So Yehoshua, are you suggesting that Bush did the very thing you voted against kerry for, letting other nations control our security? It does not matter if Iraq wanted to do the offensive or not. Our senior military planners should have thought through the consequences of our actions. And I am sure they did have meetings, but clearly they haven't learned anything from history and have their rose-colored glasses on as far as the situation in Iraq. The results prove it.


Just to play devil's advocate here bucket, why on earth would large amounts of people want to sign up and go fight in Iraq even if the Pentagon had the budget to hire 300K soldiers? At least 49% of the country feels Bush is completely wrong about Iraq and wouldn't think of joining up in the effort. Out of the rest of the country that did support him, I wonder how many would be eager to die for him. They may support him, but I think that the vast majority of Americans know what a mess Iraq is right now.

People are joining the military right now, and I doubt the Pentagon is turning them away. I highly doubt that a budget increase and a recruiting push would garner a large number of volunteers because we simply aren't fighting for some cause the population can get behind like we were in WWI or WWII. More money would surely help, but it isn't going to get you 10's of thousands of new soldiers.

There is a difference between asking US Troops to help remove people from your country and passing every policy America does through the UN. I have no doubt that US Troops planned and have considered everything so I am unsure what you mean by not learning from history? What rose-colored glasses? I don't understand what you mean.

Oooookay...Do you mean that the terrorist threat in Iraq would be reduced to the status of a...dare I say it...."NUISANCE"?

What a short time it takes to wax heretical...

Pardon this post from yet another Michigander, but I think your comparison of these terrorists and insurgents to the Michigan Militia doesn't work. While the Militia despises the idea of the United States serving under a United Nations flag, their members still do not justify violence the way the practitioners of jihad do.

An important point.

I don't seem to see the enthusiasm connected to this assault like the assault on Baghdad in 2003. No patriotic music playing on the networks as videos of explosions and gunfire are run. The RAH! RAH! RAH! is gone as our soldiers strive to fulfill their mission and stay alive with their comrades. It is the grim leveling of a city filled with people dedicated to killing the foreigners. I wonder how many innocents were unable to leave the city before the assault started because their husbands forbade them to leave with the children.

Meanwhile, the Detroit Free Press is devoting its front page this week to a series of articles dealing with the experiments the U.S. military conducted on its own soldiers in the 1950's, and their failure refusal to acknowledge some soldiers' claims, let alone provide adequate compensation for what they did. It is quite the expose'--makes you almost think that trial lawyers are necessary sometimes to help the little guy ( )!

Bucket

The Kurdish 'army' is not used in the manner I suggested.


Oh? And which Iraqi's said that? Achmed Chalabi perhaps?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Logophage

Your welcome. I only wish I had better news to relate.

I don't know if there will need to be a draft, or if it could ever happen, but I do understand that even the US military can be exhausted without an influx fresh soldiers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bucket

The point is not whether there will be a draft, but how the US will maintain Iraqi security without it. The way things are going at the moment Iraq will become to hot to hold and will either fall into civil war or fall to which ever internal faction is strongest... which is probably the Iranian backed Shia clerics.

The Kurds may declare a state in the north of course, and they may or may not hold it depending one how much support they are able to drum up. There have been reports that Israel has been working behind the scenes in the north of Iraq in an attempt to have access to the Iranian border, but whether there is any substance to that rumour or whether Israel is in any way possible to lend aid to the Kurds is any one's guess.

I can easily see Turkey squashing any Kurdish province that declares itself independent though.

I never said that the dont need a sancuary, I only stated that it aids their cause.



So you think a training camp of 5,000 insurgents is going to go undetected and they will just pitch up a tent in the middle of the desert? They will have to diversify and spread into the population which make's it harder for us to track them down as opposed to lumped up but it also makes it harder for them to travel without restraint thus increasing the chances of them being caught as opposed to traveling without restriction throughout the entire city.



I doubt a few pictures of melted insurgents will sway people who have seen beheadings and car bombing of civilians on the street.



The elections are in their best interest so I doubt they will stay that way, I see as more of a statement and not an act against Democracy. Though I agree that it is not good but we will have to wait and see what happens once election time come's around.



What has happened is that we have uncovered what I previously posted and deprived them of a major sanctuary. In long term effects this will be a major blow to their operations. Though it and of iteself will not stop the insurgency because they will simply diversify themselves into the population (minus 600 that we have killed so far).

