Losing by the Numbers

[Comrade]

Quote by: RickSp So now you speak for George Bush. Good to know.

No, like I said in my post above, I was speaking for myself. You want to argue with Bush, go ahead, but don't make me his avatar.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop heh.. i think you need to chill a little man. all i'm saying is that we could beat the iranian army as we did the iraqi army. i didn't suggest that we could successfully occupy iran. we're getting our butts kicked in iraq, so why would i think that iran would be doable? comrade... the neocons are thinking about invading iran.. check their think tanks and you'll see them openly debating it - under the guise of defending ourselves (read: israel) from iranian nukes.

I'm close enough to freezing and there is a blizzarrd outside. Chilling's not my problem, but I digress.

My point is, and I think you get already, that it really doesn't matter whether we can destroy the Iranian army. Destroying armies should not be confused for winning a war.

I do think, nevertheless, that it would be a mistake to assume that just because the Iraqi army collapsed (many generals were simply bought off) that the same thing can be assumed about the Iranian army. The cliche about generals always fighting the last war is too true and the Iranians have had the time and opportunity to study US tactics.

[bishop]

i think you've seen me post here long enough to figure out what my opinion of invading/occupying or warring with iran is, if you haven't read it already.

the reason why i'm not concerned about occupying iran is because i don't think we will. if you read the leaked report, we're looking to take out iran's nuke sites using special ops and airborne attacks. our goal is to eliminate their capabilities, not to initiate regime change. we can still war with iran without occupying them.

[Comrade]

Actually, destroying armies has very much a lot to do with winning wars. If you destroy someone's army (and I mean decimate, not just let them surrender and go home like in Iraq), they can't oppose you. Pretty simple.

The Iranians have had time to study Western tactics, as have almost all of the Wests enemies throughout history. In older history, they've even hired Western armies to help them fight. They almost always have Western arms. But none of that matters, because they still lose.

[Comrade]

Quote by: bishop if you read the leaked report, we're looking to take out iran's nuke sites using special ops and airborne attacks. our goal is to eliminate their capabilities, not to initiate regime change. we can still war with iran without occupying them.

Exactly. You could be Clausewitz :)

[bishop]

note: i don't advocate such a policy at all. doing so could work, but the fallout from such a manuever would be horrendous.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop i think you've seen me post here long enough to figure out what my opinion of invading/occupying or warring with iran is, if you haven't read it already. the reason why i'm not concerned about occupying iran is because i don't think we will. if you read the leaked report, we're looking to take out iran's nuke sites using special ops and airborne attacks. our goal is to eliminate their capabilities, not to initiate regime change. we can still war with iran without occupying them.

If the goal is only to recreate Israel's attack on Osiraq in 1980, I think every one knows that Iran is prepared for that sort of attack. Even with the bunker busters that the US has given Israel, it is unlikely that they would succeed. The Iranian reactor at Bushehr is reported to be hardened and some of their facilities are dispersed. The Iranians are also promising to take out the Israeli reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert if they are attacked. Some reports also claim that the Iranians would send several brigades north into Iraq to attack American troops.

A "clean" in and out strike might make sense to the planners in the Pentagon, but seems unlikely to actually work. I think US forces are likely to get bogged down if the conflict spreads, as it is likely to do. Who knows, time will tell.

[bishop]

i'm always hesitant to doubt the capabilities of our military.. we've literally slaughtered our enemies in recent wars, particularly when we're able to use all of our expensive toys. all i hope is that it doesn't come down to it, and that this pedantic debate remains hypothetical.

i haven't read much into iran's military capabilities, but i'm not sure how accurate their missiles are. they have no satellites to my knowledge... the best they have is the korean missile, no dong i believe. i'm sure the iranians have tried to upgrade the guidance system on their own, but this missile is essentially an improved scud - which is only somewhat accurate at close ranges.

[giuliano]

i think the US has to clean up iraq before it thinks about tackling iran.

there seems to be a feeling amongst some people that iraqi elections represents some kind of end to hostilities, and victory for democracy. that is not the case.

the best thing the US can do is sponsor the iranian democracy movement. this is hard to do, given its habit of sponsoring groups who play ball with their economic priorities. money and dictatorship... democracy... money and dictators.... oh it's too confusing!

