With all the furor over Iraq and the WOT, it is confusing at times who is arguing about past decisions, current problems, future directions, etc. To clarify where some of these are coming from, I would appreciate your answer to the attached poll.
Printable View
With all the furor over Iraq and the WOT, it is confusing at times who is arguing about past decisions, current problems, future directions, etc. To clarify where some of these are coming from, I would appreciate your answer to the attached poll.
Not to flog a dead horse, but when I try to make a serious assessment of how the Iraq war will turn out, I run down several blind hallways, bump into a shelf full of obsolete military theories, spin around three times in a whirl of conjecture, get blindsided by propoganda, and finally say ...
GAH!
None of the above since I cannot see any way that Iran could run Afghanistan .
I think the US+Allies will learn from their mistakes and win.:2thumbsup:
Or at least I hope they will win, the alternative would be terrible.:end:
Dont you realise that Iran is in a conspiracy to take the whole of the Islamic world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
sarcasm=off
I love the way Americans think that Iran is always thier next enemy. Can someone please explain to me how Iran could end up running Afghanistan? Americans, please stop making such retarded statments such as "Iran will end up running it", its bovine feces.
Overall, the alternative would make very very little difference on Western civilisation, if any at all. Only the people of Iraq would not benefit from the outcome, and with the way they are getting bombed and raped it dosent look like America really cares about these people.Quote:
Or at least I hope they will win, the alternative would be terrible.
The sky is falling.
I really think that Iraqi Freedom has gone from horribly bad to horribly worse. And poor Afghanistan is pretty much back like it was prior to the relative period of peace during Talibannic hegemony.
I still pray that the Americans, or anyone for that matter, can manage to sort it out. It hurts to see and hear about so many people dying in such horrible ways.
*sigh*
If we commit we will win. With current administration out things can only get better.
Hello,
How is prevail/succeed and lost being defined?
Prevail/succeed = GOP re-elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Lost = GOP not elected. ;)
Judging from what I am hearing from my comrades who have recently returned from Iraq, the Shiite majority is just waiting for the coalition to leave to let the reprisals begin. This was based on some conversations that several of my freinds had with some Iraqi officers when they asked them about how they should deal with the insurgents. The answer-"we'll take care of things quite well when you are gone, We only await your leaving. We know how to take care of these people"- an ominus prediction of the coming civil war in my book.
The Kurds, who already fly their own flag in the territories they contol, will likely leave the Iraqi government as soon as we leave. They have always, since the time of Xenophon really, only ever wanted independence. This act will probably bring them into direct conflict with Turkey, as they have a tremendous fear of an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds, BTW, are the most organised of the three seperate ethnic and political groups in Iraq. According to the reports I am getting, they already have a well trained and motivated army, who are not afraid to fight for their freedom, unlike the Shiites in my view.
From what we see in the news, it is evident that the Sunnis will fight desperately for survival. What choice do they really have? Once the coalition is gone or the numbers of its soldiers reduced substantially, the Shiites (which have already begun using their "death squads") will have a feild day. I cannot say as I blame them either. The Sunni Bathist Party has earned the coming retribution during the reign of Saddam by their relentless persecution of the Shiite opposition. Andwar province will probably look like Stalingrad in short order once the fighting begins in earnest.
It's difficult to say how Afghanistan will turn out. If something is not done to reign in the corruption of the new government under Hamid Kharzaid, and curb the power of the tribal warlords, than we will lose the support of the average Afghani people. The profits made from the opium crop may have to be subsiduzed in order to get the farmers to grow other crops, until the economy can be stabilized. The hopes of Bush administration are probably tied in with the building of an oil pipeline through the region, in which the Afghan government can get revenues by charging a fee for its use. This could break the power of the warlords, and allow the government to provide the services that the Taliban used to. This leads me to my final conclusion.
If we are to succeed anywhere against the Jihadists, it is in Afghanistan that I feel we have the best hopes. If the power of Al Queda and the hate Madrasas producing the Taliban in Pakistan can be broken, than I believe we will win a great victory. I put great hopes in the recent talks between Presidents Bush, Kharzaid, and Musharriff. Although I bitterly oppose President Bush over the dissipation of force by our invasion of Iraq, I am in full support of his efforts in Afghanistan. If only he could realize how much most Americans are behind this effort, and respond effectively, he would finally regain some modicum of respect from his opposition. I was very proud of his standing up to Pakistan recently and insisting that he would support an invasion of Pakistan if we knew where Bin Laden was, and the Pakistinians would not act. Even though I am now an old soldier, I would sign up for that mission tomorrow. Afghanistan is where we can break the back of our enemies. Iraq is a waste of effort in my humble opinion. Win in Afghanistan, and the first battle is won. Then let us see what can be done elsewhere.