What makes you think that large amounts of people don't sign up for the military..every day...month..year in this country? Where I live I am surrounded by military bases..Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy (academy) and now the Coast Guard. Most people I know are involved with the military in some aspect. I see on a daily basis men and women, young and old, black and white all working for the US military.

If the Congress has set a limit to the maximum size of our nation's military then I would imagine that some are being turned away.

I just do not feel the draft is an option..if there is not enough support in the country to provide enough troops in Iraq then the president has no business sending our military over there..let alone forcing anyone to go.


Well you really didn't specify much. Just...
Thousands- check
Iraqi- check
Opposed to Saddam - check
Well Trained - check
Well Equipped - check
Exactly what manners do they lack?
Why do you think things have gone so smooth up in their little Northern paradise?
US is notorious for suppling and arming the angry natives..only when it suits certain views is it thrusted in our face..you know we created OBL have you heard that before? Yet our (current) successes don't really sex up political conversations as much.
Isn't there a Kurdish battalion as part of the Iraqi contribution to the Fallujah offense?
I read this today too....
source



If you read the links you wouldn't have to ask me who said it.

I don't really understand your point here. Are you saying Chalabi speaks for many Iraqis? I thought that was one of the problems with him..lack of legitimacy. Not to mention the fact Chalabi was just a little too friendly with the neighbors. Also don't you think it might have been the Kurds?




I already addressed this..there are other alternatives..a draft will not happen in the US for this war.

UPDATE :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/13/...main/index.html



Lots of bomb making factories denied to the militants and to be destroyed, the number of weapons caches lined up to be destroyed is probably in the hundreds, insurgents surrendering in groups, hundred's of insurgent's (with civilians mixed in) surrendering (nothing better could have happened for them to drop their weapons), uncovered enemy tunnels and bunkers, slaughter houses used for beheadings uncovered with a wealth of information, a prisoner set free, 600+ militants killed, and hundred's detained.


This is a message to the Marines, the Army, and Iraqi soldiers : Good job men and women and have a nice day.

Vampiel

5,000? Where did you get that number from?

Why would guerilla's put 5,000 men into one camp?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Bucket

I don't know how relevant it is, but the US defence budget is rising as can be seen here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Kurds have their own agenda.

However, as I said earlier, the Kurds have not been used as a single force in Iraq, nor were they trained and prepared for the invasion by the US military, nor have they been employed as translators to interact between the coalition forces and the Iraqi people.

Yes, they have been employed in their own region, but thats no help in the rest of Iraq and it doesn't imply they were prepped for the invasion. There is no US trained Kurdish army. Only a pre existing Kurdish guerilla force with its own agenda of nationhood.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I don't see anything in that article that implies that a Kurdish force had been trained and prepared for the war prior to the invasion... where does it say that?

Perhaps you misunderstood my point? This is what I wrote: I repeat. No such force was prepared prior to the invasion, and the Kurds, regardless of their current pro coalition stance, are not, nor never were such a force.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Give me a link, and I'll read it. Give me seven, and I'll probably read the first one, and skim read the second one. I haven't got the time nor the inclination to read every single article that is posted here unless it is germane to the point.

However, having now read your article, I can respond by saying that it has very little to do with what I am talking about since it refers to the possibility of Turkish troops in Iraq as a part of the coalition and I am talking about Turkey the nation, helping Iraq the nation. There are many ways to secure regional stability and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with military intervention. Perhaps I should have been more clearer, but I'm afraid I didn't expect to have to define the word 'help' and divorce from it any military connotations to avoid misunderstanding. I had assumed that it was obvious that the words 'Turkish help' were broad enough to include more than just the possibility of sending troops into Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No that was not my point.

I shall repeat my point for you. The point rests on the inability of the Bush government to overcome differences amongst its allies and promote international co-operation instead of international polarization.

Its not hard to imagine using diplomacy and persuasion to bring Turkey around to the notion of helping Iraq, especially if the Bush administration had had the ability to bring the European nations to the table. It could have been possible for the Europeans to influence the Turks given the relationship between Ankara and Brussels and had GW Bush had any diplomatic ability what so ever he could have capitalized on this instead of insulting the Europeans, isolating the French and then demanding the EU admit Turkey in the most indelicate and arrogant fashion.

The point is, GW Bush and his inept self defeating government failed utterly to forge a broad international coalition to help in Iraq. The Americans made it impossible for the larger western European nations* and for the Turks to help the US in Iraq, and now the possibility of salvaging any international support for the fiasco of the war in iraq has passed beyond the point where such efforts would make a difference.