[RickSp]

Quote by: giuliano i think the US has to clean up iraq before it thinks about tackling iran. there seems to be a feeling amongst some people that iraqi elections represents some kind of end to hostilities, and victory for democracy. that is not the case. the best thing the US can do is sponsor the iranian democracy movement. this is hard to do, given its habit of sponsoring groups who play ball with their economic priorities. money and dictatorship... democracy... money and dictators.... oh it's too confusing!

The absolutely best case scenario is that the elected council asks the US to leave Iraq post haste and that the Bush gang is smart enough to grab an exit strategy when they see it. I'm not optimistic.

[bishop]

yeah.. while it would be the "ethical" thing to cut and run, i can't see how we can actually solve the problems of iraq. as it is, everytime our leaders attempt to improve things, they only make them worse.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop yeah.. while it would be the "ethical" thing to cut and run, i can't see how we can actually solve the problems of iraq. as it is, everytime our leaders attempt to improve things, they only make them worse.

Your use of the phrase "cut and run" typically imples cowardice or a lack of manhood. That is not the original meaning of "cut and run".

The origin of the phrase is nautical. When a ship is caught in a dangerous situation in which there isn't time to raise the anchor, the only alternative is to cut the anchor rode and run before the wind, to cut and run. Losing an anchor is not a choice made lightly on a sailing ship and is only done if the alternative is the loss of the ship itself. The phrase refers to a difficult and costly decision in which inaction will lead to disaster. I think that sums up our position in Iraq fairly accurately. The longer we continue the occupation the worse the situation will become. In the original sense of the phrase, cutting and running, is a costly choice but still the best decision available.

[bishop]

there was a type-o in my previous post, i meant that "cut and run" would be the unethical thing to do.

and the original meaning of the phrase... perceptions change - and this phrase will be manipulated many different ways. the enemy will use it to label us as cowards, our allies in europe will use it to label us as irresponsible (creating a mess and failing to clean it up).. politicians opposed to bush (including those from his own party) will also use it, probably similar to the europeans.

i'm not entirely sure if pulling out is the best thing to do. but at the same time, i'm not convinced it's the worst thing to do either. should the country collapse, i think that will create some bigger problems for us. my view has usually believed that we should withdraw the majority of our troops and keep some (possibly in nearby countries) to aggressively train iraqi police and soldiers.

[RickSp]

I question whether we should be the ones who make the choice. We could wait until we are asked to leave or until we are bodily thrown out.

THE Shi’ite Muslim cleric tipped to become prime minister after next Sunday’s election in Iraq has said it will be the duty of the new government to demand the withdrawal of American forces “as soon as possible”. “No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. “We regard these forces to have committed many mistakes in the handling of various issues, the first and foremost being that of security, which in turn has contributed to the massacres, crimes and calamities that have taken place in Iraq against the Iraqis.”

Go home Yanks, says PM in waiting

[giuliano]

Quote by: RickSp The absolutely best case scenario is that the elected council asks the US to leave Iraq post haste and that the Bush gang is smart enough to grab an exit strategy when they see it. I'm not optimistic.

from memory i think bremer had US military occupation written into the iraqi constitution!

anyone remember that?

[RickSp]

Before Bremer left town in the middle of the night, he turned over "sovereignty" to the hand-picked "interim government". Bremer issued all sort so edicts covering security, the economy, and th epoltical process. The turn over of "sovereignty" was mostly symbolic.

The Iraqis won't be voting on a new governement in a few days. They are voting on representatives who will have the job of writing a new constitution prior to a new election next August. They should have the ability to draft the constitution they want. Given all the competing factions and US meddling, they may or may not succeed.

[giuliano]

it's clear that the US have had a heavy influence over both afghani and iraqi election outcomes.

the US's man karzai got in in afghanistan, and it will be interesting to see whether allawi gets in in iraq.

i am very disturbed by the close ties the US keeps with officials it has helped get into power, under the guise of democracy. personally i liked the vietnamese. the US tried it there and they were told to go to hell, ho chi minh would have won any democratic poll (thus Dem or whatever his name was, was installed as dictator).

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp The issue is not whether or not we pull out of Iraq, the issue is how we do it before we are thrown out. We are losing the war. Analysis: Iraqi insurgency growing larger, more effective Here are the base data, if anyone is interested. IRAQ INDEX - Tracking Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq

Assuming that U.S. is losing the war in Iraq, there is always a solution :
- partition Iraqi state

Additionally, political initiatives should bring re-solutions, as well.
In this case, it depends of U.S. Foreign Policy. C.Rice would have to work hard to bring positive results, in order to improve the situation in Iraq.