The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq [Archive]

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2008, 01:19

From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22ohanlon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The State of Iraq: An Update
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By JASON CAMPBELL, MICHAEL O’HANLON and AMY UNIKEWICZ
Published: June 22, 2008

IRAQ remains a violent country plagued by high unemployment, raw wounds from sectarian conflict, extremist militias aided by Iran, more than four million people still displaced by violence, and very limited government capacity to meet the country’s core needs. There has, however, been major progress this spring on two fronts. Together they give reason for hope that the major improvement in security resulting from the surge of American forces may endure even as the surge itself ends this July.

The State of Iraq in Numbers First, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki showed real backbone by undertaking major military operations that ultimately reclaimed Iraq’s chief southern city of Basra, the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, and much of the northern city of Mosul. Iraq’s government now controls almost all of the country for the first time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Second, in these recent battles the Iraqi security forces performed far better than previously. While American (and British) combat support and advisory teams remain critical, Iraqis are doing much of the fighting now. Although some units performed badly, as with the Iraqi Army’s inexperienced 52nd Brigade in the Basra operation, the reasons have been identified and addressed. The Pentagon now rates about 55 percent of the Iraqi security forces as “good” or “very good” — and for the first time, such American metrics seem accurate.

On the whole, we feel that the Iraqi government is about halfway to meeting the 11 “Iraq index” benchmarks we have laid out, which include steps like establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord and enacting pension and amnesty laws. (Our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding.)

It would be too much to talk of imminent victory in Iraq. But we may at least be able to avert strategic defeat with a careful plan for gradual handoff of more responsibility to the Iraqi government over the coming years.

Jason Campbell is a research analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at Brookings. Amy Unikewicz is a graphic designer in South Norwalk, Conn.

rotorgun

06-24-2008, 01:20

I chose the "Deadlocked-could go either way" choice. I do admit that the longer we have been there, the better the situation has gotten, and that isn't saying that it's a gravy train yet. I also feel that we are at the crossroads politically. If the Democrats succeed in taking the White House, a distinct possibility, then I am afraid that they will have the executive power they need to end the war, which they will do, even at the expense of a defeat. If Senator McCain can win, then I think he will commit the kind of rescourses the military needs to fully neutralize the insurgency. He has gambled on a very unpopular message, one that I think he feels will get through to the public as sincere, that it is the only honorable course to take. I happen to support him, despite my utter hatred for this war, and what it has cost us so far.

It will be vital to me that my government stands behind the mission, for I will be going there next year not long after the inaugural adress. I seriously doubt that my marching orders will change no matter who gets elected. I just don't want to be there if I'll be part of a "Great Skeddadle" in the vernacular of the south. Can you imagine the boldness of an insurgency if they see us cutting and running? No, I think we owe it to Iraq, our heroic dead and wounded, and ourselves to follow through with this Gotterdammerung of our own making.

I hate a people who make a mess of things and just leave, don't you?

woad&fangs

06-24-2008, 01:22

Holy :daisy: !!!

When did we get Sadr City?!

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 01:45

Holy !!!

When did we get Sadr City?!
When Al-Sadr was pressured by Sistani and khamenei to do a deal with Mailki and told his militia to not fight Iraqis and only attack the coilition . The price demanded was a change in military and police leadership for Basra though their prime choice was turned down and they got a compromise commnder that both the Sadrists and Badr brigade could agree on .

The current status of Iraq will be determined in December , it all depends on what deal Maliki does with Khamenei , and at present it doesn't look like the deal is going to be by any stretch of the imagination what could be called a win for the coilition .

It will be vital to me that my government stands behind the mission, for I will be going there next year not long after the inaugural adress. I seriously doubt that my marching orders will change no matter who gets elected.
Didn't you know that its out of your governments hands no matter who wins in November ?

Pannonian

06-24-2008, 02:40

Redleg

06-24-2008, 03:24

Do we have any idea yet what Saudi's view of the resultant Iraqi government will be? I can't imagine they'll be too pleased with an Iran-dominated Iraqi state, while I can't see Iran being satisfied with any Iraqi government where they don't have the greatest influence.

As far as I am concerned what is bad for Saudi Arabia is good for the world. The government of Saudi Arabia has been double-dealing the west for years, feeding the religious extremists with reasons and excuses to hate the west, at times even encouraging it to focus its people on forgetting what their own government is doing to them. While at the same time the royal family continues to reap the wealth of a single vital resource.

Pannonian

06-24-2008, 03:48

As far as I am concerned what is bad for Saudi Arabia is good for the world. The government of Saudi Arabia has been double-dealing the west for years, feeding the religious extremists with reasons and excuses to hate the west, at times even encouraging it to focus its people on forgetting what their own government is doing to them. While at the same time the royal family continues to reap the wealth of a single vital resource.
Fair enough. I assumed that, as Saudi is at least ostensibly a US ally, there would have been some desire to back their side. Personally, even before the Iraq invasion, I felt Saudi and Pakistan were the two countries we should have done something about.

Devastatin Dave

06-24-2008, 04:14

At this point it does not matter. Even if there is "victory" the majority and most especially the media will never allow it to be seen as a victory. At this point we have gift wrapped it and put a bow on it for the Iranians. they will control this region within 5 years. Israel will be destroyed shortly after.

rotorgun

06-24-2008, 04:15

When Al-Sadr was pressured by Sistani and khamenei to do a deal with Mailki and told his militia to not fight Iraqis and only attack the coilition . The price demanded was a change in military and police leadership for Basra though their prime choice was turned down and they got a compromise commnder that both the Sadrists and Badr brigade could agree on .

The current status of Iraq will be determined in December , it all depends on what deal Maliki does with Khamenei , and at present it doesn't look like the deal is going to be by any stretch of the imagination what could be called a win for the coilition .

Didn't you know that its out of your governments hands no matter who wins in November ?

I'm sorry Tribe, but I had to attend to some business for a bit, and just now got back to the Org. Do you really think that Washindton is going to let Al Malaki ruin all the hard work done so far? They will stall or ignore him until they can see him replaced. This matter is too serious to leave in the hands of someone so obviously in the Iranian camp. It is really at the crux of the matter that we finish the job. Iran's regime is licking its lips to see us fail, now that we have done all their dirty work for them. These are the times which shall try mens' souls, in the words of Thomas Paine. We are about to witness something something remarkable in our times, a people who have never known a real representative Democracy in their history could finally achieve it, and eveyone seems to want to see it fail. I hate this war with every fiber of my being, but sometimes the rain must fall before the sunshine appears. I think that something astounding could happen here despite the intentions of those who started this conflict. If we quit now, it will only mean another victory for the forces of tyranny.

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.

ICantSpellDawg

06-24-2008, 04:48

Nice little article from a guy with whom I seldom agree(but increasingly as of late).

The Bush Paradox
By DAVID BROOKS (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.

The whole episode is a reminder that history is a complicated thing. The traits that lead to disaster in certain circumstances are the very ones that come in handy in others. The people who seem so smart at some moments seem incredibly foolish in others.