I am inclined to believe that the reason why GW Bush had no plan for the post Saddam Hussein Iraq is because he is a man unable to comprehend the complexities of international politics. He speaks and acts like a king and seems utterly unaware that other nations do not exist to serve the United States.

Of all democratically elected leaders, only a fool would stand up in the gaze of the world and make the demand, 'You are either with us or against us'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Where have you addressed this issue?

What are these other alternatives?


* even in those nations that have sent troops and have helped in Iraq have done so against wide spread public hostility.



editted for spelling

I could be wrong but I thought the number of insurgent's in the city was estimated to be 3,000 to 5,000 (the actual estimation was 1200 to 3000 so I was off)



Thanks, that was my point. With Fallujah out of the picture they will have to diversify into other cities, spread themselve's out. They no longer have a major city to be used as a base of operations without restrictions and the always looming possibility that they could be arrested or hunted down. They hold other (smaller) cities but Fallujah was the main base.



You assume correctly.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...fallujah07.html



http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/017556.html



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138471,00.html



Here is a breakdown of the objective.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/



Again with the bombing factories. It is crucial to take these out as well as the lines of communication and weapon movements. Fallujah is the first step in a large campaign to undermine the insurgency.

This is an excellent read.

Moif...


Did you read this article yourself? Most of the money is being allocated to research..meaning to build bigger meaner machines. Also this little quote represents the crux of the disagreements in our govt on the number of troops in Iraq... Rumsfeld envisioned when he first came to office. At that time, he was pushing the armed forces toward a "transformation" creating lighter, faster, electronically networked and smaller forces.
Also our current admin doesn't seem interested in using these funds to increase our military size...again from the article you quoted..In a major speech last week, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, called for cutting back funding for a national missile defense system - a priority of the Bush administration - to pay for increasing the size of the active-duty Army.


I think the Kurds and their army were banded together long before we invaded Iraq the second time.
I do believe Kurdish forces are in Fallujah..which is not a part of their own region. Also the article I quoted stated that the Kurdish army had been deployed to Mosul.. and that is not the first time either..which also happens to not be a part of their region..altho they would like to change that.


Well perhaps you do have to define help and divorce it from military connotations when you present the idea in the context of this subject (a military campaign) along with the idea of an Iraqi army being helpful too. Kind of leads one away from the idea of the Turks passing out used sweaters and unwanted canned goods. Besides I doubt you can find anything anywhere saying the Iraqi people want a large group of Turks in their country to "help". In fact I am sure you could not find much of anything saying they wanted any of their neighbors doing so.

As for the rest of your post Mr. Angemacht I am not going to get reprimanded (again) for wanderweg-ing off the subject with you. If you want to debate Iraq's neighbors and their role in the war as a whole then I think you have to start a new debate.

Bucket

Very well.

I wasn't arguing with you, just offering an article which I thought might be rellevent.


Yes. And I didn't disagree that it was so.
I was merely pointing out that your reply was not addressing the point I'd made to Mrs Pigpen.

But you answered me and I appreciate and enjoyed that. Thank you.


I was thinking more in terms of state alliances and trade agreements than used sweaters and unwanted canned goods.


Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get so far off topic.

(I recall that you speak German. Do you know what angemacht means?)

Bingo....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6403689/



Though Belmont was slightly off on the city (see the two maps below) this add's that much more credibility to their article.

Anah (the predicted city)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/iraq/map_iraq.html

Qa'im (slightly northwest but still along the Euphrates)
http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/iraq.html

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11/ri...e-which-is.html

We are so far away from state alliances and trade agreements...the oil doesn't even flow out of Iraq anymore....it drips. Besides with all that grease it won't take much to interest other states to trade with Iraq.
As Vampiel has shown this is a major war campaign. I have read many opinions that this is the next war..phase 3. I am sure big promises have been made on the outcomes...I can't imagine Blair would have agreed to the British troop relocation without something very enticing in return. I just hope we get it right this time.

Yes I know what angemacht means.

