Army can't fight - Insurgents can

[RickSp]

Two items from today's newpapers:

Iraqis Not Ready to Fight Rebels on Their Own, U.S. Says

About half of Iraq's new police battalions are still being established and cannot conduct operations, while the other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new army battalions are only "partially capable" of carrying out counterinsurgency missions, and only with American help, according to a newly declassified Pentagon assessment. Only "a small number" of Iraqi security forces are capable of fighting the insurgency without American assistance, while about one-third of the army is capable of "planning, executing and sustaining counterinsurgency operations" with allied support, the analysis said.

Iraq insurgents 'effective, adaptable'

A PENTAGON assessment has concluded that Iraqi insurgents remain "effective, adaptable and intent on carrying out attacks" on Iraqi officials and civilians, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.

The insurgents are fighting for a cause and the Iraqi army is showing up, if not necessarily fighting, to collect a pay-check. Reminds me of Vietnam. Anyone else see the parallel?

[Samildanach]

Yep....thats about right in my book...guess who is more motivated.

[Sonart]

Quote by: RickSp The insurgents are fighting for a cause and the Iraqi army is showing up, if not necessarily fighting, to collect a pay-check. Reminds me of Vietnam. Anyone else see the parallel?

Good heavens, no. I mean, Vietnam is tropical while Iraq is a desert, the Vietnamese speak Vietnamese and the Iraqis don't, Vietnam was divided by geography while Iraq is divided by religion, the Vietnamese eat sour fish soup while the Iraqis eat baked stuffed fish... </sarcasm>

One similarity; the Iraqis don't need to defeat us to win. They just need to keep fighting and not lose. I read RickSp's articles in my own morning paper, and it sounds like the Iraq insurgency is not losing and that the Iraqi government is not about to change that.

.

[Tesserakt]

For those of us not in Iraq, it's almost like "Iraq" is just another political issue. Each side has their talking points, emotional catch-phrases, and hopes.

Imagine what it's like for the Americans who're actually there. Are they starting to wonder if the constant observations of a "turning point" are all just hot air?

Does anyone in this administration have what it takes to win a war?

[ibm]

Quote by: Tesserakt ...Does anyone in this administration have what it takes to win a war?

interesting question. maybe it's better put as "is this a winnable war?" and how many of our leaders' kids are actually fighting over the frontier?

i support the idea that the best way to support our troops is to get them out.

[Tesserakt]

Quote by: ibm interesting question. maybe it's better put as "is this a winnable war?" and how many of our leaders' kids are actually fighting over the frontier? i support the idea that the best way to support our troops is to get them out.

Every war is winnable. But really, what will be the result of our victory? No one has exclusive rights to the definition of freedom, and the indigenous Iraqis who see our withdrawl as a victory for freedom, seem to share the understanding of the definition with our forefathers.

It's almost as if we're fighting against our definition of what it means to be free.

Thoughts like that, and the real turmoil of the war are avoided like the plague by our administration. Maybe if they'd actally fought in wars themselves, they wouldn't be so adept at simply talking the talk than walking the walk.

The only battles this administration seems able to win are elections. Too bad for the people who put their lives on the line for battles outside their forte.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Tesserakt Every war is winnable.

Spoken like a consumate politician. No war is winnable. You simply survive or die. Only for politicians who reap the rewards can there be a 'win'. For the poor saps on either side who actually do the dying, it's just a matter of getting out alive.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Tesserakt Every war is winnable. But really, what will be the result of our victory? No one has exclusive rights to the definition of freedom, and the indigenous Iraqis who see our withdrawl as a victory for freedom, seem to share the understanding of the definition with our forefathers. It's almost as if we're fighting against our definition of what it means to be free.

If the goal of the war is to bring democracy to Iraq, it is probably not winnable. Democracy is rarely successfully delivered by armored divisions or airstrikes. Democracy is like crabgrass. It must be homegrown.

No war is really winnable. The only real question is which side loses the most.

[Samildanach]

Withdraw quickly...ie pretend to pull out, let them all congregate in the center yelling victory then bomb the city with a neutron bomb while they are all in it. Its ruined anyway.
Then come back and rebuild.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: RickSp The insurgents are fighting for a cause and the Iraqi army is showing up, if not necessarily fighting, to collect a pay-check. Reminds me of Vietnam. Anyone else see the parallel?

