On losing a war

[RickSp]

Sometimes the War Party reminds me of a chicken with its head cut off. It always takes a while for the decapitated chicken's nervous system to become aware that it has lost its head, and so it runs around headless for quite a while.

In Vietnam, it was the same. We were losing the war yet the War Party stayed in denial almost up until the helicopters were lifting off from the roof of the US embassy, one step ahead of the North Vietnamese army.

In Iraq the War Party line remains "the only exit strategy is victory" or less pompously, "we'll stay until the Iraqis can defend themselves", presumably from other Iraqis. Yet, like the proverbial headless chicken the war appears already lost, even if the war mongers continue to run headless around the barnyard. We have slipped into a civil war that we can neither control nor stop.

Defying U.S. Efforts, Guerrillas in Iraq Refocus and Strengthen

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever. A string of recent attacks, including the execution of moderate Sunni leaders and the kidnapping of foreign diplomats, has brought home for many Iraqis that the democratic process that has been unfolding since the Americans restored Iraqi sovereignty in June 2004 has failed to isolate the insurgents and, indeed, has become the target itself. After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad. And the insurgents are choosing their targets with greater precision, and executing and dramatizing their attacks with more sophistication than they have in the past. American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day. But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.

If It's Civil War, Do We Know It?

The first signs that America's top officials in Iraq were revising their thinking about what they might accomplish in Iraq came a year ago. As Iraq resumed its sovereignty after the period of American occupation, the new American team that arrived then, headed by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, had a withering term for the optimistic approach of their predecessors, led by L. Paul Bremer III. The new team called the departing Americans "the illusionists," for their conviction that America could create a Jeffersonian democracy on the ruins of Saddam Hussein's medieval brutalism. One American military commander began his first encounter with American reporters by asking, "Well, gentlemen, tell me: Do you think that events here afford us the luxury of hope?" It seemed clear then that the administration, for all its public optimism, had begun substituting more modest goals for the idealists' conception of Iraq. How much more modest has become clearer in the 12 months since. From the moment American troops crossed the border 28 months ago, the specter hanging over the American enterprise here has been that Iraq, freed from Mr. Hussein's tyranny, might prove to be so fractured - by politics and religion, by culture and geography, and by the suspicion and enmity sown by Mr. Hussein's years of repression - that it would spiral inexorably into civil war. If it did, opponents of the American-led invasion had warned, American troops could get caught in the crossfire between Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds and Turkmen, secularists and believers - reduced, in the grimmest circumstances, to the common target of a host of contending militias. Now, events are pointing more than ever to the possibility that the nightmare could come true. Recent weeks have seen the insurgency reach new heights of sustained brutality. The violence is ever more centered on sectarian killings, with Sunni insurgents targeting hundreds of Shiite and Kurdish civilians in suicide bombings. There are reports of Shiite death squads, some with links to the interior ministry, retaliating by abducting and killing Sunni clerics and community leaders. The past 10 days have seen such a quickening of these killings, particularly by the insurgents, that many Iraqis are saying that the civil war has already begun. That at least some senior officials in Washington understand the gravity of the situation seems clear from remarks made at the Foreign Press Center in Washington two weeks ago by Zalmay Khalilzad, who arrives in Baghdad this week to begin as Mr. Negroponte's successor. In his remarks, Mr. Khalilzad abandoned a convention that had bound senior American officials when speaking of Iraq - to talk of civil war only if reporters raised it first, and then only to dismiss it as a beyond-the-fringe possibility. Using the term twice in one paragraph, he spoke of civil war as something America must do everything to avoid.

Is the war in Iraq already lost?

[oranged]

which war party? conservatives or extreme communists?

[RickSp]

Quote by: oranged which war party? conservatives or extreme communists?

Both the left and the right have supported this and other similarly stupid wars. The labels really don't matter much to the dead.

[PatrickHenry]

It's about the money. The taxpayers are enriching Halliburton and Bechtel, et al. Win or lose, they still profit, just like Vietnam.