If the tactic's employed in Fallujah are any indication of what is to come I believe the situation in Iraq has turned into the beggining of the end.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138522,00.html



The US military lured the insurgents away from the Northern area by making them believe that we where attacking them, this also revealed to the MNF the bunker's because they began shooting out of the camouflaged bunkers and we subsequently bombed the bunker once it was revealed. Then two days later hammered the city with six battalions (over 6,000 soldiers) coming in from the North while putting up a corder around the city. It's only been six day's and they have already taken the city killing over 1,200 insurgents, finding underground tunnels and bunkers, massive stockpiles of weapons, slaugherhouses with information, set two prisoners free, and discovered explosive factories. This General deserve's a medal.

Unfortunately Zawahri was not found. I wonder if this will hurt his reputation of standing up to fight the "evil zionist imperial aggressors".

Coupled with martial law and the closing of and guarding of Qaim on the Syrian border and along the Euphrates this will be a major blow to the insurgents.

Edited to add :

Here's an interesting theory. Remember the "low level" soldier that dissapeared from the Iraqi army shortly before the operation?

http://clearsix.blogspot.com/



Given the brilliant strategy in executing the attack, I wouldnt doubt this is what really happened.

The day before the attack.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20041122.txt



I believe this may be the turning of the tide ladies and gentlemen, but it remains to be seen if we can keep up the pace. CI (counter intellegence) is the key and I believe that we have finally established it sufficiently at this time. I desperately hope that I am not wrong.

Vampiel

I'm inclined to agree, though I think what we've seen is an indication of the failure of the US military to address the real situation in Iraq. I think what we can look forward to now is a series of high profile US military adventures that portray the US as winning 'the fight', whilst the truth is a steady increase in the cunning and ability of the Iraqi rebels that is slowly but surely dragging Iraq into a civil war type situation that simply cannot be won by American force of arms.


This is like applauding a toreador. Yes, he look very strong and 'macho', but the truth is the bull is weakened with drugs and half blinded with vaseline.

Fallujah was a feint by the rebels. It was mostly defended by poor quality mujahideen whilst the bulk of the rebels had long since deserted it having been given months of media warning of the impending attack.

In other words, the US troops were using heavy weapons to shoot small fish in a barrel.


Not in any way. Zarqawi has demonstrated his 'superiority' in the eyes of his followers by the avoiding death or capture and by causing the maximum of discomfort for the US occupation.

Zarqawi is a guerilla soldier. A terrorist. Its his 'job' to not get caught. To only ever fight on his terms. So far he has unfortunately proven to be very successful in this, just as his 'boss' Usama Bin Laden. The idea that Fallujah in any way has weakened Zarqawi is exactly the sort of wishful thinking that Zarqawi uses to his advantage. It is a mistake, far beyond stupidity to underestimate the enemy.

As long as Zarqawi and the rest of the rebels are still inflicting the amount of damage as before, then Fallujah means nothing. Its just one more step on the road back to Vietnam.


Except, why then blab about it to the press?


I don't see how you can expect counter intelligence to save the day for the US forces in Iraq, given that counter intelligence is by nature a defensive measure used to determine what is already taking place, or what is about to take place. At no point can counter intelligence contribute to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, and make no mistake. The US endeavour in Iraq will fail if the population do not back it, and all the counter intelligence in the world will be to no avail without the co-operation of the locals. Indeed counter intelligence cannot function without co-operation from the locals.

Without a credible plan for the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, then all this war has accomplished is the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and a government that cannot survive without US help.

In the words of Lt. Gen. William Odom (Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88)



And Adm. William Crowe (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89)




Needless to say I agree with both of them, and the other five former US top brass whose comments can be read about here.

The war in Iraq was won swiftly, but the peace, the 'post mission accomplished' peace, was lost from the day the order to attack was given. No matter what the US troops do now, no matter how many cities and 'insurgency strong holds' they destroy, they will not succeed without a serious, comprehensive and fully operational plan for reconstruction and long term security.


This post was editted due to a posting error

You should take a look at what has been done in Iraq as far as reconstruction goes.

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/11/good...aq-part-14.html

There's 14 part's, all very long, have a nice read.



Of course I cannot prove you wrong, but you cannot prove that is correct, Fallujah is the first step in a much broader effort. The US military has taken the offensive and cut of the line coming in from Syria toward Fallujah, expect to see more operations in the near future.

Did you even read what we found at Fallujah? Underground networks of tunnels and bunkers, car bomb factories, slaughterhouses etc... Do you have any idea how these people where treated? Think Taliban.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_2,00.html






Im sure you have evidence of that -- somehow I doubt it.

UPDATE :

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

Look at the second picture.