The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

CountArach

06-24-2008, 08:29

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/mission-accomplished.jpg

Samurai Waki

06-24-2008, 08:52

Even if the war were to come out a victory, it will still be a loss. Pessimism...

Can't believe I agree with Dave for once.

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 09:02

I'm sorry Tribe, but I had to attend to some business for a bit, and just now got back to the Org. Do you really think that Washindton is going to let Al Malaki ruin all the hard work done so far? They will stall or ignore him until they can see him replaced.
Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cZWVChgYk
No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .

. Even if there is "victory" the majority and most especially the media will never allow it to be seen as a victory.
Dave can you envisage any event that could be called a victory using your presidents speeches of what the aims for Iraq were ?
If you can then perhaps you can moan about the media and the majority ....if not then you are trying to rewrite history to fit with your denial .

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 09:42

It's lost. Can't see the damage the invasion has done to US prestige and the region being fixed anytime soon. And how much longer can the US afford to remain there? Public opinion is turning against (has turned? Not up to date on this), probably more because of the financial burden than anything else.

JR-

06-24-2008, 10:37

In the Process of Being Won

Louis VI the Fat

06-24-2008, 10:51

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.Is...is....is that - could it really be - is that a non-ironic 'why do you hate freedom?'

Dâriûsh

06-24-2008, 10:54

Lest we forget. This was yesterday in Iraq. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/2008622111926567152.html)

PBI

06-24-2008, 10:56

It is already lost. The ethnic cleansing is largely complete and has led to a vast humanitarian catastrophe, and as Geoffrey S states the damage to the prestige and reputation of the US will take many years to heal. We may yet be able to prevent further catastrophic bloodshed and bring Iraq to a relatively stable state, but the damage has largely already been done. At best the situation may be brought to a Pyrrhic victory, and if that had been an option on the poll that's what I would have voted for (i.e. technically a victory, but at a cost outweighing the benefits of victory).

rotorgun

06-24-2008, 13:34

Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .QUOTE]

Good point. We would look like a sad bunch of srubs forcing "our guy" on the Iraqis. Still, if they are dumb enough to think that they can slavage this situation without our help, then they deserve everything that will come their way. That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

[QUOTE]Is...is....is that - could it really be - is that a non-ironic 'why do you hate freedom?'-Louis VI the Fat

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny, something he's an appearant expert on.

Odin

06-24-2008, 14:01

That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

Otherwise your in for the long haul. 20-30 years of rebuilding, defending and dying for a country we shouldnt be in in the first place and dont want us there.

I say lets cut bait now and let the chips fall as they may, to much blood and to much treasure has been spent already Im not up for shelling out more of either.

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 14:27

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny
It works better if you ask that question and come from a country that doesn't have a long and continuing history of supporting tyrants Rotor .:whip:

Odin

06-24-2008, 14:36

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.

Im all for allowing the arabs to sort out there own paths at this point, I am even willing to issue an official appology for lying about the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. However Tribes, i suspect that once we do get out of there they full impact of the sunni/shia schism will play out via proxy wars etc (to a larger extent then it is now) and oil and gas prices skyrocket, forcing us to finally get off foriegn oil.

should have happened in the 70's, sadly it didnt. Iraq is a major opportunity for the U.S. to refocus its resources and efforts internally (see signature) and remove ourselves from where we unjustly stuck our noses.

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 15:23

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.
Cheers. :2thumbsup: State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

Odin

06-24-2008, 15:30

Cheers. :2thumbsup: State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

Iran? I wouldnt know I find the culture less then intresting. That being said have a look at the wall my friend, the writting on it spells israeli airstrikes. There is a line in the sand in which the Israeli's, once Iran crosses it, will strike. Successfully? I dont know but I want no part of it personally however the assets are in Hormuz to assist.

The real shame is that the invasion of Iraq literally proclude us from a major intervention in Iran. Clearly they are the ones who have the nuke ambitions (yep the WMD bit on saddam didnt pan out). Wonderful that there culture is thriving and the government is loosing control, yet that magic line for israel inches ever closer and if I were putting money on it I would say that within a year there is either a major diplomatic push from the U.S. to reel the iranians in (gasp an obama summit with dinnerjacket?) or israeli airstrikes.

I prefer it happen later in 09 so we have ample time to pull out of Iraq.

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 15:46

That being said have a look at the wall my friend, the writting on it spells israeli airstrikes.
No it doesn't , carrying out their practice in the Med is one thing but getting to Iran is another entirely , they cannot manage it without using US assets or negotiating passage from countries that are not exactly friendly with them . So since passage is out that leaves American military involvement and Americas "friends" in the region have said exactly what will happen to their agreements if America is involved in any attack on Iran .

Odin

06-24-2008, 15:54

No it doesn't , carrying out their practice in the Med is one thing but getting to Iran is another entirely , they cannot manage it without using US assets or negotiating passage from countries that are not exactly friendly with them . So since passage is out that leaves American military involvement and Americas "friends" in the region have said exactly what will happen to their agreements if America is involved in any attack on Iran .

It does, unless you think Israel is going to sit back and hope Iran stops the nuclear process? You're going to have to pull a big rabbit out of your butt to convince me on that one. If history is any indication of future behavior Israel has a solid track record of striking arab nations who desire a nuclear program.

As far as passage I find it unlikely that Isreal is going to run into strong opposition other then verbal condemnation from those whose air space was violated. Of course the mightly iraqi airforce might offer up token resistance but all in all I dont see a big problem with israeli jets flying sorties over Iran at initiation of the strike. Follow up action maybe, but not day 1.

Viking

06-24-2008, 16:13

A victory for the USA, but a defeat for reason and human rights. :yes:

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 17:28

As far as passage I find it unlikely that Isreal is going to run into strong opposition other then verbal condemnation from those whose air space was violated.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Follow up action maybe, but not day 1.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .
Are they planning a one way journey perhaps ?
Given the spread and depth of Iranian fascilities even if they go round and come over the sea to avoid early warnings they are still going to have to take out the air defence network before they have a hope of getting to the nuke stuff . Israel simply hasn't got the capacity to do it .
It isn't a matter of day 1 at all . And you can guarantee that on day one Isreali towns and villages will be recieving lots of presents of the non verbal kind from Irans little buddies .
Israel simply cannot do it without US assistance and US assistance means saying goodbye to the entire middle east network apart from Isreal .

Don Corleone

06-24-2008, 17:37

I think it's still on the fence. Clearly, we're doing a better job managing the insurgency, and reducing the violence against our troops. But that's a current condition, not a goal.

The Administration said the goals for the Invasion of Iraq were, in order:

1) Stop Saddam Hussein from using WMD's against us. (Thus far, I'm unaware of any credible imminent threats which were thwarted by our invasion & occupation, but clearly, he won't be using any WMD's against us anytime soon. Done.).

2) Stop Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear weapon (Ditto, but again, done).

3) Stop Saddam Hussein from spreading terrorism around the region, particularly his support of Al-Queda. (While Hussein's ties to Al Queda are ethereal at best, clearly Al Queda has not been weakened by the war in Iraq. They have occupied their efforts in the Middle East, and therefore, domestic security has been maintained in the US. Train bombings in Madrid and subway bombings in London clearly indicate they do retain their external striking power. Mixed.).