I invite your criticism my freinds. I only ask that we try to keep it modestly civil. I don't mind a bit of good natured bantering, but this is a serious matter that Seamus has asked us to consider. It deserves some thought and reason.
Sincerly,
No you pretty much hit the nail right on the head Rotorgun. Aghanistan isn't such a complex mess as Iraq is either, and the divisions between Muslim Sects aren't that sharply divided.
For Afghanistan I'm confident that we'll succeed. I don't think that this Taliban resurgence will be a long term trend.
As for Iraq I feel it's still winnable but that it won't be won. If the US put the energy and investment in money, troops, reconstruction, and forcing the Iraqi goverment to do what NEEDS to be done then yes. But if the present trend continues it doesn't matter even if the US secures the country and peace prevails if they'll just kill each other when we leave or split the country formally into three pieces and then continue fighting over borders.
Good post Rotor .
Just one small thing ..........that should be two major armies that have a long history of fighting and killing each other , backed by two countries that would appear to have ever such a slight problem with each other .Quote:
According to the reports I am getting, they already have a well trained and motivated army
Oh and about this invade Pakistan thing , are you sure about that ?
After all it is a big place with a couple of wars already going on . Their government recently signed its second peace deal in regions that it has never controlled since it became a state , regions that the British at the height of their empire never managed to control .
If we lose in Iraq, it won't be to our enemies- but to infighting at home.
British Troops Out, American can do what the hell they please.
So it won't have anything to do with the incompetent idiots that have been leading the war from day one? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The incompetent idiots leading or the ones throwing up roadblocks and leaking critical information to the press? If we are a unified force at home we are unstoppable abroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Those doing the decisions controlled enough seats to get almost anything through by majority but still couldn't come up with better results than Iraq: Too few boots on the ground to secure the country militarily AND a reconstruction effort left in the hands of loyal but incompetent party members. How would it help if everyone at home was "unified"?Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Nope, the old "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer!" is not going to fly.
Mmm, and if the folks at home aren't unified behind the Admin, then it must be the Liberal Elites' fault. Everything is, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
No chance that we could look critically at the war policies promoted by Donald Rumsfeld, who, against all reason, still has a job.
If we're serious about having a positive outcome in Iraq, I know one thing for certain: Rumsfeld's gotta go.
[edit]
Or as a rather more qualified observer (John R.S. Batiste, Major General, U.S. Army (Retired)) put it:
Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except “how to win.” He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build “his plan,” which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and capability required to impose security, crush a budding insurgency, and set the conditions for the rule of law in Iraq. We were undermanned from the beginning, lost an early opportunity to secure the country, and have yet to regain the initiative. To compensate for the shortage of troops, commanders are routinely forced to manage shortages and shift coalition and Iraqi security forces from one contentious area to another in places like Baghdad, An Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, Ramadi, Fallujah, and many others. This shifting of forces is generally successful in the short term, but the minute a mission is complete and troops are redeployed back to the region where they came from, insurgents reoccupy the vacuum and the cycle repeats itself. Troops returning to familiar territory find themselves fighting to reoccupy ground which was once secure. We are all witnessing this in Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province today. I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld’s plan did not set our military up for success.
Secretary Rumsfeld’s dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba’athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge.
Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with “his plan” and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our nation’s treasure in blood and dollars continues to be squandered under Secretary Rumsfeld’s leadership. Losing one American life due to incompetent war planning and preparation is absolutely unacceptable. The work to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was a challenge, but it pales in comparison to the hard work required to build the peace. The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan. Our country and incredible military were not set up for success.
The American military is almost toally incompetant in these areas. The only thing they are good for is fighting a mechanised enemy with Big Guns.
So the first thing that needs to happen is Iraq has to be handed over to NATO with a non-American commander on the ground.
Afganistan is in nowhere near as bad a state. The British just need to pull back and go for the original plan. The ony other thing needful there is more troops.
