Printable View
Whats even funnier about when people use the Phillipines as an example, apart from the fact that even though they declared victory several times they still ended up fighting again and again , is that the people they were fighting were the people they claimed they were liberating in the first place .Quote:
You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?
much like now, ain't it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Two things spring to mind. First, that it is absurd to treat Iraq as a modern nation-state; the various ethnic and religious groups are too distinct in character to allow this and make it impossible to treat Iraq as a single country, just like it would have been impossible to do so to most European countries several hundred years ago. Unfortunately this is exactly how Iraq was viewed and approached. Secondly, it was a major mistake for the US to go it alone, a small coalition notwithstanding. It left too few available troops, too many critics blocking effective peacekeeping, and ultimately too little credibility.
You are right it is not about guts, it’s about desire and if the US had the desire we would have the guts but we don’t have the desire for anything other than establishing a mildly stable area (Iraq) that doesn’t treat us like Saddam did, so we can do business (oil) with them. Additionally major wars of conquest are how and why there is a coast to coast USA and how Japan was unified, there are probably as many examples of conquest resulting in good things as there are bad or failed ones, the bad just get talked about more. The US hasn’t tried to conquer anyone since the Indians, if you recall the killing and conquering rant was just my nonsense. :elephant: YesDachi’s rants are not the views of the United States of America and therefore should be taken as lunacy at lease as often as they are taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Well then your interpretation of the events must be bizarre, because it reads (although simplified and generalized) true to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Blunders in foreign policy!?!? Like the US has that market cornered (dozens of examples rush to mind of euro headlines from the past year):laugh4: . Saddam is the all time poster child for foreign policy blunders IMO. Any text book on foreign policy from now on should have an entire chapter dedicated to not doing what Saddam did. Sure we have more debt and another smear on our “reputation” but he is dead and his country is a disaster, and the US… thriving! Imagine if other countries were as misguided as us Americans! ~:eek: They would be able to live in peace without fear of being blown up too.:fainting:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This is more along the lines of what i was getting at...the command structure of the military just don't listen.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...02DBF961CC.htm
The current American military is a product of the post-Vietnam era, with a belief that just because they lost there they never should have gone.
As a result they have to convince themselves they are winning in Iraq or else they'll lose their stones.
According to some enlisted soldiers I know - the main problem with the Senior Leadership of the military is that they have gotten to interested in politics versus warfighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Something that I would of agreed back in 2000 when I left the military.
When generals are more worried about their career after the military they make poor decisions concerning the troops. :no:
Rather like the Romans. Their dominance is so great that the need for a decent commander goes, and in their place you get politicos. :no:
~:smoking:
I think the main criticism of the "plan" for Iraq is that although a lot of the options or changes the command/administration is making/made are coming /have come about 18 months too late. By the time someone listens to what the 'experts' or forces are saying and it sinks in, then they act it is past the point where the things they are trying will work... i.e the Surge should of happened feb 2006, around the time of the bombing of the golden mosque...it might of stopped the sectarian bloodletting...
what do you think?
Too damn apt a comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I think you are correct (except "should of" should read: "should have").Quote:
Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi
Hindsight is always 20:20. But it's not unreasonable to expect our leadership (military and civilian) to have anticipated this.
So, assuming they did, one can only conclude that today's condition in Iraq was intended.
Consider: Iraq fails.
Iran, Syria and Turkey (remember, we're pissed at them for their '03 noncooperation) take actions to protect/project their interests. Washington points accusatory fingers, and unleashes a new 'shock and awe' aerial campaign, debilitating Iran's nukes, Syria's barracks, and Turkey's border incursions.
The conflict spreads to (check your maps) Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and (inhale) Pakistan.
Now it's the year 2008. What next?
signed, Conspiracy Brother
Full disclosure: this post was constructed under the influence.
Some rather incoherent and ill thought out fragments. Accept with fistfuls of grains of sand.