4) Stop Saddam Hussein from victimizing his people. (Done, with the caveat that now, the individual ethnic groups and religious sects are victimizing each other, so a net wash, and the average Iraqi isn't much better off. If the goal was to improve the security and rights of the average Iraqi, Not done.).

5) Install a self-sustaining democracy based on serving the needs of the people.(Miserable failure.).

So in looking at the administration's scorecard, they've accomplished 2 goals out of 5 in 5 years.

Tactically, our troops have fought valiantly and done much more with much less than I would have thought possible. I still think if for no other reason, Rumsfeld should face treason charges for not spending the money to fully arm, equip and adquately staff our overseas presence. Making guys take scraps off of old vehicles to try to bulletproof their jeeps is pathetic.

Strategically however, we are still slipping in the mud and have shown little signs of progress towards our goals. Maybe McCain was a bit free with the use of the term '100 years or more', but I personally see no end in sight.

Odin

06-24-2008, 17:47

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .
Are they planning a one way journey perhaps ?
Given the spread and depth of Iranian fascilities even if they go round and come over the sea to avoid early warnings they are still going to have to take out the air defence network before they have a hope of getting to the nuke stuff . Israel simply hasn't got the capacity to do it .
It isn't a matter of day 1 at all . And you can guarantee that on day one Isreali towns and villages will be recieving lots of presents of the non verbal kind from Irans little buddies .
Israel simply cannot do it without US assistance and US assistance means saying goodbye to the entire middle east network apart from Isreal .

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Also, I dont suggest it wont involve an all out assault from Iran, however you neglected to address the historical precedent of israeli action on past nuclear sites on arab nations that they were at war with at the time.

With that in mind, are you suggesting to me that Israel is going to sit and hope for the best on Iran? thus far I am not overwhelmed by your position on this crucial question, and you can laugh it up all you want it dosent change the historical fact that when Israel feels threatened they act. As I stated before unless a major diplomatic effort is made by obama Israel is forced to do something isnt it?

Perhaps there is a sliver of rational that MAD principle might be the future between Iran and Israel but that removes Israels major ace. So by all means convince me tribesman that Israel wont act, I'll buy it if its convincing, I will even admit I was wrong. Thus far your argument is that nations at war will not violate others airspace, because more war? :laugh4:

Oh the capacity thing I forgot, sure your right it wont be a one off hit and run that will eliminate all of the nuclear network, however 1 strike will certainly slow it down, but hey i will make another concession in the spirit of progress. Yep a sustained air campaign would require U.S. participation, but that dosent negate the ability of the israeli's from getting the first hit in. Not only that but my guess is that faced with a nuke armed Iran or a convential war they'll opt for the later.

Edit Oh forgot, having a look at the middle east map I dont see many obstacles militarily to israel flying over head, didnt they buzz the president of syrias house a few months back, and destroy facialities within syria unopposed? Oh and then there is Iraqi air space, dont see much of a military issue there either, do you?

I formally withdraw my prior concession :)

macsen rufus

06-24-2008, 17:47

1) Stop Saddam Hussein from using WMD's against us. (Thus far, I'm unaware of any credible imminent threats which were thwarted by our invasion & occupation, but clearly, he won't be using any WMD's against us anytime soon. Done.).

2) Stop Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear weapon (Ditto, but again, done).

3) Stop Saddam Hussein from spreading terrorism around the region, particularly his support of Al-Queda. (While Hussein's ties to Al Queda are ethereal at best, clearly Al Queda has not been weakened by the war in Iraq. They have occupied their efforts in the Middle East, and therefore, domestic security has been maintained in the US. Train bombings in Madrid and subway bombings in London clearly indicate they do retain their external striking power. Mixed.).

4) Stop Saddam Hussein from victimizing his people. (Done, with the caveat that now, the individual ethnic groups and religious sects are victimizing each other, so a net wash, and the average Iraqi isn't much better off. If the goal was to improve the security and rights of the average Iraqi, Not done.).

5) Install a self-sustaining democracy based on serving the needs of the people.(Miserable failure.).

So in looking at the administration's scorecard, they've accomplished 2 goals out of 5 in 5 years.

I think scoring that at 2 out of 5 is being very generous - the 2 "scores" were paper tigers in the first place. You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well. :bow:

Don Corleone

06-24-2008, 17:52

I think scoring that at 2 out of 5 is being very generous - the 2 "scores" were paper tigers in the first place. You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well. :bow:

Hmm, and here I thought I qualified that very point during my discussion of progress on goals. Silly me.

Odin

06-24-2008, 17:53

You might as well claim points for eradicating all of Iraq's unicorns as well. :bow:

Yes, thats going to be on a plaque in the Bush library in a few years. :thumbsup:

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 17:57

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?
Palestine is a flawed analogy. None of the Middle Eastern governments seriously give a flying **** about that, and have collectively done their utmost best to keep the Palestinians in camps, and more importantly away from their own borders.

Odin

06-24-2008, 17:59

Palestine is a flawed analogy. None of the Middle Eastern governments seriously give a flying **** about that, and have collectively done their utmost best to keep the Palestinians in camps, and more importantly away from their own borders.

It isnt flawed when the argument is the militaries of the current enemies will stop an action. Israeli action into palastine hasnt been stopped, nor was the raid on syrian nuke plant, nor was it stopped in the invasion of lebanon.

those work for you?

macsen rufus

06-24-2008, 18:03

I thought I qualified that very point during my discussion of progress on goals.

Indeed you did, my bad for not reading carefully :bow:

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 18:18

It isnt flawed when the argument is the militaries of the current enemies will stop an action. Israeli action into palastine hasnt been stopped, nor was the raid on syrian nuke plant, nor was it stopped in the invasion of lebanon.

those work for you?
Not really. Syria could work as an example, but Lebanon and Palestine don't. All the surrounding governments care about there is the bad press for Israel, but seeing as they don't care either way what it's like in those regions there's no way they would retaliate over those issues - whether they could even do so is an entirely different matter.

Odin

06-24-2008, 18:20

Not really. Syria could work as an example, but Lebanon and Palestine don't. All the surrounding governments care about there is the bad press for Israel, but seeing as they don't care either way what it's like in those regions there's no way they would retaliate over those issues - whether they could even do so is an entirely different matter.

the argument presented to me was essentially Israel wont do airstrikes because the military of its enemies wont allow it. So the argument is, whether they could or could not. I've put forth examples of where Israel did infact act via air strikes without reprisal on the actual operation.

I havent seen an argument that contradicts this, or there ability to do so in the future.

Spino

06-24-2008, 18:22

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

Otherwise your in for the long haul. 20-30 years of rebuilding, defending and dying for a country we shouldnt be in in the first place and dont want us there.

I say lets cut bait now and let the chips fall as they may, to much blood and to much treasure has been spent already Im not up for shelling out more of either.