Iraq is in a bad way, it is fixable but it needs a totally different group of people in charge. Such as the British, Dutch, or even the French.
The General Lemur quoted is absolutely right. Unfortunately there seem to be very few serving like-minded Americans.
The amount of seats controlled didn’t seem to affect the spilling our secrets about wiretapping, bank transfers, interrogation, etc. its not just Rumsfeld’s inadequacies that have/are making Iraq a soup sandwich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
If the stone throwers put aside their personal ambitions and helped their country the war could already be over.
I would humbly suggest that Rumsfeld is the prime contributor to our current situation, far more than the misdeeds we can lay at anyone else's feet. I would elevate him above Paul Bremer, and that's saying something.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
The best FinInt for this war came from infiltration of the informal money exchangers in Pakistan, anyway. And by 2003, the financial trail was going cold. Read up:
In the closing months of 2003...the carefully constructed global network of sigint and what can be called finint, or financial intelligence, started to go quiet.
In short, al Qaeda, and its affiliates and imitators, stopped leaving electronic footprints. It started slowly, but then became distinct and clear, a definable trend. They were going underground.
...."We were surprised it took them so long," said one senior intelligence official. "But the lesson here is that with an adaptable, patient enemy, a victory sometimes creates the next set of challenges. In this case, we did some things that worked very well, and they started to evolve."
Or devolve. The al Qaeda playbook, employed by what was left of the network, its affiliates and imitators, started to stress the necessity of using couriers to carry cash and hand-delivered letters. This slowed the pace of operations, if not their scale, and that was, indeed, a victory.
[edit]
I'm not clear on where you're going with this one. Of course our situation would be radically different if the Iraqis weren't tribal and reactionary in their politics; of course our job would be simple if the people hadn't been brutalized by decades of dictatorship; of course we would have our young men and women out of harm's way if facts on the ground didn't contradict our planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I'm sorry if these hypotheticals don't lead to any interesting conclusions. I'm one of those "reality-based" people.
It is very difficult to try to guess what will happen during the months/years to come as it depends on too many elements, both in Irak and in the US.
However, something makes me think Irak war is already lost : some conservative American forum members claiming that their administration possible failure will be due to the US political opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
WRONG! You are a liberal elitist stone thrower and the sooner you admit it the quicker we will win the war on terrah!
I agree 100%, and I'm a fairly conservative American. This administration has made so many mistakes that are out in the open and we still hear the blame laying with democrats and the media. Honestly, what the hell is going on here? They lost! The conservatives have had their run of the entire show for a very long time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
The democrats and media have had nothing to do with the stagnation and misqueues in Iraq. I'd appreciate alot more introspection coming from the party I helped vote in and has made this mess.
To an extent, I think of it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Insurgents grab headlines with high-profile attacks, which in turn prompts domestic opponents to declare Iraq is a quagmire and we're losing. This encourages insurgents to continue on in the face of overwhelming losses with the idea that if they can keep generating enough bad news we'll lose heart and go home. Further, I suspect it aids in recruiting- if they think the US might cut and run they'll want to sign on and be a part of the winning team. And their efforts are further aided by a media that focuses on gloom and doom in all things (not just Iraq) because it sells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus
Of course mistakes have been made- some of them serious, but I doubt anyone can find a major effort such as this without mistakes. We should have a vigorous debate about our strategies in Iraq and how to change them for the best- but we should be clear that no matter what the strategy, we're going to stay until Iraq is stable. However, we're not getting this from our political opposition- all we're getting are soundbytes about a "failed" Iraq policy, hearing how our military is "broken" or "demoralized" and that we should withdraw as soon as possible and leave Iraqis to fend for themselves.
We've made mistakes- but the war is not lost and we clearly cannot afford to lose.