Yes, but that cause is so demented. They are fighting to go to heaven and to rid the world of westerners. Our leaders (not necessarily our soldiers) need to be committed to squashing this violent ideology before it messes up everything.

Oh and Rick, we established democracy in both Germany and Japan. There was certainly resistence in Japan.

I think once we get an Arab/Iraqi army going we should be able to project some power to the borders and stop most of this nonsense. Also, we'll likely need more access into Pakistan/Syria.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dotcoma Yes, but that cause is so demented. They are fighting to go to heaven and to rid the world of westerners. Our leaders (not necessarily our soldiers) need to be committed to squashing this violent ideology before it messes up everything. .

Ideologies can't be fought with air strikes. Just look how well the Russians did in Afghanistan.

Quote by: dotcoma Oh and Rick, we established democracy in both Germany and Japan. There was certainly resistence in Japan. .

We reestablished democratic institutions in countries that both had functioning democracies prior to the war. Iraq has zero history of representative governement and our wrecking their country, killing thousands of civilians and running rigged elections is doing nothing to promote it.

Quote by: dotcoma I think once we get an Arab/Iraqi army going we should be able to project some power to the borders and stop most of this nonsense. Also, we'll likely need more access into Pakistan/Syria.

And I'll bet you like repeating your mistakes too. Real smart.

[Tesserakt]

Quote by: RickSp If the goal of the war is to bring democracy to Iraq, it is probably not winnable. Democracy is rarely successfully delivered by armored divisions or airstrikes. Democracy is like crabgrass. It must be homegrown.

There are too many unpredictable things going on in that frankencountry to really know. In my opinion the strongest recipe for democracy in Iraq is to have them fight us off like we did the British. That just doesn't jive with our building of military bases does it?

No war is really winnable. The only real question is which side loses the most.

Maybe I could say nothing good comes from victory, but I won't say that no war is winnable.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: RickSp Ideologies can't be fought with air strikes. Just look how well the Russians did in Afghanistan.

The airstrikes and attacks are to stop attacks from harming people in the now. The long-term goal must be to economically change Iraq so that extremism is condemned. The same if true for the entire region. A transformation is needed.

Quote by: RickSp We reestablished democratic institutions in countries that both had functioning democracies prior to the war. Iraq has zero history of representative governement and our wrecking their country, killing thousands of civilians and running rigged elections is doing nothing to promote it.

Rigged elections? Please prove this. Also, the insurgency is the one running so indiscriminately into children with bombs.

[Matt W]

Also, the insurgency is the one running so indiscriminately into children with bombs.

'The insurgency' isn't just one organisation.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Tesserakt There are too many unpredictable things going on in that frankencountry to really know. In my opinion the strongest recipe for democracy in Iraq is to have them fight us off like we did the British. That just doesn't jive with our building of military bases does it?

You didn't have a democracy when you got rid of the British. You had wealthy white men selecting congressmen, and even wealthier white men selecting the President. It was a long time before the US had universal democracy, and where, in the end, did it come from? It came from above. There was certainly pressure from the lowest levels for reform, but it was, in the end, those in power who gave it.

If your point about the best way to have democracy in Iraq is to oust the tyrants, couldn't they have done that under Saddam? They would have an extra 100 000 potential guerillas at least.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp The insurgents are fighting for a cause and the Iraqi army is showing up, if not necessarily fighting, to collect a pay-check. Reminds me of Vietnam. Anyone else see the parallel?

Vietnam was all about :
- check the military equipement
- check military strategies, tactics, ect.
- get rid of out-dated military equipement

Iraq is all about :
- developing and promoting a political body that would support U.S. interests in Iraq
- establishing military and intelligence bases in Middle-East region
- developing market for U.S. business (one of the most important tasks, with eventual outcomes like : "Made in Iraq")
- steady Iraqi oil supplies
- future influence on all other states within the Middle-East region and beyond

Generally :
- Vietnam was all about ideological "sepremacy" in that state
- Iraq is all about reviving U.S. economy, supported by/with a strong military and intelligence presence

Example :
Right now, U.S. is developing and creating intelligence networks in Iraq, that "vanished" over 20 years ago in the Middle-East region.
Intelligence networks are the keys to political and military solutions, and no state can be successfull without it, especially when the science and technology is a crucial part for any state's existance and progress.

