hmmm... the same way we defeated the British Empire a century ago. We let them occupy Afghanistan and then wear down their military until their populations back home rebels and they surrender, at huge cost. Has the U.S. been defeated? Yes, the same way, when they occupied Vietnam and fought a never-ending, 10 year war of attrition. Ok, how do we get them to occupy Afghanistan? Simple. We boldly attack and destroy the symbols of their power and arrogance, along with lots of civilians. General Custer will come charging into our camp in no time, promising his shocked, angry and thin-skinned citizens a quick and just vengence on us ignorant savages."

K.I.S.S. The very simplicity of the stategy and the subsequent attack are the real marks of inspiration. Besides, why is it so difficult to believe that bin Laden or some of his lieutenants may possess some strategic and tactical genius. Suleman... Saladin... Ataturk... the Moslem mideast has managed to come up with it's share of brilliant military minds.

Quote by: =Rainbow #2 - I do not think U.S. wants to copy either A. Hitler's and/or Stalin's "ideas", since a "muzzling policy" (even in its simplest form) brings not much but problems, if not supported by political solutions in order to make a progress.

Well, Rainbow, you did seem to be alluding to a certain mindset found here that if only the U.S. military were allowed to unleash the full fury of its armed might, we'd never be defeated, that the only thing our enemies understand is strength.

Well this strikes me as pretty much exactly what the Germans and Soviets employed, if perhaps without the Jewish atrocities. Recall the Germans had no qualms about how to deal with insurgents... kill a german, lose a village. Pretty simple.

And the U.S. in WWII practised it's own, perhaps more anticeptic brutality, in wiping out 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 100 thousand innocent civilians in a single bombing raid. It takes a certain self-righteous denial not to see the inhuman butchery in such undertakings. But then, because the Nazis and Japanese started the wars with even more brutal conquests, and because the war was of such a monstrous scale, it all made it's own monstrous sense, down to dropping the A-bombs. Hey, it was either them or us, right?

But Vietnam and the War in Iraq are not WWII. They are not all out wars and they are not, technically, OUR wars. We are invited guests, there to help out peoples (protect our national interests) in need of our help... even, by a certain, twisted and ill-conceived logic, in Iraq. As such it becomes a delicate balance between wooing the source of the insurgency's power -- the civilian population -- to our side while delicately picking apart the insurgent organization.

Wasn't that the Bush League's biggest mistake? Assuming the civilian population in Iraq was already completely wooed by the shere wonderfulness of us, the land of the free and the home of the brave Christian soldiers.

However, give carte blanche to the military... especially our military, with our limitless firepower... and we become one massive death squad, a monstrous bull in the china shop reaping endless collateral damage.

Of course, we tell ourselves we don't mean to cause innocent deaths, we really try, with our wonderful smart weapons, to avoid them, and we feel horrible when it happens .. ok, maybe not horrible, but it bothers us some... and it's not like we're terrorists, out to deliberately kill civilians. Right??

But the very nature of the firepower we're capable of delivering makes it not only unavoidable but rather massive. We end up killing LOTS of the very people we tell ourselves we're "Liberating", and in doing so we defeat the very goal we're trying to achieve... wooing the civilian population to our side and away from the insurgents. Instead we anger the civilians and drive them to the insurgents, making the quagmire ever deeper and more unwinnable.

If we liked, we could kill populations wholesale in our efforts to wipe out insurgents, but in the end we simply create a nation of insurgents receiving unlimited aid and resupply from their neighbors who also hate our guts.

-----

So... I'm sure you're saying to yourself, "So what are you saying... that the lives of Iraqi civilians is more important than the lives of our soldiers?"

Yes, actually... that's exactly what I'm saying. And if you're not ready to enter insurgent wars with that mindset, then, by gawd, don't enter insurgent wars.

.

[xyzer]

Actually, our policy towards other nations and people has been shaped more than anything by material self-interest. The races and religions of those who aid or hinder that pursuit are irrellevent.