Please...NATO in IRAQ HAHAHAHAHHA
NATO can't even operate in Afghanistan effectively because of all the pansy armies and their pansy rules of engagement that the Talibban is learning. It's all over the news, this countrys army cant fight at night, and this one can only be used for defensive purposes, and that one can't respond to local emergencies only be used on tactical strikes blah blah blah. The NATO commanders can't shift troops as needed, and its costing us Afghanistan
We can win in Iraq with reorganization and a new plan. HAd all that money funneled to incompetent rebuilding officials and wasteful contractors been instead used for military benefits and recruiting efforts, we just might have a Corps of Engineers and civil planning commission over there doing what needs to be done, rather than playing this waiting game. And now the US congressionla elections....oh boy....a lot more of doing nothing, and then a presidential election, oh boy...a lot more of doing nothing
I find it hard to believe that even with a Democrat in office troops will be pulled out and the war called off. I simply don't think anyone is that stupid now that we are basically embedded there. Millions died when we left Vietnam, regardless of whether you think the war was for good or nil, millions still died when we left.
Lovely freaking war. Nice to know my grandkids will be paying this one off, and i don't even have kids yet.
Yes it is kind of a scary thought. This administration has squandered an ENTIRE FREAKING Generation of any hope of getting out of debt. We'll be paying for this until the day I die, all because of sheer incompetency. I'm not a liberal, nor am I conservative, I choose the guys who I believe will be best in office... and both parties are aweful at the moment. I think the US needs a third party to screw both the Republican and Democrats heads back on.
In writing this poll, I define US success in Iraq and Afghanistan as:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The development of comparatively stable, quasi-democratic regimes capable of basic self defense and positioned to institutionalize these characteristics in moving forward.
Well, "run" may have been a poor choice of words, I was trying to keep things concise so as to fit into the poll entries for clarity. For a certainty, Afghanistan has historically chafed whenever a non-Afghani was in charge (and most of the time one of their own was in charge as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
I did not mean run in the sense of "satrapy," instead I meant to convey the concept of the establishment of fundamentalist Islamic states with like-minded international stances to Iran -- which would be a natural source of influence based on geography alone.
The American military is almost toally incompetant in these areas. The only thing they are good for is fighting a mechanised enemy with Big Guns.
hey Wiggy , have you been talking to the "yugoslavian" war criminal that works with me ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What a pile of crock , when you admit to losing Iraq it will be down to the muppets you have at home who lost on day "I have an idea" .Quote:
If we lose in Iraq, it won't be to our enemies- but to infighting at home.
Get used to it
Here's a very good summation of what we need to think about, assuming we're serious about a positive outcome in Iraq:
The question for the American people is this:
Send 500,000 troops and raise taxes to pay for the war, or retreat.
What is unfortunate is that the Democrats seem incapable of putting the issue to the American people in this manner while the Republicans are content in avoiding it altogether in hopes of staving off defeat in November. The current state of political polarization and what passes as our political discourse means we will never, ever be asked to meaningfully discuss the pros and cons of either option by our political leaders.
My personal opinion is that we should get out, but if presented with a viable way to stave off collapse and catastrophe through the sending of more troops and the expenditure of more money, I would consider supporting it. What is clear, however, is that current policy only portends more and greater disaster if we continue on the path we are on now. The status quo is only a recipe for failure. That we are still on it is entirely due to our dysfunctional, paralyzing domestic politics.
Do not mock my disability, or I shall sue!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Seriously though, look at the way America operates, they'll do anything to prevent their soldiers having their boots actually on the ground.
I can't think of a British soldier who has a good word to say about America's GI's at the moment.
Falujah was just ridiculous. They used line charges on the frickin roads.
MRD: You want to include the British Para's in that, or is a rough 100-1 kill rate not good enough for you. Do spending months in tiny outpost not make them tough enough.
Afganistan is much easier to sort out than Iraq because you are, more or less, dealing with one people.
Hey Wiggy , I was being serious , though you have to get him really drunk before you broach the subject , and then hope to get through the angry rantings and floods of tears without getting thrown out of the pub .
Ehh, let see now. The main problem in Iraq is infighting between the three main factions in Iraq. Even Xiahou hints on that (admittably I'm not sure if he belonged to the camp that said that most problems in Iraq was due to foregin terrorists, not the homegrown type, for a while ago).Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Isn't wiretapping and bank transfers more used for international terrorists, than for the local type who possibly moves to the neighbours at most?
And interrogation... The biggest damage has certainly been Abu Ghraib. Let me ask you: What do you do with the prisoners that been tortured semi--randomly and turned out innocent? You either release them or make them disappear. In either case how long do you think it'll take before the neighbouring population knows about it and how long do you think it'll take before the rumours start to grow?
