Your Assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Lemur]

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!

[Tribesman]

None of the above since I cannot see any way that Iran could run Afghanistan .

[The_Doctor]

I think the US+Allies will learn from their mistakes and win.

Or at least I hope they will win, the alternative would be terrible.

[Shaun]

None of the above since I cannot see any way that Iran could run Afghanistan .

Dont you realise that Iran is in a conspiracy to take the whole of the Islamic world?




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.

Or at least I hope they will win, the alternative would be terrible.

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.

[Kanamori]

The sky is falling.

[Dâriûsh]

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*

[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.

[Petrus]

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.

[Proletariat]

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.

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!

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[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?