I'm not fully in agreement with the word material interest sonart? So I'll nit pick your post? It's a given that any nations foreign policy is primarily driven by its own interests...but I find it hard to determine what material gains we achieved by our participation in WW2? As a matter of fact it cost us a bundle of money and a hell of a lot of casualties?
Is it in Irans seeking material gain that it threatens Israel and builds missiles and seeks nuclear weapons as it threatens to destroy the Jews?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: grandpa You're right that race isn't the only factor, but it certainly is one. Religion also figures into it (even into the Cold War against "godless Commies"), as does class.

The "Godless Commies" was simply a useful PR tool, grandpa, a rallying cry to get people to support the cold war. It was actually, like always, about America's economic and geo-political self-interest. Notice we have no problem with the "Godless Chinese" today.

Saying it's always about race, or religion or class is simply your own PR ploy, a way to discredit American interests. We support just as many Moslem regimes as we oppose, and have supported Moslems against Christians, as in the Balkans.

And as I pointed out to someone, both Arabs AND Jews are Semitic peoples... the same race. Swarthy young Israeli Sabras don't look any different than young Palestinians. It's just simpler for you to characterise the conflict that way, the easier to paint black from white.

Quote by: Xyzer It's a given that any nations foreign policy is primarily driven by its own interests...but I find it hard to determine what material gains we achieved by our participation in WW2?

WWII stands out as fairly unique in terms of justifiable war. After all, Germany and Japan had, between themselves, brutally conquered, through force of arms, almost the entirety of the Eurpoean/Asian continent. We entered lest we be conquered ourselves.

Nowadays, our interests in the mideast and most other places hold no such necessity. It's in order to advance, or maintain the convenient status quo, for our economic interests.

.

[samsara15]

The war in Iraq is a badly flawed lie. We have forgotten Afghanistan, which has a far worse, enduring problem. A cynic might even believe all we want is oil.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . The "Godless Commies" was simply a useful PR tool, grandpa, a rallying cry to get people to support the cold war. It was actually, like always, about America's economic and geo- political self-interest.

Yes, things exist as PR tools, but people are killing each other because they believe the propaganda. I suspect race still matters in international affairs, or "self-interest." Nationalism and racism have actually been pretty interchangeable throughout history.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: samsara15 The war in Iraq is a badly flawed lie. We have forgotten Afghanistan, which has a far worse, enduring problem.

I hesitate to say Afghanistan is "far worse," because comparisons and contrasts seem to understate the crises in both places.

Grandpa h.

[thx1138]

but I find it hard to determine what material gains we achieved by our participation in WW2

Well, Japan stole most of the gold from the countries it invaded (china, korea, philippines, burma, and many others) and shipped the gold back to Japan and the Philippines. That gold was up for graps by the forces that were the first to invade Japan. The Russians were also after this gold and were in the process of invading Hokkido before the war can to end with the use of the A-bomb.

Many believe that the A-bombs beinging dropped had more to do with stopping Russia from gaining a foot hold on the four major islands of Japan then forcing the Japanese to surrender.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer ...but I find it hard to determine what material gains we achieved by our participation in WW2? As a matter of fact it cost us a bundle of money and a hell of a lot of casualties?

LOLOL!! You find it hard, do you??? :) Well, let's see, we went from being a 3rd rate world player with about the world's 5th strongest army before WWII to being the world's pre-eminent superpower. We also became the most powerful economy in the world. With Asia and Europe in smoldering ruins, and the U.S. untouched, we became the industrial, economic, cultural and political capitol of the world, and remained so for the next 30 years. Steel, shipping, automobiles, consumer goods, appliances, electronics, agriculture, you name it. We were so dominant economically that American labor unions could demand, and got, almost anything they wanted, and America became the first nation in which skilled and semi-skilled laborers could actually live a middlebclass, suburban lifestyle, which led to the explosion of the suburbs, the U.S. Interstate Highway system, the golden age of automobiles, the jet age, the information age, and basically everything we are today.

Good lord, Xyzer... if you don't see how we benefited from WWII, you're just not paying attention.

.

[xyzer]

You have a point sonart..

Good lord, Xyzer... if you don't see how we benefited from WWII, you're just not paying attention.