Seriously, on the scale of what damage the Democrats have done compared to the Bush admin in Iraq, we're talking about a difference on 2 or 3 magnitudes for Bush, in the bad direction.
I must say that I agree a lot with Andrew Sullivan on this issue.
And I end with: If the boss does something FUBAR, is it the job of the employes to fix it and at the same time save the boss' ass and make him take the credit?
What happened to individual responsibillity and meritocracy that the classical American dream is all about?
Now if the Democrats gets Bush's head on a stake (figurally speaking) and still isn't ready to try the efforts needed to salvage the Iraqi mission, then complining about the Democrats will have a point.
Edit: Tricky about the choises. Nr 3 is the best realistic hope for the US with better tactics, 4 is how it will fail if current policies is run and 6 is that it will fail if current policies is continued to be run.
Afghanistan will probably only be a partial success, but it will be an improvement from the Taliban rule, if successful.
The question to the American people lemur should be , how much a week is it costing you already .Quote:
The question for the American people is this:
Send 500,000 troops and raise taxes to pay for the war, or retreat.
And if you wish to reinforce your failure then how much more will it cost .
Oh sorry it isn't a failure yet , it is still mission unobtainable , just like it was 3 years ago .
OK, with that qualifier I was able to vote. Militarily the insurgency is not compelling. The insurgency as a political/rhetorical force exists only insofar as the U.S. is perceived as weak-willed. Unfortunately, this perception is not without foundation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Neither Iraq or Afghanistan are going to fall to the Oil Crusaders in my view.
Even if they do, it won't last.
A profit motive - as the Oil Crusaders have - cannot stand up to the fire in the hearts of men who have faith in God and are willing to lose their own lives to defend their faith (as opposed to the Oil Crusaders who are only willing to lose the lives of their pawns rather than their own).
Does this hold true for the alleged "heroes of Allah" , such as Osama Bin Laden and freinds who are sending out disillusioned young men to explode themeselves in the name of God, while they themselves hide in Pakistan or behind the people of Iraq? I had more respect for the Taliban. At least they attempted to fight like men with our soldiers in Afghanistan, while the coward dog Osama ran pell-mell for the Pakistinian mountain passes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
I say, get all these so called leaders together in an areana, George W. Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld as well, give them some blunt weapons, and let them have at it. After five minutes of this, they'll either be dead, incapacitated, or just too blame tired to go on. War over.
By Jingo, that's the ticket. OBL v "W." Bush is more fit and spry, but OBL has a huge reach advantage. Just give us all 20 minutes or so to set up the betting pools.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Maybe we could set it up like an Ultimate Fighting event, complete with a caged in arena and only one way out-death or complete submission. We could get that guy who announces for the WWF..."Ladies and Gentlemen, LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMBLLLE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Don King could make a killing. :laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I have advocated exactly what you are suggesting here many times previously on this exact board.
That is why I don't think it's fair to call OBL or any terrorist a coward. Because the USA wouldn't fight him one man vs. one man with equal weapons, therefore he'd have to be an idiot to let them find him. Not being an idiot by throwing one's self into an unfair fight does not equate to cowardice.
I agree that it would be bad form to throw away your life in an unfair fight. after all, he who runs may live to fight another day. What I am calling cowardice is the hiding behind innocent people while taking a potshot at your enemy, because he has an advantage over you. I am also calling them cowards for murdering innocent people to call attention to their pitiful agendas, instead of having the courage to confront their own corrupt governments because of their dealings with the west. Remember, these people killed civilians kowingly, not as some sort of collatoral damage caused by the mistaken droping of a bomb, or because they got in the way during a firefight. Any man who kills wantonly, in the name of his God no doubt, I call a coward, who has no more courage than a frightened dog. I will meet OBL anywhere he wants to, armed in the same fashion, on equal terms. We are about the same age, so that shouldn't be a consideration, and I too can ride a horse as he does, and also know some of the deadlier martial arts. I will meet him in the mountains, on the plains, in the city or village. It does not matter. When he is looking down the barrel of my weapon, or with my knife at his throat, I doubt he will be so calm and serene as he tries to appear. No, he will rather look like the desperate jackal that he truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Sincerly yours,
Hey, rotor...? The days when the leadership level was expected to get its hands dirty doing the fighting in person are way past, and for the pretty simple reason it *was* a pretty stupid and wasteful practice. Osama and his peers are the planning/logistics/ideology side; the generals, in other words. Their job is to come up with ways for the poor bloody grunts to win the fight, not fight themselves.