The main issue with Iraqi political scene is not going to be solved within military-related actions, but political ones.
(Unless I omitted a thread posted on "Volcanvo" forum), but I was not able to spot a topic with concern to a new Iraqi Constitution and Law. These are the keys to U.S. success in Iraq.

That newely created and developed Iraqi Constitution limits Iraqi women's rights, privilieges, ect. significantly, in comparison to established ones by Iraqi interim governing body. That subject has not much in common with feminism, but :
- winning a battle against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq
All the rights for Iraqi women are about to be heavily and drastically limited. As introduced in one of projects (for a new Iraqi Constitution), women's rights and privileges are going to be rather symbolic ones. That is a much heavier blow to U.S. policy in Iraq, than any terrorists and/or insurgents attack.

How is that subject so important, then ?
The Iraqi women is a driving-political-force needed for political changes in Iraq, with a potential influence on all the Arabic countries (!) There have never been any rights, privileges, ect. granted for women within Islamic states. Those women could have played a crucial role in creating a political scene in Iraq.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dotcoma The airstrikes and attacks are to stop attacks from harming people in the now. The long-term goal must be to economically change Iraq so that extremism is condemned. The same if true for the entire region. A transformation is needed.

As US airstrikes killed at least five times the number of civilians (and perhaps many more) that Osama killed with his hijacked planes on 9/11, it is hard to see how the airstrikes are not "harming people" unless you do not view Iraqis as people. It is also hard to see how using Haliburton to loot the country will economically change Iraq for the better. Naked imperialism is not particularly transformational.

Quote by: dotcoma Rigged elections? Please prove this. Also, the insurgency is the one running so indiscriminately into children with bombs.

Before the Occupation Authority turned over "sovereignty" to its hand picked interim government it retained for the US control of most of the economy and all security and set the terms under which the elections would be held and the structure of the new governement. The elections of earlier thsi year were rigged in that the outcome was essentially preordained by the rues mandated by the foreign occupier, the US.

There is no justification of the insurgency killing civilians any more than there is for the US machine gunning civilians at checkpoints. Both sets of events are far too common.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Rainbow Vietnam was all about : - check the military equipement - check military strategies, tactics, ect. - get rid of out-dated military equipement

Really??? So it wasn't about defending democratic South Vietnam from the expansion of communism? Was Desert Storm also simply about assessing our military strategies, equipment and tactics?

Quote by: Rainbow Iraq - developing and promoting a political body that would support U.S. interests in Iraq

Are you honestly saying that wasn't our goal in South vietnam, to establish a viable government that would support our interests in Southeast Asia?

Quote by: Rainbow - establishing military and intelligence bases in Middle-East region

Again, weren't we establishing military and intelligence bases in South Vietnam to counter the north?

Quote by: Rainbow - developing market for U.S. business (one of the most important tasks, with eventual outcomes like : "Made in Iraq")

Exactly what products "Made in Iraq" are we dying for, besides their oil? What form of capitalism are we promoting in the mideast that we weren't defending against communism in Southeast Asia?

Quote by: Rainbow - Vietnam was all about ideological "sepremacy" in that state

Beg pardon? And it's not about ideological supremacy when we're - supposedly - trying to "establish democracy" in the mideast? Gawd, what's your definition of ideological supremacy?

Quote by: Rainbow - steady Iraqi oil supplies

Well at least you got that one right. Yup, Vietnam didn't have oil.

Quote by: Rainbow - Iraq is all about reviving U.S. economy, supported by/with a strong military and intelligence presence

So it's our right to revive the U.S. economy by the military conquest of sovereign nations, establishing military and intelligence presences by force? It's not my style to invoke Hitler, but jeez, this would make him proud.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Anybody aware of Bin Laden's limited time truce offer? http://electroniciraq.net/news/2073.shtml#day14part1_5
Is the war being fought on all these continents about "our freedom" or about imperialist occupations and manipulation?

[Sonart]

--"The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country."--

What do I think? When pigs can fly.

.