Isn't it possible that all these gains you posit would have happened without our participation in WW2 where we supplied the Allied side with arms and ammo while depriving our nation of the productive capacity we had?
The free enterprise system, industrial capacity, and expertise of this country were not changed or improved by the war..they were stimulated. I don't know how we balance the hundreds of thousands of human lives lost and lack of internal manufacturing products(e.g. civilian autos not manufactured during the war years, food rationing) influences your material gain equation?The US was and is a growing nation and would have grown and developed without the war would it not?
I repeat what material gains did we make as a result of the war, that we wouldn't have made anyway?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Isn't it possible that all these gains you posit would have happened without our participation in WW2 where we supplied the Allied side with arms and ammo while depriving our nation of the productive capacity we had?

No, because the allies likely would not have won WWII without our military participation. Heck, the Axis came this >||< close to winning even with us in the war.

Quote by: Xyzer The free enterprise system, industrial capacity, and expertise of this country were not changed or improved by the war..they were stimulated.

Throughout history, wars have always been the greatest catalysts for advancing giant leaps in technology... communications, transportation, engineering, medicine, arms, etc. etc.

.

[BugsBunny07]

Alright, I had no intentions when I came back of touching this issue, but I can't remain silent anymore...

October 07 had the lowest death toll for American soldiers in 20 months, Septmeber was almost as low.

I'm not going to get into what my unit is or what it does, but I will say that if anybody is going to get blowed up, we aughta. All through the month of October niether me, nor any of my buddies, saw a gosh darn thing. That doesn't mean that nothing is going on. But if it really was a "nightmare", the law of averages would have caught up with me by now. Thus far, I have yet to fire a weapon in anger.

This is not a nightmare. This is NOT another Vietnam. People who claim there is "no end in sight" are NOT in touch with reality. Even if a U.S. presence remains for years to come, think about it, how many years have we been in Germany? Korea? I'm convinced that before I get out of the Army, Iraq will be a place to get a "permenant change of station" to, rather than a place to get "deployed" to.

And thats all I have to say.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 Alright, I had no intentions when I came back of touching this issue, but I can't remain silent anymore... October 07 had the lowest death toll for American soldiers in 20 months, Septmeber was almost as low.

So a lower death toll after 20 months justifies the war? Makes it less of a nightmare?

Grandpa h.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 Even if a U.S. presence remains for years to come, think about it, how many years have we been in Germany? Korea? I'm convinced that before I get out of the Army, Iraq will be a place to get a "permenant change of station" to, rather than a place to get "deployed" to.

But what do we gain for the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, or the hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better used somewhere else? What's the payoff??

BTW, would you please comment on the reports of "search and avoid" missions?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee But what do we gain for the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, or the hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better used somewhere else? What's the payoff??

The payoff is for some level of quenched bloodlust and a hypocritical, basically ahistorical sense of justice served. Some support war because they love it. They'd be more than happy to fork out billions of dollars, and feel ever greater military expenditures are desperately needed.

Grandpa h.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: grandpa So a lower death toll after 20 months justifies the war?

I never implied any such thing.

A declining death toll indicates progress. It indicates that we are gaining ground and the enemy is losing ground. It indicates that what we are doing is working. And it...

Makes it less of a nightmare?

It's not a nightmare.

Quote by: Zeebadee But what do we gain for the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, or the hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better used somewhere else? What's the payoff??

A sadistic tyrant out of power, Freedom to Shiites and Kurds oppressed for decades. Jobs created by the need for all the things that companies like KBR take care of. Strengthening of international relations (especially with coalition countries, and countries providing civilian contractors of all types) Rapid advancement in the arms and textile industries. Another source of fossil fuels. The benefits in infrastructure, standard of living and quality of life to the Iraqi people is staggering.

BTW, would you please comment on the reports of "search and avoid" missions?

Even if I knew wtf you are talking about, the answer would still be in the negatory.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 A sadistic tyrant out of power, Freedom to Shiites and Kurds oppressed for decades. Jobs created by the need for all the things that companies like KBR take care of. Strengthening of international relations (especially with coalition countries, and countries providing civilian contractors of all types) Rapid advancement in the arms and textile industries. Another source of fossil fuels. The benefits in infrastructure, standard of living and quality of life to the Iraqi people is staggering.

None of which are my responsibility to pay for.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 Even if I knew wtf you are talking about, the answer would still be in the negatory.

Your credibility as a "soldier" just took a big hit.