Put this way: the rank-and-file are way easier to replace than capable commanders. As illustrated by the fact the former always outnumbers the latter by several orders of magnitude.
Targeting civilians instead of soldiers is a venerable and tired-and-true practice, though. Soldiers are really rather easy to replace as such, and often annoyingly difficult to kill in the first place. Civilians are a much easier target, and succesfully engaging them may well eventually make the soldiers go away altogether for one reason or another - in the days past because their logistical and economical support base was destroyed or they had to go defend their lands and family back home, these days more due to political pressures.
Dirty and despicable ? Why, certainly, at least by modern civilized standards (not that those had severe issues with carpet-bombing entire cities flat back in WW2, or for that matter Vietnam, though). But people perceiving it vitally necessary to take on an enemy in practice infinitely more powerful than they are have never been ones to let such sensibilities stand in their way. Chivalry and "fair fight" are after all a luxury only the strong can actually afford; if Mike Tyson and Woody Allen at their prime had a fight the result of a 'fair' contest would obviously be a rather foregone conclusion, so obviously if Woody really thought he had to win he'd play totally dirty.
I'm not a big fan of the "end justifies the means" extremist logic myself, but I keep that opinion separate from pure analysis.
I agree with you on the fact that the bad news reported by the medias have an important effect upon the perception of the war by the US population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
They sell bad news, but do they have good news to be sold?
When this war started, the US TV shows were filled with flag waving.
This reflected a reality as the invasion cost was only of a few dozen lives, including accidents and friendly fire and that the objective was clear, defeating the Iraki army and removing Saddam from power.
Now that several thousand US soldiers died in Irak, that terrorism kills thousands Irakis each month and that the death toll is constantly rising, how could the medias keep a positive line following the same standard?
Isn’t this attitude normal for a democratic country?
And I do not think this has any effect concerning insurgency, the insurgents do not live in the US, they do not speak English and they do not follow US television or the US poll results.
Media coverage is often relative and it never goes very far in the analysis but it reflects at the very least a reality.
So is Irak a quagmire or are there solutions to stabilize the situation?
The problem is certainly dependant both of the US administration will to continue Irak occupation in the same way, of the Iraki insurgents to continue fighting, of the evolution of the civil war in Irak and of the interventions of countries such as Iran and Syria.
In any way it cannot be limited to the US media attitude and I think the questions and the debates concerning the objectives and the necessity of remaining in Irak are legitimate and necessary.
Flashy high-profile attacks are specifically (besides straight terror tactics) a way of showing that the other guy can't control the situation, obviously. Probably somewhat analogous to the way medieval armies ravaged the enemy countryside partly to point out to the peasants their feudal overlords weren't living up to their obligations of protecting them from harm, and hence didn't really deserve support.
Any regime that cannot protect its citizenry from mass violence obviously loses credibility right fast, as one of the most singularly important duties of any state (as far as the citizenry is concerned anyway) is to ensure a reasonably peaceful and stable society where people can go about their lives normally. If that fails, baseline social trust fails with it and clique mentality swiftly takes over - in Iraq this is most apparent in the Shia-Sunni-Kurd polarization, the all greater reliance on clan and tribe and whatever reference group as a source of security and protection as well as justice (in the circumstances that last in practice reads as "vendetta").
Which is really the whole point of such terror tactics: laying bare the shortcomings of the authorities to break down the extant order, shortcomings which are many indeed if such attacks can be sustained at levels as endemic as in Iraq.
Badly worded poll IMO since it references both Iraq and Afghanistan in the question and features answers mainly about Iraq. Still I think one answer will do for both:
...will stay the same until the USA withdraws, then civil war erupts.
Edit:
"In writing this poll, I define US success in Iraq and Afghanistan as:
The development of comparatively stable, quasi-democratic regimes capable of basic self defense and positioned to institutionalize these characteristics in moving forward."
What on Earth is a quasi-democratic regime? And why would it be a good thing? Depending on your meaning couldn't it be said that Iraq had a quasi-democratic regime before the invasion? In which case your definition of success in Iraq is a return to the pre-war status quo, but with a promise of real democracy later on, honest guv'nor?