You know this very well, Rick. What are you tryin' to pull here?

[dotcoma]

Some of you are so matter-of-fact. Pat, you cannot possibly know the true reasons for being in Iraq (nor can I). Every war has people who profit, but there can also be a greater purpose. Combating Islamic extremism by changing the environment in the Middle East sounds like a possibilty.

Oh and Rick, just because Vietnam failed (which was the US getting invovled in a matter that did not concern it) does not imply that a war to combat terror (which does indeed effect the US) cannot be won.

Why is this being compared to other wars and labeled as such a problematic deathtrap when less have died in the entire conflict then most weeks in Vietnam, WW2, etc?

[ibm]

Quote by: dotcoma Some of you are so matter-of-fact. Pat, you cannot possibly know the true reasons for being in Iraq (nor can I). Every war has people who profit, but there can also be a greater purpose. Combating Islamic extremism by changing the environment in the Middle East sounds like a possibilty. ...

so we are playing the guessing game now? are you saying we went for a war that no one knew why we went?

btw, people start to compare wars when common sense sees similarities.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: ibm so we are playing the guessing game now? are you saying we went for a war that no one knew why we went? btw, people start to compare wars when common sense sees similarities.

No, but for people in the public to think they have all of the answers 100% right about the war is fairly naive in my opinion.

Also, I know why people compare wars, but it is silly to compare a war involving 65,000 deaths and 1,000. Also, it is silly to compare a war that is against an enemy that truly hates us and will build up in numbers if we ignore it.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: dotcoma Combating Islamic extremism by changing the environment in the Middle East sounds like a possibilty.

Maybe if Saddam was an Islamic Extremist I could take this argument seriously. Since he was just a generally all around bad guy, sittin' on an ocean of oil, I'll take my argument more seriously than yerz...

[dotcoma]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Maybe if Saddam was an Islamic Extremist I could take this argument seriously. Since he was just a generally all around bad guy, sittin' on an ocean of oil, I'll take my argument more seriously than yerz...

For a conspiracy theorist you sure operate with a pretty linear mind when things do not fit your agenda (sorry I am just making an observation). Saddam was secular. My point: What if Iraq was just the perfect state to democratize? Or ...what if they just thought it was (and were wrong)? They could not have gone on tv and said that they wanted to restructure the entire Middle East via forced democratization could they?

Saddam was an easy target. We got to roll our tanks in and the jingoism could not be higher. My point is that now this is a war between Islamic extremists and the US. If we can control Iraq and turn it into a semi-democratic pawn then perhaps we can deal a blow to the fundementalists who need there shitty economic conditions in the Middle East to recruit.

Oh and the oil argument is pretty lame. You should really invest some time into looking where we get most of our oil. Why did we not invade South America?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: dotcoma For a conspiracy theorist you sure operate with a pretty linear mind when things do not fit your agenda (sorry I am just making an observation). Saddam was secular. My point: What if Iraq was just the perfect state to democratize? Or ...what if they just thought it was (and were wrong)? They could not have gone on tv and said that they wanted to restructure the entire Middle East via forced democratization could they? Saddam was an easy target. We got to roll our tanks in and the jingoism could not be higher. My point is that now this is a war between Islamic extremists and the US. If we can control Iraq and turn it into a semi-democratic pawn then perhaps we can deal a blow to the fundementalists who need there shitty economic conditions in the Middle East to recruit. Oh and the oil argument is pretty lame. You should really invest some time into looking where we get most of our oil. Why did we not invade South America?

Our government is not empowered to spend our money in that fashion. It is against the law, and aginst the sworn oath. They are there to provide services to Americans.


Haw many damned times do we have to point that out?


If you feel differently, why don't you tell us where they derive the authority to act as they do. Show us the paper.

[ibm]

Quote by: dotcoma ...Also, I know why people compare wars, but it is silly to compare a war involving 65,000 deaths and 1,000. Also, it is silly to compare a war that is against an enemy that truly hates us and will build up in numbers if we ignore it.