I am not sure any poster in the 1st and 3rd pages of this thread have allowed the Iraq war the scope it deserves. You are not to be blamed, of course. Most of you come from a Western background with a Western perspective of things which, IMHO, is thoroughly insufficient, at least at this stage, of the Iraqi Civil War. A good understanding of Islam (the religion) and Muslim societies (Arab, Persian and other) is a must. I think I can address that issue slightly better.
I consider Iraq, at this point, and rather oversimplistically, the HRE of the Reformation period over which various others fight. There are too huge a number of variables involved for naive neo and theocons in Washington to salvage anything from this situation. For what it is worth, I have little anger for Bush, more pity.
The problem, at this point, is mostly religious and neighbor-geographic. The Arab suicide-nihilism (with religious, but foremost, societal variables) and Persian obstinance and grudge-holding must stop either by a reformation of the fragmented Islamic faith or sheer brutal force (for which USA or EU has no stomach), both long term solutions. I see no short term solutions, at least, no realistic short term ones.
Much to the pity. This has been, is, and will be, a HUGE bloodbath. It is even sadder, ironic, and perhaps infuriating, that the West, more specifically the USA, has so thoroughly failed. So much for democratic and moral superiority, eh (I am not trying to gloat, BTW, just frustration)? The USA now has at stake a total loss of its superpower status, in addition to being despised (in the Middle and South Eastern Asian hemispheres) or ridiculed (Far East, portions of Latin America) or considered naive (EU, portions of Latin America). Just lessons, I say.
This sheer incompatibility from the supreme leaders of the world's greatest nation can not be explained, however much the other variables can be.
Welcome MonwarH, to the Backroom. ~:wave: You bring interesting perspectives and insights. We look forward to more.
We do, however, not allow f-bombs. At your earliest convenience, please read the Backroom stickies for language guidance.
And welcome, again.
I think we're all aware of the divisions in Iraq, and also of the Religious issues, including the imcompatability of the various sects. Much of the current problem stems from the American administration overriding the American and British planners, the latter having dealth with just such issues in Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
We had this disscussion a month or so ago, quite a few people were willing to adhere to the Iraq = HRE comparrison.Quote:
I consider Iraq, at this point, and rather oversimplistically, the HRE of the Reformation period over which various others fight. There are too huge a number of variables involved for naive neo and theocons in Washington to salvage anything from this situation. For what it is worth, I have little anger for Bush, more pity.
I find this dubious in the extreme. To charactarise the Arabs or Iranians in this way is very short-sighted and simplistic. The Persians are also known as great traders always willing to make a deal. You might as well say the English are Imperialist swine who do nothing but conquer others, enslave them and steal their countries resources. Everybody is aware of the problems however nobody has any solutions, and I'm not just talking about "The West" here.Quote:
The problem, at this point, is mostly religious and neighbor-geographic. The Arab suicide-nihilism (with religious, but foremost, societal variables) and Persian obstinance and grudge-holding must stop either by a reformation of the fragmented Islamic faith or sheer brutal force (for which USA or EU has no stomach), both long term solutions. I see no short term solutions, at least, no realistic short term ones.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
Just so you know, while it appears in this thread a prevailing sense of apathy and what you might read as simplification and adherence to "Western-only" perspectives, this is actually merely an expression of exasperation by most people: most of us know very well the degree of complexity of the Iraq War, the focus of the world, the perspectives of different countries...it is merely that we are quite literally sick of it that the responses only keep getting snappier, more self-centered, more careless, less thought-out, and with an increasing dose of cynicism all mixed and matched together. Even the most ardent supporter of the Bush administration out there is getting less and less ardent in his declaration of anything positive about the whole ordeal. Most of us are perfectly aware that "the Americans" mean less and less in the Iraqi civil war that they sparked by the removal of the Baathist regime, and more and more an explosion of held-up tensions and sectarian hatred that had long been the monopoly of the Baathist forces and their supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
Also, please be careful with generalizations like "you are not to be blamed...[because you are West, lacking in our perspectives"]. There are quite a few characters out in this wild that are not of US, UK, or even European origin. I'd have to personally welcome you, though; and hope your perspectives will only add to the existing ones!