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

A victory for the USA, but a defeat for reason and human rights.
Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with your non-interference position in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little :daisy:. Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

Odin

06-24-2008, 18:27

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Yes but this dosent adequately take into account why we were there. Those countries declared on us and were defeated, we declared on Iraq with no good reason.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames.

I am pretty sure you and i have discussed this before, I personally dont care if they are floating down the tigris with crumbled up mcdonalds wrappers, face covered in grease singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke". We made a mistake going in, and everyday we are there we spend more treasure and blood to correct the mess we made. You and i disagree, Im all for letting it go down the crapper, that dosent make me right but 5 years in Im done.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

Viking

06-24-2008, 18:48

Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with you in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little s--tholes. Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

Oh, let's look at what the UN defines as human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html):

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And then look at the figures for casualties since the war started; let's operate with Reuter's (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL24630216) numbers :

United States 4,106

Britain 176

Other nations 137

IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#

Civilians Between 85,141 and 92,871*

Closing on the numbers of Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign; the massacre of Kurdish civilians. That's not the point though, AFAIK there was no reason expect more massacres.

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 18:59

the argument presented to me was essentially Israel wont do airstrikes because the military of its enemies wont allow it. So the argument is, whether they could or could not. I've put forth examples of where Israel did infact act via air strikes without reprisal on the actual operation.

I havent seen an argument that contradicts this, or there ability to do so in the future.
:wall: All I am saying is that using Palestine, and later on also Lebanon, as an example of the inability of surrounding nations to intervene is entirely irrelevant. They haven't retaliated over those issues because they don't care either way - it says nothing at all about their (possible lack of) capability to do so.

Odin

06-24-2008, 19:02

:wall: All I am saying is that using Palestine, and later on also Lebanon, as an example of the inability of surrounding nations to intervene is entirely irrelevant. They haven't retaliated over those issues because they don't care either way - it says nothing at all about their (possible lack of) capability to do so.

I know what your saying, your just not backing it up with any fact other then your opinion on what they believe to be relevant or irrelevant.

I understand what your saying, but it dosent support or deny the argument of able to defend and prevent, its conjecture. on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

Geoffrey S

06-24-2008, 19:06

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.
Criticism be damned. While not supporting an illegitimate war I can understand, if this ship sinks, it is just as much due to inaction on the part of almost the entire Western world - stepping beyond an 'I told you so' mentality was clearly something most so-called allies of the US were incapable of.

The US government made huge mistakes in attempting to restructure Iraq, but there was no reason for the rest to take the initial unilateral approach as a permanent given.

I know what your saying, your just not backing it up with any fact other then your opinion on what they believe to be relevant or irrelevant.
Try, generally closed borders and a lack of support for, and even opposition to, homegrown Palestinian organizations over the last few decades.

I understand what your saying, but it dosent support or deny the argument of able to defend and prevent, its conjecture. on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.
I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

Odin

06-24-2008, 19:23

I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

I dont see how historic air campaigns against hostile nations cant be applicable examples. Anyway I am all for agreeing to disagree. Im kind of waiting on Tribes reply anyway, the same logic applies really, we have a tangiable example of an action taken vs a supposed theory of intent.

However I enjoyed the back and forth I will happily give you the last word if you want it, Im about done in this thread too. :medievalcheers:

Tribesman

06-24-2008, 20:48

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

Also, I dont suggest it wont involve an all out assault from Iran, however you neglected to address the historical precedent of israeli action on past nuclear sites on arab nations that they were at war with at the time.
Over much shorter ranges with less political complications and after single isolated targets , so what you are neglecting with your "precedent" is that they were completely different . So your tangible example isn't an example at all . Needless to say that even after both Iran and Isreal had bombed that target the US still had to bomb it many many times using large amounts of aircraft .

So Odin since Israel doesn't have the ability to do the job the job is not going to be done by Israel no matter how much you like to think that the writing is on the wall . Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases .
which means you should think a little more before writing....
on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.:yes:
because you is doing that apples are oranges thing .

Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century.
Wow has someone forgotten that when Iraqs former dictator was doing them mass murders it was certian governments that were helping him do it because he was their cute little puppy:dizzy2:

Odin

06-24-2008, 22:48

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

You don't get it at all , it involves 3 countries that are still at war with Israel and a countryy which as part of the peace deal says that Israeli planes can bugger off if they think they can overfly at all .

So which is it tribes? got another fall back position which dosent require an address of the shooting down of your prior rational?

Nice jugle though, oh and I am pretty confident that the israeli's have the ability to cover the distance or refuel in air but since I dont have the flight ranges of their aircraft available I cant say your absolutely wrong.

I have a great idea though tribes, why dont you back up your claim with said references :idea2:

Over much shorter ranges with less political complications and after single isolated targets , so what you are neglecting with your "precedent" is that they were completely different . So your tangible example isn't an example at all .

Of course it is, multiple examples of airstrikes against said enemies is an example. You saying it isnt dosent change the fact that Israel has conducted air strikes against hostile targets within the last year successfully without intervention via air or a land campaign.

Needless to say that even after both Iran and Isreal had bombed that target the US still had to bomb it many many times using large amounts of aircraft .

Needless to say? how about here is something other then my view as justification of my statement?

Maybe you should think before you post Tribes or offer something more then, cause I say so

Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases .

Wonderful now something of substance that is actually based on an event, not a supposition. So do you think the israeli's might be as smart as you tribes? Think they might have adjusted for the same circumstance or are the Iranians superior tactically?

Anyway all the sniping aside I enjoy back and forth with you when your not being pissy (you know the whole smiley routine). Nice back and forth thus far and who knows we might have the potential for some real fireworks should you continue to make it up as you go.

oh yeah almost forgot, you didnt answer one of my other pressing questions, do you think israel is going to sit and hope for the best with the iranian nuke program? I'll even forget about the history, capability and the threat of war and reprisal from the countries they are already in conflict with, Im just curious if you have an answer at all.

:flowers:

PanzerJaeger

06-24-2008, 23:28

rotorgun

06-24-2008, 23:52

I know that things aren't anywhere near ideal, not by a long shot, but this was encouraging to read this morning. Perhaps Al Malaki is not so far from the goal as one might think Tribe. I also feel that he's not a fool. His success is bound up in ours, however unpalatable that may be to the rest of the Middle East. Without our support, he cannot really attain what he wants for his people-soverign freedom-which is what we also desire. OK, so we need to ensure that 1/4 of the oil of the world is in the safe hands of "freindly" regime. Fine. If normal Iraqis gain freedom in the end then what could possibly be wrong with how they attain it?

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki took a victory lap Monday through the streets of Amarah, the latest city to be retaken from the control of Shiite militias.
The Iraqi army reported no major resistance during four days of operations, and al-Maliki walked freely through the southern city Monday. In a speech attended by local tribal leaders, he vowed to continue "using force against those who revolt against the will of the people."

A string of military successes since March — in Basra, Mosul, Sadr City, and now Amarah — has brought a degree of peace to once-violent cities and significantly strengthened al-Maliki's government. The Iraqi army has routed the militias largely on their own, depending on the U.S. military for air power and strategic support but conducting most operations themselves.

There are some concerns that the militias could still regroup, though.

