Your Assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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).

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.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

If we lose in Iraq, it won't be to our enemies- but to infighting at home.

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" .
Get used to it

[Lemur]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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 ?

Do not mock my disability, or I shall sue!

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Ironside]

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.

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).

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.

[Tribesman]

The question for the American people is this:

Send 500,000 troops and raise taxes to pay for the war, or retreat.

The question to the American people lemur should be , how much a week is it costing you already .
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 .

[Pindar]

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.

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.

[Navaros]

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).

[rotorgun]

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[rotorgun]

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.

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!!!

Don King could make a killing.

[Navaros]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Sincerly yours,

[Watchman]

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.

[Petrus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Slyspy]

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?