What exactly do you mean by "theocons?" Also, while the comparison is interesting, no one yet -- even in the old thread Wigferth spoke of -- offers to me a perspective on what kind of lesson should we learn from the confusing, near-continuous struggles that last from Luther's trial to the Peace of Westphalia. Nothing except "stay the hell out," which sadly isn't particularly useful in the situation of today.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
And what exactly is the "suicide-nihilism?" I dispute this apparently careless use of the term "nihilism," and the unfair generalizations of Arabs as being suicidal in nature, or Persians as grudge-holding people. There are too many aspects of the many cultures there for such generalizations to be useful. Heck -- isn't the subcontinent pretty infamous for its "traditional values" that sounds very much to me like tribal traditions of grudge-holding and the like?Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
For some reason, I seriously think you exaggerate the importance of the Iraq War. The USA will recover alright; except that the timing of this increasingly plausible "defeat" sucks. Once Bush is gone the next President's real job is to rebuild the diplomatic connections and formerly cordial relationships -- an entirely possible job. You of course are aware of China's straight dragon ride upwards to superpower status: the temporary loss of what is essentially a modicum of diplomatic hegemony and global goodwill that has been acquired by the "victory" of the Cold War is going to leave a gaping hole somebody's would be most willing to fill. Someone big and rich, with a big, big economic leverage...Quote:
Originally Posted by MonwarH
And, as a person who used to live in Southeast Asia, your assertion that they will despise America is rather ludicrous. More like, they hate Bush -- it's fashionable; everyone hates Bush -- and that China will increasingly dominate the region, the latter point being rather inevitable considering the historical Chinese expansion tendencies and the proximity to the People's Republic, with or without the Iraq war. Besides, frickin' half the people on the mainland are Chinese in some way -- the King of Thailand is of Chinese descent, so is more than half Bangkokians, me included. Big deal if cousins tend to favor each other more.
The EU has been conflicted about its relationship with their former (and still, in a way) protector across the pond since De Gaulle, if not earlier. If the Iraq war hastens the process of abandoning romanticizing the USA and finding their own position in the global village then that's nothing particularly sad or new. They'll be friends at the end of the day in any case.
And by Latin America, you mean Chavez, of course. ~;) In any case, some of them have well nigh legitimate reasons to despise the USA without Iraq either: the Cold War meant quite a few unpopular, massacre-happy scums got put up to oppose the Red Menace. No doubt the ones who had to deal with said scums would be angry with the USA. Again, with or without Iraq.
Now, the Middle East... :shame:
And I'd challenge your position on the superiority of the tradition of Enlightened Democracy! It is by far superior to anything the world have had, especially comparing to your overall warlordism, feudalism, fascism (and other military dictatorships), communism (yeah, not real communism), monarchism/nepotism, and all that crap.
The term suicide-nihilism has most recently been coined by Thomas Friedman in the NYT (barely a week old perhaps). I find it a rather convenient term to describe the rightmost Saudi-line Salafis, who seem to dominate Sunni Arabia (or at least Sunni Arabia that matters in the case of Iraq; to be even more specific, at least the relevant portions of North East peninsular Arabian Sunnis, and perhaps some North and North East African Arabs). I get your point AntiochusIII, and at face value this is blatant generalisation, but, to be honest, I don't mean the whole of it. I thought that was obvious, but in any case, its my mistake of communication, sorry. While we are at it, do excuse some of my rather weird 'terminology' though, I make up too many words and phrases whimsically, with little care for communicability.
I intentionally do not address some of the other questions which the previous two posters raise because to me some of them are self explanatory, or a wikipedia search away, and with some of those I do not agree, and have little energy to argue and convince. :)
Thanks for the welcomes.