"We don't know yet if they don't want to fight anymore because they know the government is strong now, or if it's just a tactical retreat," said Gen. Dhafer Abed al-Mohammadawi of the Iraqi police.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Baghdad | Shiites | Muqtada al-Sadr | Iraq | Sunni | Mosul | Parliament | Basra | Sadr City | Diyala | Iran | al-Maliki | Amarah | Sadrist | Sunni Accordance Front
Instead of fighting as they did in other cities, militia leaders in Amarah ordered their followers to dig up roadside bombs and lay down their weapons ahead of the crackdown, according to al-Mohammadawi. Senior militia leaders are believed to have fled to neighboring Iran, he said.

"Nobody fired a single bullet against the security forces," said Mohammad al-Nussairi, 26, an elementary school teacher in Amarah.

Like other residents, though, al-Nussairi expressed concerns the peace would not last. "Where did all the militants go? How can we feel sure they won't come back as soon as the army leaves?" he said.

Al-Maliki declared his next target would be Diyala, the restive Sunni-dominated province where a female suicide bomber killed 15 people Sunday.

By following a campaign against Shiite militias in the south with a crackdown on Sunni insurgents north of Baghdad, al-Maliki hopes to restore order without disturbing the fragile calm that has taken hold among Iraq's religious sects, said Salim Jabbouri, a spokesman for the Sunni Accordance Front, the main Sunni political bloc.

"It's very clever. He makes one military operation against the Shiites, and then one against the Sunnis," Jabbouri said. "He wants to prove that they are treating all the people equally."

Al-Maliki hails from the Shiite Islamist Dawa Party and until recently was criticized by many Sunnis who said he acted only in the interest of his own religious sect.

Today, it is some fellow Shiites — namely, followers of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — who are crying foul, accusing the government of exploiting security concerns to weaken their political influence ahead of provincial elections this fall. A number of al-Sadr supporters in Amarah were detained in recent days, including the city's mayor.

Al-Sadr remains fiercely opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq and said last week he was reforming his militia to focus on fighting American forces.

"Al-Maliki is singling out our supporters to please the Americans," said Nasser al-Saidee, a Sadrist lawmaker.

With each successive operation since March, the resistance against the Iraqi army has dwindled. Al-Maliki's supporters in Parliament, such as Shiite lawmaker Qassim Dawood, say Iraqis are increasingly willing to support the government now that they are confident it will prevail.

"The people aren't going to take risks and support the government if they think the government is going to lose to the militias," Dawood said. "The government is winning every fight now, and suddenly it's looking like the smarter team to be on."

Also Monday, a disgruntled local official fired on U.S. soldiers leaving a municipal council meeting southeast of Baghdad, killing two of them and wounding four others, the Associated Press reported.

The motive for the attack was unclear, and U.S. officials released no further details except that the assailant was killed, AP reported.

PS: I take your point about my country supporting tyrants. That's what really got us into this problem to begin with. That's the real irony of it all. At least we are doing something about it, despite how we look like a bunch of scrubs.

Odin

06-25-2008, 00:14

rotorgun

06-25-2008, 01:02

Now I know one can find plenty of material on why Iraq is unwinnable, for the liberal press (I consider myself as a moderate liberal) has made sure that there is very little opposition in the coverage to this view, but here is a fairly balanced, sober look at what is really at stake. It is a much more realistic estimate IMO of what it will take to succeed, and why I voted that it could go either way. Much will depend on how well the American people can see through the rhetoric and decide.

James Joyner | Monday, February 25, 2008

Anthony Cordesman, a longtime Iraq War skeptic and administration critic, argued in yesterday’s Washington Post that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “winnable.” It’s a tightly written piece that defies excerpting but here is the crux of it:

No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.
[…]
What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don’t end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.

Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience — or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.

Donald Douglas praises Cordesman as “scrupulous in his even-handedness” and Dave Schuler judges him “consistently a purveyor of sound advice on Iraq and Afghanistan,” assessments which I share. But Kevin Hayden says Cordesman is part of the “false promises” gang, noting that Cordesman called for just “one more year in Iraq” a mere four months ago.

Perhaps that’s because Cordesman reflects the sober judgment of the foreign policy community. Here’s his conclusion in that piece from last October:

The odds of success are less than even. But it’s worth a try because the stakes are immense. America’s reputation and credibility are at risk; it “broke” Iraq, put 28 million lives at risk and is morally responsible for the consequences. Global energy security — the continued flow of the oil exports that fuel the world’s economy — are also in play. We shouldn’t stay in a losing game indefinitely. I believe we should give ourselves until October 2008; if there’s no Iraqi political accommodation by then, we should get out.

Meanwhile, we must play out the hand we have dealt ourselves.

Is he already hedging his bits on the goalposts for withdrawal? So it would seem. But the underlying calculus remains the same: The odds of success aren’t as one would like but the cost of failure is high. So long as the casualties are low and there are hopeful signs, then, we may well continue to muddle through with calls for “another year” or, as anti-war wags would have it, two more Friedmans.

There’s not much question that Congress will continue to insist on instant victory and administrations will continue to blame weak governments. The question is whether we’ll continue muddling through, extending the operations a few months at a time, long enough to succeed.

I don’t have the answer to that. It’s slightly more likely to happen under a McCain administration than an Obama or Clinton administration — but only slightly. McCain would be a more reliable champion of the wars, especially the one in Iraq, but Obama and Clinton would have an easier time persuading what is almost certain to be a Democratic Congress.

This kind of sums up my thoughts more than anything else. Now that we have acted in such a boorish manor, we owe it to the world, Iraq, and ourselves to do what is right. I do not say this lightly, but as one who is willing to do my part to help my fellow service men and women to succeed.

The odds of success are less than even. But it’s worth a try because the stakes are immense. America’s reputation and credibility are at risk; it “broke” Iraq, put 28 million lives at risk and is morally responsible for the consequences. Global energy security — the continued flow of the oil exports that fuel the world’s economy — are also in play. We shouldn’t stay in a losing game indefinitely. I believe we should give ourselves until October 2008; if there’s no Iraqi political accommodation by then, we should get out.

I am in favor of diplomacy, despite what some may think here, but we must first win in order to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength. Weakness is one trait that Middle Eastern people despise. They tend to respect the "strong man rules" philosophy-hence the success of Saddam for all those years. Perhaps we can show them a different kind of strength-something more akin the stubborn pateince of someone like General Grant of our civil war.

PanzerJaeger

06-25-2008, 01:11

come on PJ your blowing the whole thing.

