Armchair Generals in the power.

[Redleg]

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

Again as I stated before - War in real life is no game - its a matter of life and death, and its an ugly business.

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

Again point out where in Iraq we are attempting only to wear down the enemies will to fight?
As stated before we are also attempting to re-build Iraq into a democracy. You can disagree with the purpose of the war, you can even state we should not be there in the first place, but calling it a war of attrition requires you to actually show where it meets the definition that you have provided.

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

Again you have made a comment about your personal opinion on the war, nothing wrong with that at all. However you avoid demonstrating where it meets the definition of a war of attrition. I will give you a slight hint - every war entails a requirement to destroy the enemies will to fight. However to meet the requirement for a war of attrition - one must solely focus on destroying the enemy's resources, primarily its men. So can you point out operations in Iraq that focus solely on destroying the enemy fighters?

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

Read into what General Petruis is attempting to do and wants to accomplish. He is not doing something as drastic as you state, but the purpose of patrols and the current troop surge is roughly similiar to this. Again there is a general in Iraq that finally has the ability to force the adminstration to allow him to do what is required to hopefully turn the situation around so that we can at least begin to gain some ground in Iraq. Ground being meeting the objectives to turn everything back over to the Iraqi people.

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

8" howitzer's firing direct fire.

[Pannonian]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

[Redleg]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

Not really sure. I would more call it an attempt at nation building, coupled with a few other types of operations involved with the warfighting aspect of what is going on.

I do see similiarities between the two concepts, but I lean more toward the nation building concept as being the more accurate. I guess the answer would lie in where does one place the violence that is going on in Iraq into the equation.

This was written in 2002, and applies to both Afganstan and Iraq in my opinion.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ksgpress/..._building.html

But then this is the reason I don't see Iraq as a war of attrition when one only looks at Iraq. Now if I we wanted to pursue the war of attrition arguement - it would be better served as an arguement concerning the War on Terror as the current adminstration is pursueing that concept. Even then there is areas within that label (War on Terror) that steers one away from calling it a war of attrition. But the general persecution of the war on terror might be seen as soley a war of attrition since it is dealing with attempting to remove all resources from the non national groups that pursue terror as a means.

But I await clear cut arguements concerning that particlur thesis on the war on terror.

[Pannonian]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

[Redleg]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

[Pannonian]

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

[Redleg]

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Then you really need to look into what determines Nation Building. Since once again the concept of Nation Building is what Afganstan is definitely defined as, and Iraq is in a similiar situation. Both countries had the ruling regime removed and a new government established, both are being rebuilt by outside resources, and both have plans for the eventual withdraw of foreign forces and aid. Both have a similiar end result - a nation that is viable and friendly.

I will leave it at that since your so determined to argue for a decolonization aspect but you have not provided any detail into that arguement, one that shows the difference between the two concepts, one that points out where decolonization is a more valid definition of what is eventual hopeful end result for Iraq. BTW you will find that both have very similiar end points.

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

[Pannonian]

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

When I asked why, I know the reasons given, but I was looking for sensible reasons, of which I saw none. I'll concede your last point though - the US had a good rep back then, principally in comparison with the far less desirable Soviet Union, but also as a country that tries its best, even for others.

Also, I'll offer what I think is the main difference between nation-building and decolonisation. Nation-building does not set the handover as the main goal, but the reconstruction or construction of a country. Decolonisation does nation-building as part of the overall drive towards the handover. I don't think any US government has the political capital to do the former in Iraq, even if you can afford it. Therefore the latter is the best you can realistically do. Correct me where I'm wrong, in either the difference between the two, or my conclusion drawn.

[Redleg]

Also, I'll offer what I think is the main difference between nation-building and decolonisation. Nation-building does not set the handover as the main goal, but the reconstruction or construction of a country. Decolonisation does nation-building as part of the overall drive towards the handover. I don't think any US government has the political capital to do the former in Iraq, even if you can afford it. Therefore the latter is the best you can realistically do. Correct me where I'm wrong, in either the difference between the two, or my conclusion drawn.

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

[Geoffrey S]

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

[Redleg]

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

Incorrect - claiming Iraq was not a nation fails when reviewed. You can claim several things about Iraq, but saying it was not a nation is not one of them.

[Veho Nex]

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

[Redleg]

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

You would be incorrect. Germany and Japan were initially occupied to insure they remain defeated. It helped that they were on the brink of destruction at the end of the war, but troops were initially garrisoned as occupation forces.

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

[/quote]

The aim should be to fix what we broke, we have an obligation toward that end. Regardless of how you feel about the conflict or the reasons behind it, the moral obligation remains.