Before we start claiming success here, lets take a look at this honest analysis of where we are:


Now, lets take a little stroll down memory lane into history - Nixon Speech 11/3/69

Again I'm going to ask, what exactly have we learned from history here and how are we not repeating it? We are even using the same terms from 30 years ago "Iraqifying" vs. "Vietnamization". From everything I have read to date about Iraq the parallels are staggering, and while the numbers are no where near close to the same thing, that isn't really the point. We are watching history repeat itself here.

Going back to the original question of - Is this a turning point for Iraq? It'd be interesting to hear the responses now that Fallujah is close to being secured. From what I can tell not much has changed and things have in fact gotten worse. So how has it been a turning point?

My first post here, so let me take a crack at these.

QUOTE

1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

I think it very much could, but only if it the start of the removal of safe havens for those who wish to disrupt any move to democracy in Iraq. If we give the land back or do not remove the other 'safe havens' from the enemy, it will be pointless.

QUOTE

2) Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

Yes, I think the capture of one of the most outspoken of our enemies in the country will vey much be a great victory.

QUOTE

3) Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

Yes, but care must be taken to include the Iraqi's to the greatest extent possible. If they are unwilling to fight for their own freedom, none of this will end up mattering.

Do you think that we should not recruit Iraqi's in defense of their country? That's the parallel you are drawing? And this parallel is "staggering"?



Excuse me for not being convinced. In Vietnam we lost many more soldier's in each fight with the enemy. Our casualties are far lower not only in numbers but percentage wise per battle.

As far as Fallujah being portrayed as a "failure", how so? Explain exactly how killing over 1,000 insurgents, capturing hundreds, destorying mass amount of weapon stockpiles, carb bomb factories, and depriving the enemy of a major sancuary is somehow a "failure"?

I would like to know what you definition of "success" is.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04326/414709.stm



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6550818/



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6551912/

Well isn't this spin at its finest, saying that Fallujah is a "success". Let's look at reality. Our objectives here were as follows:
- capture or kill Zarqawi and other al-Qaida terrorists operating from Fallujah.
- capture or kill the estimated 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi insurgents attacking the occupiers.
- Make the country safe and stable for January 2005 elections

The results were that we reduced the city to rubble in many sections making countless Iraqi's homeless and we killed untold numbers of civilians doing wonders for our image over there. But as far as our objectives:
- Zarqawi is still on the loose and still directing the insurgency [failure]
- We killed several hundred insurgents, but certainly no where near the bulk of them who fled before the attack to make trouble elsewhere and continue to recruit. [failure]
- The country is in fact less stable than before because now instead of 1 main hotspot in Fallujah you have flushed the insurgents and terrorists to cities all over Iraq to cause trouble. This is very well documented. [failure]

That is failure across the board. I don't see how you can even begin to claim success in Fallujah and keep a straight face. But if you don't want to take my word for it, check out this article which talks about the growing dissention in senior military ranks:


It is time to cut through the spin and face facts, we are not winning in Iraq and I really don't know how you can lay claim that we are. So lets get off this whole "failure is victory" bandwagon.

Vampiel.

I don't understand how any one can try to use a blog as a source of information to back up an argument on politics. Blogs are suspect opinion pieces and no matter how honest they are, they are still only the perspective on one person's political opinion.

Show me a UN report, or any independent report, then I might be able to accept what your saying. As it is, the Danish media today announced that yet another international aid organization pulled out of Iraq today and Denmark's politicians are putting heavy pressure on the Danish government to show us some results for the investment of having Danish troops patrolling in Southern Iraq. The argument continues to be, that if Iraq is not being rebuilt then why are Danish soldiers patrolling there?

The reason this argument is still being used is because as far as Denmark is concerned, there is no rebuilding of Iraq taking place worth talking about.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And did you read what I wrote in my previous thread?

I said: It doesn't matter what the US forces found in Fallujah. Fallujah is a victory, but its Iraq that matters. The US military is once again winning the battles and losing the war.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I provided an indication of the type of Mujahideen who were left to defend Fallujah in my previous post.

Any further evidence you may require can be seen in the non capture of the rebel leadership and their core units.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I've seen this argument used before as well.

The difference in US deaths in Iraq and Vietnam is irellevent. The comparison between the two conflicts lies in the political aspirations of the US government then, as now. The idea that you can use military force to impose your will on another country without paying due regard to the mood and wishes of the people of that country is just as flawed now as it was then.

Without the support of the people of Iraq and without a credible, genuine reconstruction effort, then Iraq is just another example of American aggression.