65,000 for over a decade vs. way over 1,000 (and that is a mis-/understated number) in 28 months.

are you trying to distort the facts or are you mathematically challenged?

[belverron]

Quote by: dotcoma Oh and Rick, just because Vietnam failed (which was the US getting invovled in a matter that did not concern it) does not imply that a war to combat terror (which does indeed effect the US) cannot be won.

Who says Iraq concerned us? They were no immediate threat. As for combating an abstraction with smart bombs, I'll pass, thank you.

[belverron]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Our government is not empowered to spend our money in that fashion. It is against the law, and aginst the sworn oath. They are there to provide services to Americans. Haw many damned times do we have to point that out? If you feel differently, why don't you tell us where they derive the authority to act as they do. Show us the paper.

Another good point. I don't give a damn about the welfare of the Middle East if it puts my country in the red. Our economy's fighting a losing battle as it is, and I don't want to be alive when it putters out.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Our government is not empowered to spend our money in that fashion. It is against the law, and aginst the sworn oath. They are there to provide services to Americans.

Services such as security? The American people voted for a continuation of such policy.

Oh and folks..you really do not get it. I do not care about the welfare of the Middle East either. My point was that the more their economies suffer the more likely terrorist-recruiting will increase and problems at home in the US will increase. Like the effects of the Treaty of Versailles causing mass-appeal for Nazism, poverty in the Middle East causes immense appeal for anti-Western terrorism/scapegoating.

Oh and Ibm, I can add. You said 60,000 in one decade versus 1,000 in 2 ½ years..sounds like a different scale to me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: dotcoma Services such as security? The American people voted for a continuation of such policy. Oh and folks..you really do not get it. I do not care about the welfare of the Middle East either. My point was that the more their economies suffer the more likely terrorist-recruiting will increase and problems at home in the US will increase. Like the effects of the Treaty of Versailles causing mass-appeal for Nazism, poverty in the Middle East causes immense appeal for anti-Western terrorism/scapegoating. Oh and Ibm, I can add. You said 60,000 in one decade versus 1,000 in 2 ½ years..sounds like a different scale to me.

You fail to consider that there would not even be an issue if we were not there in the first place. I don't mean this war, or the one before that, I mean the State Deprtment meddling that has gone on there since Iraq became Iraq.


Colonialism just doesn't work.

[ibm]

Quote by: dotcoma ...Oh and Ibm, I can add. You said 60,000 in one decade versus 1,000 in 2 ½ years..sounds like a different scale to me.

so 65,000 is 60,000 now? and just 1,000 so far in iraq?

and you sure are a mathematician. you must think in a war that lasts longer and longer, the rate of casualty must be the same each year but not accelerating, eh? do a google and find out the pattern in vietnam (and iraq) yourself.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You fail to consider that there would not even be an issue if we were not there in the first place. I don't mean this war, or the one before that, I mean the State Deprtment meddling that has gone on there since Iraq became Iraq.

....Well I think I have made some progress here. You are admitting there is a problem in the region. Sorry, but the shit in the past did happen, and even if it did not the Islamic fundamentalists would want our heads anyway as long as we prevented them from having Israel.

Oh and ibm, show me that the death-count has been accelerating. That is your argument to support, not mine. Oh and please do not talk to me if you are going to be such a prick with the attitude because you disagree with me.

[Milton Bradley]

No, this is about British, French, American, and the United Nations involvement in other people affairs.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, this is about British, French, American, and the United Nations involvement in other people affairs.

Okay...great....lol

It happened! Time to protect our own interests now...such as survival.

[Milton Bradley]

Again, show me the where they derive the authority to act this way.


I can sure as Hell show you the limitation imposed on my government, and where they signed on the dotted line.


You also fail to address the fact that we drew first blood. Any organism with the will to live will react when poked, or shot, or bombed, or deprived of basic human rights, such as the right to determine their own futurte.