[Caius]

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country

It is obvious that a third world country, because it would be a threat for freedom.

[Ironside]

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

I lack the total number, but the US occupied part of Germany (with a population of 2/3 of Iraq) had around 200k men 1946-1950 (increases after that due to the cold war and North Korean invasion) and that was still about 2/3 of the recommended number (low need and requests to bring the boys home were the reasons here).

Following those recommendations would give around 400k troops in Iraq.

America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

[Redleg]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

That does not necessarily discount the fact that intially the troops were occupation forces. One can argue when the occupation turned into defense because of the Cold War. I normally go with the position that the American Forces occupied Germany until the middle of 1946, somewhere around June-August of 1946 I believe the joy of the war being over began to be outweighed by the percieved threat of the Soviet Union. If I remember my history right the Cold War is generally given a start year of 1946.

Now one could argue given the nature of the British and Russian zones that Germany was occupied for a bit longer then 1946.

[Ironside]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

But that is only relevant after 1950 (well the US started to push for it 1949), the calculations and troop numbers did not take that into serious consideration before that. And as expected that number rised considerbly after that.

Officially Western Germany (and Eastern for that matter) didn't exist until 1949 and was occupied until 1955. The Cold War messes up the troop number left after the occupation officially ended though.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Was public order a severe problem in Germany immediately after the war? It certainly could not have been as bad as post-invasion Iraq.

[Ironside]

Was public order a severe problem in Germany immediately after the war? It certainly could not have been as bad as post-invasion Iraq.

IIRC the total occupation force at the end of the war was 1:6 aka 1 soldier per 6 civilians (not certain, I've probably seen it in a book somewhere). Of course that number decreased rapidly during the first year.
The American forces were 1,6 millions.

If you got problems with public order from a country suffering from massive war fatigue with those numbers, then you really need to ask yourself what your troops are doing.

And that goes into one important aspect of occupation and that is to keep enough troops to prevent problems to show up in the first place.

One problematic aspect with Iraq and Germany is that in Iraq there's been failures on several aspects that were successful in Germany, which prevents problems from the start. To put it in MTWII terms, if you got severe public disorder in a ocupied city garnisioned by 100 men, while that city that got exterminated (MTW is a bit lacking the how to run an occupation aspects so this is the closest in MTWII terms I guess) and is garnisioned by 2000 men, can you fully compare civil disorder?

Some predicted problems that Iraq has been worse compared to Germany though:
Secterian violence
Less war fatigue
Less cultural difference

Germany was on the other hand worse in:
Sheer destruction
More refugees
Getting defeated and occupied instead of ~liberated= your troops are less popular.

Major screwups in Iraq that might not by itself be problematic enough, but combined:
Too few boots on the ground
Corrupted rebuilding
Destruction of bureacracy (de-Baathification taken too far, too quickly)
Higher up priority screwups (lack of maintaining civil order early on, Abu Ghraib, and more)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wouldn't the top 10 players of RTS games simply have fast reaction time and an excellent memory for hotkeys?

Press "h" to call a council of tribal leaders.

[Caius]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

They won't be good, because they will waste real soldiers.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They won't be good, because they will waste real soldiers.

In games like World in Conflict, I always do my very best to keep my soldiers alive because of the amount of time it takes to train new ones - by the time they're done, you could have lost your advantage.

[Caius]

In games like World in Conflict, I always do my very best to keep my soldiers alive because of the amount of time it takes to train new ones - by the time they're done, you could have lost your advantage.

In other games (C&C) it takes seconds to create new ones.

[KukriKhan]

But that is only relevant after 1950 (well the US started to push for it 1949), the calculations and troop numbers did not take that into serious consideration before that. And as expected that number rised considerbly after that.

Officially Western Germany (and Eastern for that matter) didn't exist until 1949 and was occupied until 1955. The Cold War messes up the troop number left after the occupation officially ended though.

The US Army agrees with you about the end of "Occupation" being May 1955. See wiki article re: Army of Occupation Medal. Berlin city itself garnered the Occupation Medal until October, 1990.

So, I think we can glean from that, that 'occupation to insure public order and prevent resurgence of internal military threats' lasted from May '46 to May '55. Then, 'occupation to prevent invasion from outside forces', gradually turning into 'partnership with local defense forces to prevent invasion from outside forces', spanned the period 1955 through 1990.

If we posit that the US experience in Germany (with its 44 years of varying levels of 'occupation/partnership') sets a precedent, it bodes poorly for any plans to quickly depart Iraq or Afghanistan.

That makes me sad.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That makes me sad.

Why? The USA is still in Germany, it's not doing any harm.