...and over 800 Iraqi civilians.

1) That has been an objective for a long time and the commanders never said they expected to catch him, in fact they said the opposite.

2) Killed over 1,200 and captured around 1,000. That seemed to be all that was left in the city, yet somehow that's a failure?

3) That remains to be seen. Also the attacks peaked but are back "down" to the amount of pre-assualt levels.



You obviously didnt read it. Want more links? Sure....

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...4fcc8908a6.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/d...r/?id=110005794
http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-10-28-voa58.cfm
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...article_id=9662
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...article_id=9796
http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-02-voa43.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...27^1702,00.html
http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/October/A.../Article_44.htm
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=5668
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/01/news/kurds.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15816
http://www.digitalmediaasia.com/default.asp?ArticleID=4122
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article215.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article222.htm
http://www.thespartandaily.com/vnews/displ...9/4181fefb50927
http://live.psu.edu/story/8764
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article225.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article235.htm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/...1336969,00.html
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2502899&nav=5kZQSdg0
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...fm-fm102204.php
http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5733.html
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?A...I&IssueID=27228
http://www.portaliraq.com/shownews.php?id=600
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?A...I&IssueID=27218
http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?f...-27%5C10136.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article220.htm
http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp...593&pn=business
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=67555
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article212.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article231.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article232.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...eingiraq29.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3947343.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGKR9JRH01.DTL
http://www.portaliraq.com/shownews.php?id=599
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article228.htm
http://www.portaliraq.com/shownews.php?id=589
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article209.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article206.htm
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article208.htm
http://www.portaliraq.com/shownews.php?id=587
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Re...se=20041106.txt

Would you like more?



I'll give you the critical difference between Iraq and Vietnam.

1).

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.com/myths_01.htm

78% of Iraqis want to vote for city council members
71% want to vote for their national legislators
66% want to vote for governor
Other options like "appointed by religious clerics" or "appointed by the central government," barely break double digits.

When the question is poised with competing issues in order of importance, only 6.2% of Iraqis polled list "departure of coalition forces" as their most pressing issue.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.com/myths/myth_03_graph.gif

60% of Iraqis surveyed believe that the attacks are caused by people from outside Iraq to destabilize their country.
86% of Iraqis surveyed say that the attacks are an attempt to divide Iraq and incite civil warxi.
Democracy offers Iraq the hope of peace, stability and a better life, while the people attacking the coalition forces offer only chaos and prolong internal troubles in Iraqxii.
- 72% of Iraqis agree with this
- 19% disagree
61% of Baghdadis say that ousting Saddam Hussein is worth whatever hardship they are enduringxiii.
This increases to 74% among the Shi'ia, who were most oppressed by Saddamxiv.
Between April and June, public support for radical Shi°ia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr dropped from 80% to 50%

51% of Iraqis say Iraq is on the right trackxvi. In July of 2003, before the recall election, 24% of Californians thought California was on the right track.
62% of Iraqis think the new government has done a good job since the transfer of powerxvii.
87% believe that Iraqi security forces can maintain security without the Coalition Forcesxviii.
70% of Iraqis say that they would support a family member in a decision to join the Iraqi security servicesxix

2).

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/041024_dinar.html

"One year later, a new currency is circulating throughout Iraq and the Iraqi currency exchange is hailed as a success. The exchange rate is steady, price stability has been restored, and economic growth this year is 50 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. The new Iraqi dinar is a sturdy and secure currency, imprinted with traditional Iraqi symbols -- altogether a great improvement over the flimsy bills with Saddam's face.

Demand for the new currency has been so strong that the Iraqi government has earned an amazing $5 billion in seignorage [the capital gain generated by the creation of reserve money] during the past year just supplying it... And Iraqis are using the newly-minted dinars to purchase goods -- fresh bananas from the Americas, chickens from around the world, new and used cars -- at stable competitive prices in markets in Basra, Baghdad, Irbil and Mosul."


This tells you four critical differences

1). A large majority of the population wants Democracy and is not to concerned if US troops have to stay in the country to bring it.

2). The economy is rapidly expanding

3). Given the money from the government was in such high demand, most Iraqi's trust that the government has been established instead of squandering things like gold, copper, etc... <---- thats the key (because it's the most accurate measure of trust with Iraqi's, a man had his hand cut off for carrying American money in his pocket durings Saddams rule)

4). The obvious, the number of troops KIA are far less of what was in Vietnam. The chances of a soldier coming home from Iraq after a tour is 99%.