Of course. :shame:

Let the games continue.. :2thumbsup:

Redleg

06-25-2008, 01:25

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

South Korea does bear some of the expense of the United States Military being in thier nation. Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea? One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea. Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea? Then again you might want to look into the CFC and the UN mission to South Korea also.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

Tribesman

06-25-2008, 01:56

Israel has, and has had for many years, the capability to overcome air defenses and strike multiple targets within Iran. This is fairly common knowledge. The US presence in Iraq only makes this easier. I'm not sure where you're coming from Tribes. Israel does have the refueling capability and they've never respected Arab airspace so those two arguments are slightly off base.
Not really Panzer since Israel has very few of the I versions of either the 15s or 16s and what they gain in range(which still is insufficient even with the full external combat capacity carried) they lose in ordinance and performance .As for the 130 tankers they are too slow for the strike aircraft and don't carry enough and the 135 are too few and have servicability issues at the moment . Even if they could get 6 of the 135s on mission it would be very borderline for even a limited strike .
So not off base at all .
Now I could add that the Israelis have said they cannot take out Irans nuclear program and at most could delay it for a year or two which is a very small return for the possibility of an all out disaster , but I will let you mull over their actual air capabilities first . The global security site has a pretty thorugh run down on the Israeli air force or you could go to the IAF website itself as they are very proud of the fuel capacity upgrades .
None of which yourself or Odin have raised goes anywhere near addressing the size of the strike that would have to be launched, the time it takes to get there or how the hell it would expect to get back, not even touching on Israels worries that its curent arrow and patriot deployment would not be sufficient to deal with Iranian ballistic missiles.
I suppose you could mention the submarine launched missiles , but once again given the nature of the targets Israel just doesn't have sufficient capability to do the job .
What you fail to realise is that this would be an all or nothing enterprise and as Isreals friend cannot risk it for a while Israel cannot risk it alone .

Just read the rest of your article PJ , a slight ballsup in there on the northern route .With refueling over the med on the outbound they run dry long before they complte the return leg .

Odin

06-25-2008, 02:53

Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea?

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea?

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

references:

1. http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/KoreanWarChronology.html

2. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html

CountArach

06-25-2008, 02:55

I just realised that the question never specifically stated that this is from the American point of view. So really, the war has been lost by at least one side.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-25-2008, 03:48

I wanted an option between deadlock and in the process of a win.

Recent successes are encouraging, but there are a number of major issues that still have to be addressed.

Iraq is still divided into three large "camps" and a means for keeping them from gunning for one another are not fully in place.

A good measure of the local support that has helped generate recent successes may well be more "enemy of my enemy" than friendly support (though the changed deployment strategies of the surge have improved local support measurably).

There is little democratic/republican tradition to build on to begin with -- this is, at best, a long process.

So, we may be winning against Al Queda in Iraq, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing will come up roses.

Marshal Murat

06-25-2008, 03:55

Redleg

06-25-2008, 03:57

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Have you ever wondered why the North Koreans always want talks between the United States and North Korea only. One thing President Bush has been correct in doing is pushing the six nation talks whenever a meeting with North Korea is to happen. How much of a necessity of our presence in South Korea is determined many factors, one being the fact that the Korean War while unlikely to return to a hot war, it is still technically going on. Now then you also have the political reality of why the South Koreans continue to request our presence and their desire for us to remain.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

There is a spefic requirement under the United Nations mission to South Korea for the United States. This requirement has nothing to do with what you believe we have done recently in regards overplaying our international police/deliver of freedom role. This mission has a far older precendent then the recent. The requirement of the committment remains.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world. Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis? Now my data is about 8 years old, but what you believe is an antiquated mission parameter and international commitment still requires a committment to the initial obligations.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

Go much deeper into the subject. Your correct South Korea can and does provide for it's own defense. The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations. A knowledge that is continually supported when I happen to read english versions of news from both North and South Korea. Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations? A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.

So far you only speak of finicial not political. When you actually begin to address the political situation in Korea then your comparision might become easier to see, but for now - your only swinging at the ball and haven't even touched it yet.

Give you another hint read the English version of both North and South Korean papers.

And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.

Tribesman

06-25-2008, 09:29

Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?:oops:
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)

Then again since you wrote ...
He made an absolute statement here, let him back it up with a reference, you posting bails him out (unless he has the source to verify his statement of fact).
...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .:yes:

Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?

Well Odin ?...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Odin

06-25-2008, 12:34

South Korea is not Iraq, any attempt at a comparision is not a stretch it is an inaccurate attempt, a fallacy if you will.

Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.

I am extremely amused - your ignoring the political reality of South Korea and calling it antiquated just tells that you lack knowledge of what goes on in that part of the world.

I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.

Care to guess how many inflirations of combat forces by North Korea into South Korea happen on a yearly basis?

Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.

Try going deeper into the forgotten war. Claiming that the United States was the only nation that had manpower in the region via Japan is also inaccurate - the United States didnt have the forces necessary to defend South Korea in Japan.

If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.

The United States presence has a far greater impact then what our token presence represents. Again care to guess how much of a presence we truly have there. Give you a hint the rather peaceful nation of Germany has a greater United States Military Presence then South Korea. The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one.

that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact
The military mission to South Korea is of far greater importance then any of the current military missions to Europe that we have except for one. Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions

And you would be incorrect. Your ignoring the current reality of how negotations with North Korea are carried out and the political reality of why we maintain a minimumal presence in Korea. The current expense has nothing to do with cold war policy of 50 years ago, but the actual reality of a shooting war between our nation and another. Having served in Korea and having studied the history of the Korean War and the actual reality of negotations with North Korea - our presence there is in no way comparable to what is being done in Iraq.

No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.

You claim that there is no prudent reason for US Forces to be in South Korea but you refuse to actually address the political and real world situations that still require our presence in South Korea. I base my opinion on the historical significance and reasons for maintaining a presence in Korea to include alreadly establish treaties and obligations made to the United Nations.

And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.

Are you attempting to state that the United States should viod our treaties and obligations because you see a comparision to Iraq, a nation that we invade to defeat, versus a nation that we committed to defend by treaty with that nation and by committment to the United Nations?

In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.

A combine forces command that our role is to command all allied forces in South Korea.

Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....

And what is even worse you have a basic lack of knowledge concerning the constitution. Try reading the Article 2, Section 2 of the document. The committment to South Korea falls under that section because guess what it has been approved by our congress. Now you can claim it was not the intent of the constitution, but the intent of the constitution also allows for treaties to be done. So your arguement here amounts to is doublespeak.

Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.

Odin

06-25-2008, 12:37

Where is that Odin , whassup did you actually read Panzers link or something ?:oops:
Did you notice perhaps that in the short space of a year the assesment which was already in the very very risky operation category is now even further out of date on its risk assesment:inquisitive
Israel really needs to get its arse in gear doesn't it because them Iranians are spending their petro money like crazy and doing deals with countries which make the roundabout southern route the only real possibility (which they cannot manage anyway without the US)

Then again since you wrote ... ...it does sort of show that you hadn't read Panzers link .:yes:

Would you like the latest DEBKA reports on the issue ?

Well Odin ?...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Thanks tribes, I knew you wouldnt be able to support your position with something other then your tripe and :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

However the request stands, care to support your claim that Isreal cannot conduct an airstrike on Iran due to (what was the 1st one?) territorial claims by hostile nations, or the inability to travel the distance?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Tribesman

06-25-2008, 13:52

I see odin you havn't even read Panzers link on the assesment :thumbsdown: Thats not very clever of you is it

However the request stands:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Don't you realise that all the relevant information has already been posted that fully answers your request and doesn't leave you a leg to stand on .

Your position is rather akin to claiming that America can put a man on mars next year because they have a space program and put men on the moon before .
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .
Yes Odin the writing is definately on the wall for this one going ahead , right next to the writing that says Clinton is going to be your next president .

Odin

06-25-2008, 14:02

So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .

No tribes my view is that Israel is capable of making the air strike and if the Iranians continue to persue nukes the writting on the wall based on historical precedent is very clear.

The fact you want to dance around this is indicative of your inability to admit when your wrong. Additionally you posted no evidence what so ever to support your claims which is becoming a frequent unattractive practice for you.

But hey, your not letting me down my expectations for you were low going in. :thumbsup:

Of course the offer is still there, care to support your claim:
So Odin since Israel doesn't have the ability to do the job the job is not going to be done by Israel no matter how much you like to think that the writing is on the wall . Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases . which means you should think a little more before writing....

Maybe you should think a little more before writing because by your own contraditction you state
So Odin your view is that Israel is willing to risk losing its entire long range strike force , use its entire tanker fleet , almost all its specilist weapons , commit acts of war against several countries at a time when it is desperate to make peace with those countries , face up to a retaliation that it is unable to counter , further damage the worlds economy and completely wreck its own at the same time , not to mention completely screwing America ....all on an operation that has a very very major risk of total failure and if by some miracle it does succeed in all aspects doesn't go anywhere near achieving what is needed .

:idea2: guess you werent thinking were you? so does this qualification mean that they infact can do the job tribesman? or is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?

Odin

06-25-2008, 14:15

Note to Redleg and Tribesman as much as I am enjoying the back and forths I might have to go out of town on business and wont be able to check this board for a few days. I can probably reply again today later on but if its pressing both are more then welcome to PM me.

Again it isnt by choice but practicality that I may not be able to offer adequate replies to the poppycock I know both of you will put forth for a few days. :wiseguy:

Tribesman

06-25-2008, 14:17

Additionally you posted no evidence what so ever to support your claims which is becoming a frequent unattractive practice for you.

I didn't have to , I told you where all the information is freely available , plus Panzers link does much of the work for me (perhaps you should read it as it isn't that long)

guess you werent thinking were you? so does this qualification mean that they infact can do the job tribesman? or is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No Odin because each element is conditional on other factors and there is absolutely no way those factors can be met , they could magicly double the range of the I versions and still not be able to do it .

is this simply you pulling more tripe out of your ass?
No odin its more reasons why the writing isn't on the wall at all .

The fact you want to dance around this is indicative of your inability to admit when your wrong.
That is so funny when it is you who have come into it without the faintest idea of what is involved and seem to base your whole arguement on "they bombed Iraq and Syria didn't they " .
Before you try and tell someone they are wrong it might be a good idea for you to find out a little of what the subject involves :yes:

Seamus Fermanagh

06-25-2008, 14:17

As long as there isn't some sort of great 'Tet' Offensive, we're going good. The issue has been submerged under the economy and energy in the media, and they're even confused over terminology (Iraq = civil war anymore).

The Iraqi Army even seems better than the Vietnamese army in trying to fight AQ. While that may be because there are more US advisors on the ground or whatever, it may be because they are actually (get ready to be shocked) capable.

So, we can stay in Iraq so long as the economy is screwing us over. :2thumbsup:

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.

Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.

Redleg

06-25-2008, 14:21

Yes and idaho isnt maine but comparission of potato crops can be made when appropriate cavaets for land, climate and local are made. They both grow potatos. South Korea isnt Iraq, but using it as a comparisson to the long term impact of base leases and the treasure expended to do is perfectly valid. Simply because you claim it isnt, dosent mean your right.

Unfortunately its not potato crops that are being compared. Your comparision is mote since you haven't addressed the political aspects of Korea. Your attempting to compare apples to watermelons - both are fruits however both have different requirements for growing and harvest.

I'm glad your amused, I find it equally amusing you dont find the U.S. force deployment in South Korea antiquated, but rather then question your knowledge arrogantly I will simply enjoy a mutually envoked laugh.

I find your inability to address the political aspects of Korea telling about your knowledge of the area. So call me arrogant in that aspect, but lack of knowledge weakens your comparision to the point that it is ineffective.

Tell you what, since you throwing around statements equating to peoples knowledge, double speak and lack of understanding why dont you enlighten us RedLeg? How about adding in a cavaet or infrence to whether you think said infiltration should be handled by south korean military expenditures or U.S.

Said infiltrations are handled by the South Korean's. Happened to see the running gun battle one night between the two nations. So again do you wish to address the actual political reality of the reason United States Forces remain in Korea? or are you going to continue to attempt to compare apples to watermelon without understanding the requirements of either.

If splitting hairs is part of your offensive bravo, while I am not impressed, I will make another clarification. The U.S. was in the position to directly support the UN mandate due to the assets and manpower still stationed in Japan.

Again incorrect. Your lack of knowledge is telling, since its not splitting hairs its actual stating what the facts were. What forces were in Korea in 1950 when the North Invade South Korea? You do realize what happened to Task Force Smith don't you?

that dosent negate the fact that the deployment is based on a war that combat operations ended more then 50 years ago. However keep pointing the finger on the "double speak" yet you make absolute statements of fact Is that your opinion Red Leg or has your clearence been elevated? Since you dont seem to have a problem calling others to task and suggesting they "read deeper" it might be prudent to offer more of an enticement via your own actions

Again ever heard of the tree cutting incident in the 1970's. Again I do discuss facts something your comentary is solely lacking. If you wish to make a claim that the Korea is comparable to Iraq it means that you should be able to demonstrate that claim, your comparsion is lacking in any factual comparision to the two. Since I left the army in 2000 - by clearance remains the same as it did, care to guess what it was?

No it isnt comparable to what is being done, it is comparable to what Bush wants to do with signing long term base leases. that was the original quote you chose to draw the line in the sand over red leg your choice to expand the discussion into a larger debate about Korea is largely on you. I've played along thus far but your begining to loose me on the broad range of your stated expertise on the Korean conflict, not the applicable reference to Iraq.

Again you are making a poor comparision. Signing long term base leases in Iraq does not equate to South Korea. Your continue to claim they are the same but you dont understand what you are comparing or your so blinded by lack of knowledge between the two that you have no ability to grasp how weak your comparision truely is. You would be better comparing bases in Iraq to bases in Europe or Japan. Both start out as occupations by the way.

And your entitled to that, just like I am entitled to my position that said obligations are no longer in the intrest of the United States.

First thing about Korea that you have said that is somewhat accurate. To bad you draw bad comparisions from your opinion.

In Korea yes, the south has the resources to defend itself the reality of North Korea as an offensive threat seems to have been trumped by there stalled economic reality, in my view anyway.

Their stalled economic reality does not lessen their military offensive threat. The weaking economic position of North Korea actually increases their potential to do something stupid like invade South Korea once again.

Which is scheduled to change when exactly redleg? You read the papers....

Yep and until the scheduled change the committment remains does it not?

Oh I know it was approved by congress, but my argument of intent of the constitution is the point. At least I am not seeing where there is an infrence at all to maintaining a defense of other nations for 50+ years which is what will happen when and if Bush gets his lease deal.