The 1% is what you see on your TV screen everday.

Also the large concern for crime only means that the Iraqi's dont support it.

Vampiel

Yes. I did read it, and no I don't need forty three articles regarding the planned Iraqi elections.

You appear to be labouring under the misunderstanding that a possible election is the same as reconstruction. It is not. Whilst an election is an important step on the way to rebuilding a new Iraq, it is not the same as rebuilding the state infrastructure of Iraq, which is what is sadly lacking from the US efforts in Iraq.

The Iraqi people need a viable state if they are to succeed in becoming a democracy. Poverty breeds anti democratic dissention like nothing else, and if the US continues to fail to rebuild the nation they have trashed over the course of the last fifteen years, then this hollow desperation that an election will solve everything is doomed to failure. According to this article, of the 18.2 billion allocated by Congress for Iraqi reconstruction, only 2% have been used so far and whilst that article may be several months old, the same numbers are still being quoted in the media today.

Another point I may as well add is from one of your own articles;

As the article points out, the peaceful area's of Iraq, (the far north and south) have not been pacified or rebuilt by the US invasion. Rather they benefitted from the no fly zones set up long before the war began.

It may be that the rest of Iraq would equally benefit from the protection of a prolonged US military presence, if only it were not the case that Iraq is surrounded on all sides by various other nations with malicious intentions to thwart any notion of democracy in the middle east and who are using every means at their disposal to impose their will upon the Iraqi people. In order to counter this threat, the United States MUST use its economic and financial muscle to help rebuild Iraq and give the people of Iraq every chance to overcome their internal and external problems.

However, I see no evidence that the Bush administration has taken rebuilding into account, and apart from elections (which cost very little) the billions of dollars allocated for reconstruction remain largely unused. Perhaps this money is being with held until a period of stability can facilitate their application. I can only hope that this is the case, and that such a period of stability actually happens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No. What I would like is a UN or other independent report that backs up your claim that the people of Iraq are positive with regards to the US military presence in their country, or that the US efforts to rebuild Iraq are more than just window dressing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What is this site? thetruthaboutiraq.com? Where do they get their truth from? It appears to run counter to every independent source of information I have seen. Is thetruthaboutiraq.com independent? It appears to be a US mouth piece designed to make the efforts in Iraq look like a success story. '

I'm sorry, but I don't trust any site about Iraq that has the stars and stripes waving in the back ground.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I'm assuming this presumption stems from the thetruthaboutiraq.com and the US Embassy in Baghdad sites? If so, then I dismiss them as being far too heavily biased to be even remotely considered as evidence to back your claims. Every independent indication I have seen, including Cube Jockey's Washington post article indicates that an ever growing majority of Iraqi's want the US troops to leave immediately;


Is it? Or are we just seeing the results of the IMF loan and the calls for debt relief. Given Iraq's immense resources, just how great an expansion is 50% from a practically dead economy?
What are the real numbers?


I'm sorry, but I don't see how this relates to Vietnam. Were the Vietnamese punished in this fashion for having US currency?


You may be surprised to learn that Danish television does not dwell on US casualty figures. Instead we are entertained with stories of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed, and how much reconstruction remains to be carried out. Most of the recent stories have dwelt on the 800 or more civilians who were killed in Fallujah, noting with dry neutrality that these people were denied medical attention and that the various hospital services in Fallujah were all forbidden from entering the city. The Red crescent organization, which was the only organization operating in Fallujah during the attack gave several interviews after the fighting had subsided and these all indicated a callous disregard for the local inhabitants on behalf of both sides. The recent example of Marines gunning down wounded rebels in a mosque only served to underline the truth of what the red crescent and the locals had claimed.

Apart from that, I would also note that you are still referring to casualty figures in your attempt to divorce Iraq from Vietnam, despite my previous point that the comparison between the two conflicts is primarily of a political nature.

I am half in mind to point out the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, but at the risk of taking the thread off topic, let me just settle on pointing out that in both instances, America defied global opinion to use a pre-existing conflict to justify the use of immense military power against a population that had little means for its defence and yet continued to resist every effort to dominate them.

In Vietnam, the US military reigned supreme and is said to have killed as many as a million Vietnamese in a decade long conflict where the use of overwhelming firepower was quoted as how the US would eventually triumph. Over the course of the ten year war, the US dropped more tons of high explosive ordinance over Vietnam than was used throughout the entire second world war. After the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam, the people of that nation are still living with the effects of US chemical munitions and aerially deployed land minds and unexploded bombs.

In Iraq, the US military reigns supreme and is said to have killed as many as a a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians in a year long conflict where the use of overwhelming firepower has been quoted as how the US will eventually triumph. Over the course of the last ten years the people of Iraq have had to put up with the after effects of the depleted uranium that is used in US munitions as well as the usual aerially deployed land minds and unexploded bombs.

In both instances the US claim is to be operating on behalf of the local people and their unelected government, and in both cases the US domestic allies (the ARVN & the ING) have proven to be wholly unreliable and prone to wide spread corruption and treachery. Also in both instances numerous claims were made about bringing democracy to the local people and it was/ is claimed that it would be irresponsible for the US to simply leave once the war was committed.

Fallujah is simply the cherry on the cake. It is the perfect example of how the US forces and the US government use small military victories and word games to deflect attention from the reality of the rest of the conflict

Here is something for you Moif..it is from the IMF hope that is considered an appropriate source...

Iraq 'set for 50% growth' in 2004




Of course the reconstruction and economy can only grow so much until the violence and overall security situation is controlled.

This whole make the connection to Vietnam is a really funny thing to watch..I mean in all honesty how honest is it? People see the Virgin Mary in toasted cheese sandwiches..seeing another Vietnam in another American war campaign is not that difficult. You see what you want to see.

Bucket

Thanks, but I've already seen it, It was the article I based this reply on:As you can see, the IMF itself is fuelling the Iraqi economy, and the 52% figure is a projected estimate. Not a hard fact.


Which is more or less what I've been trying to say, and how I understand the main element of CJ's argument.


I don't want to see Vietnam in Iraq.

I just can't refuse to recognise what it is I'm seeing.

What exactly is it about the Vietnam war that lends it such a 'mythical' status to conservatives. How can any one not see the similarities between the two conflicts lest they were deliberately closing their eyes so as not to?

If the comparison is so amusing then please explain the joke to me, because I don't understand the humour.
Whether I see US soldiers bring 'freedom' to one reluctant nation or to another, makes no difference to me.

Editted to fix link and to add this...

Bucket, I don't mean to imply that you are a conservative. My reply was more of a general observation.

The IMF only made their pledge for the loan last month..how could this money have already effected, influenced and played a major role in the several key reforms sited by the IMF in Iraq?
Besides 2004 is almost up...I am sure they are not making that much of a wild estimate.

Also the Iraqi debt was almost entirely forgiven over the weekend. Another major accomplishment for Iraq's future..and one America pursued against the usual opponents.

This is such a tremendous task..not only is Iraq a nation at war..but for over 50 yrs it was a nation mismanaged, corrupt, and was suffering under not only international sanctions but a massive debt. In fact Iraq's debt was one of it's most challenging problems the Saddam regime faced..and unquestionably influenced their riskiest foreign policies and now it's gone. That alone is a pretty impressive accomplishment and major positive influencer for the future of Iraq.

60 Minutes aired a show about the “uncounted” casualties of the Viet…er, I mean Iraq war. What the politicians don’t tell us is that the official figures don’t include all those dead and wounded who were victims of “friendly fire” (gawd, how I hate that term), accidents, sickness or even suicide.

I doubt that these young men; paralyzed, missing limbs, disabled in so many ways would equate comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam as "seeing a face in a tortilla".

So far we have 1227 American soldiers dead, 186 contractors dead, 23,458 American soldiers wounded (if you include the DoD-estimated 15,000) Source, cost in dollars $146 billion and rising in a little less than 2 years. So, in ten years there will be - what - 6,000 - 7,000 deaths (or more), 100,000 or so wounded? This doesn't even count the cost in Iraqi lives, which is between 14-16,000 (no definitive figures seem to be available). How an anybody think it's worth it?

I’d say the comparisons to Vietnam are dead-on. It's an undeclared guerilla-style war we are ill-equipped to handle, a war based on lies, exaggerations and vague fears, a determination to stick it out no matter what to avoid an embarrassing defeat, casualties rising every day, plus, since there is no draft (yet) US Army recruiters being ordered to bring in 14 new recruits a month (which they having a hard time doing per an article in the Sunday LA Times) to replenish a dwindling military. In fact, Iraq promises to be far worse than Vietnam in many aspects.