And again you would be incorrect in your arguement - the intent of the constitution was to allow for extended treaties that would be reviewed and approved by congress. Has that intent been violated in anyway, other then based upon your opinion? If Bush is able to convince congress to approve of a long term defense treaty with Iraq, the constitution has not been violated, and one still could not make the comparision that your attempting to make. Situations are completely different between the two nations.

Starting out with one was a completely defensive action benefiting an allied nation, the other is an offensive war of choice. And the comparision completly falls apart from there.

Again you would do better to compare any long term base lease with Germany then with Korea. However that would further weaken you arguement since the intended purpose of those bases in Germany was successful.

Marshal Murat

06-25-2008, 14:24

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.
I am aware of the disaster that the Tet Offensive was, but the effect it had on the media and the general public perception was what I was referring to. If AQ were to launch a major offensive through Baghdad, actually RPG-ing the U.S. Embassy, then I wouldn't be surprised if everyone saw Iraq as going backwards.

Pannonian

06-25-2008, 14:45

The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They lost so badly, in a tactical sense, that Vietnam seriously considered asking for terms to end the conflict. It was only the response of the US media and US public that led to it's strategic success for communist forces.

Our military more or less DREAMS about an enemy that comes after us en masse where we can actually apply all of our force multipliers etc. Ask Redleg or Rotorgun.
The problem with Iraq is not the military situation, but the political, and I don't see how there have been any improvements politically at all. Iran still wants and is able to get the largest chunk of influence in post-US Iraq, the Saudis aren't going to let them have this without a fight, the Kurds still want independence, Turkey still won't tolerate such. The US can stall all this as long as they remain there, but it's going to cost them dearly in money and political capital (they can probably afford the blood), and the moment they leave it'll play itself out as predicted anyway.

I said some time ago that a pan-Iraqi vision was the only way of solving all this, something for all Iraqis to unite behind so they can stand up as a single country against outsiders. I suggested that playing the ogre whom all Iraqis hate, or even playing out a nominal defeat against the Iraqis, might be a price worth paying for that goal of pan-Iraq. Related to this, I said a couple of years ago that, of the three goals of democracy, stability and a pro-American government, only two were possible, and the US should choose which two it wanted. Last year, I updated this by saying that even two out of three was over-optimistic, and that only one was possible, and everything should be directed towards the goal of stability. Right now, I see even that as less and less possible. Things have quietened down a bit in Iraq, but I don't see that as a good sign. AFAICS, Iraq has been thoroughly subdued, and now, when the day comes for the US to leave, it will be a walkover for any regional powers that care to play the game, for I think all aspiration towards an Iraqi nation is gone.

So the question of whether the war is won or lost is irrelevant, IMHO.

Redleg

06-25-2008, 14:50

I didn't have to , I told you where all the information is freely available , plus Panzers link does much of the work for me (perhaps you should read it as it isn't that long)

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No Odin because each element is conditional on other factors and there is absolutely no way those factors can be met , they could magicly double the range of the I versions and still not be able to do it .

Tribesman it really comes down to one simple fact, if Israel had the ability to take out Iran's nuclear ambitions they would of done so, back in the early phases of Iran's building up of thier program. Any discussion about Israel's ability must first take this into account. Its very telling to me that neither have attempted to demonstrate why Israel has not launched an attack as of yet.

However I will continue to just read your arguement since your more then correct on why they haven't elected to attempt it with the new aircraft they have. Frankly Israel lacks the ability and will not do so until they face destruction by Iran, and even then its going to be done as a Mutual Assured Destruction scenerio much like the US-USSR nuclear weapon standoff.

Even the United States with all our tech are still primarily focused on negogations and diplomacy in getting Iran to limit their development. The genie is out of the bottle for Iran in regards to nuclear weapons and everyone knows it. Now its about doing the same thing with Iran that was done with North Korea - attempt to contain it as best as it can be. My best guess is that the United States is not going to war with Iran over Nuclear Technology, if we do it will be a whole series of combination of events.

Just like the recent talk of establishing a dipolmatic office once again in Iran demonstrates.

Tribesman

06-25-2008, 16:21

However I will continue to just read your arguement since your more then correct on why they haven't elected to attempt it with the new aircraft they have.
Well the thing there Red is they do have plans to upgrade all (or the majority of) the other 15s and 16s to I versions , but they havn't managed to get the time or the money to do so due to other events , same with purchasing new tankers and buying enough bunker busters .
All the while Iran has been spending like a politician at election time on new equipment and upgrades .(just like some of the other countries involved who now have a very different military than they did at the time of the Iraq raid) .

It really at the moment would be a case of putting all your eggs on one basket with a dodgy handle and a badly patched hole and I cannot for the life of me see Israel doing anything apart from leaving their eggs in the coop .

Redleg

06-25-2008, 16:50

It really at the moment would be a case of putting all your eggs on one basket with a dodgy handle and a badly patched hole and I cannot for the life of me see Israel doing anything apart from leaving their eggs in the coop .

And the last time Israel even thought about putting all its eggs in that type of basket they believed they were facing destruction. I just don't see it now being the case.

While Israel has some really screwy policies, I don't seem them starting a war they know will end with their destruction. They will wait until they face destruction before putting all the eggs in such a basket.

What is telling is that while Iran continues to build its Nuclear program the rest of the world basically sits on its collective hands. Regardless of the rethoric coming out of Washington, its still amounts to squat when you look at what is actually going on.

Israel will not attack Iran on its own, and the United States is not in a position to engage Iran militarily, even by proxy with Israel. The Rethoric out of Washington will have to significantly change to see any increase in a possiblity of an airstrike against Iran coming from the United States.

I really wish those that believe a military strike by Israel will happen could demonstrate how Israel would accomplish such a task. Even a very rough demonstation would be okay. Like what would be the flight path, where would the strikes roughly happen, and how would the aircraft and more important the pilots be recovered. Given Israel's military resources and the locations of Iran's facialities. The two just dont add up to a plausible strike. The closest comes from Panzer but its based upon capablities of Israel and Iran of around the 1990 to 1995 time frame, the few bases that Israel can attack on their own with the range of their aircraft, will have been reinforced with multiple layers of air defense by now, and most likely are not the key facialities that make up the current Iran nuclear program.

But then this discussion is on wether Iraq is being won or lost, Iran is a player in that conflict's outcome, but their nuclear ambitions have no impact on that outcome at all. But then I find the discussion amusing almost as amusing as comparing the situation in Korea to that of Iraq. One must have an understanding of the situation to form a vaible opinion.

That is why I dont enter into discussions about how the conflict is currently going - from the military standpoint the answer is easy, but the political situation and reality shows that the outcome is still questionable, leaning toward a major and complete political defeat for the United States and at best only a minor political defeat with severe regional problems in the Middle-East for the United States for years to come.

Entering into a conflict with Iran even by proxy would only increase the severity of the political defeat in the region.

What's even better Tribesman is that both sidebars that were initiate by someone have made the news today, and both demonstrate why his arguements are incorrect