Ok, I was reading this article earlier (free registration required) and I came across an interesting little nugget:



Now, the upcoming election has been thrown around as a watershed moment in future of Post-War Iraq. On the forums it has been linked with eventual troop withdrawls. Given the poor performance of Iraqi troops and the above quote from the government:

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

Hard to say. It depends how things go. Back before the invasion, the original plan was to keep the Iraqi police forces in place. Obviously, the gamble didn’t pay off and we’re left with something like the nightmare scenario that wasn’t entirely unforeseen. I think the article is right and we won't leave within the next decade.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

There are some alternatives. Our military could recruit more soldiers. It could also eliminate the move up or out policy Overlandsailor has mentioned on another thread. The Iraqi government might employ mercenaries to tackle its intrastate security needs if its own citizens cannot or won’t. Executive Outcomes accomplished with a few hundred people in a month what thousands of UN forces couldn’t do in years in Sierra Leone. Not a very nice option, but one I’d consider if insurgents were bombing our children here and our own police forces were incapable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Exit strategy? See signature.

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

We’re gong to be there for a long while according to the GOP. Remember, one of the post invasion change of heart reasons/excuses for invading Iraq was to have a presence in the Middle East. How do you have a presence without being there?

As far as how long will it take before Iraq is stabilized: never.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

One of the things that stood out for me during the debate and election process was the question of the draft. What really puzzled me was didn’t voters realize this wouldn’t have been a topic if it wasn’t for the short sightedness of the current administration? Any way…..

We’ve been here before and I see no other option if the current mess lasts more than 3 years, which is more than likely. And from there I can envision another ‘60’s type of protest movement, Vietnam style part II. And from there maybe we’ll finally get some music with soul and passion (trying to find the silver lining).

I couldn't agree more. You know, I'm wondering where are all the rosy scenarios the GOP pinched to the people during the elections about Iraq. It must be a great place to live now. We just have to face it. We will long gone dead before we pull out of Iraq. I feel sorry for the next President.





The problem is getting the American people to hold the people accountable who got us into this mess. The question of the draft will become more serious if Iraq doesn't show any improvement soon. Maintaining the troop levels depends on what happens on the ground in 5 to 10 years.

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?
I'll echo what Fife and Drum said here - What exit strategy?

I personally don't think the architects of this war ever had any intention of leaving Iraq after we had conquered it. That is certainly a much more plausible answer than saying they were too stupid to consider what our exit strategy is.

I would tend to believe that what the article stated is correct, we'll have to be there in sizeable force for at least a decade or so or we'll just invite chaos into the country. In fact, the quote in Fife's signature bears repeating here:

Hmm, I'd say that all of that and more has come to pass, perhaps George H W Bush was a pretty smart man afterall.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that the elections in January (assuming they are even possible) are going to make things just peachy-keen in Iraq they are wrong. The "government" in Iraq right now is a puppet government at best and there is no infrastructure to support it on top of that. I do hope things get better, but I think far too many people are believing the spin from Washington about how well things are going there.

I'd say we are in Iraq for the duration and we'll be using it as a base of operations for the War on Terror all the while trying to westernize the country with the hopes that other Muslims will see what is happening there and say "hey that isn't so bad afterall".

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?
I'd say that depends on whether or not we have Fallujah-like chaos for the next 5 to 10 years in Iraq. I would like to think that won't happen and we'll just need to maintain a significant presence in Iraq. But I do see the current state of events continuing for the next year to three years and I think that will require increased manpower, especially given that a decent majority of the people fighting over there are reservists and not active duty professional soldiers.

A lot of people say "oh we can just recruit more soldiers and devote more budget to it", but that doesn't really make any sense to me. The people you are going to most likely be recruiting is the 18-24 age group and that age group is probably the most opposed to the war and overwhelmingly voted for Kerry in the last election. I don't see that trend reversing, so how are you going to sell people tickets to Iraq exactly? I don't know if a draft is the answer, but I would like to hear what the non-politically spun answer is.

What will probably require a draft is when we get embroiled in another large conflict in the Middle East while still trying to hold down the fort in Iraq. I'd say that Iran is a very likely target in the next 4 years for some serious military action, you can clearly see the groundwork for that being laid right now with things going on in the news. It is my belief that we will have at least one more major middle east conflict before Bush leaves office and I'm putting my money on Iran.

Perhaps I haven't been playing close enough attention, but what "rosy scenarios" have you heard from the GOP lately

I would hardly call pointing out that there are, in fact, some very good things happening in Iraq while also pointing out the serious problems painting a rosy picture, try an accurate one.

Perhaps marginally, it shifts the theory to "they were too stupid to realize they gain nothing and risk everything (in terms of their political power) by leaving troops in Iraq indefinitely"

I go with the third option, they were too optimistic in their estimation of what if would take to stabilize Iraq, they remain too afraid to take the aggressive actions that will help (this is finally changing).

..but can it still work?

Sure, the insurgents are still at the disadvantage in an Iraqi society which is becoming increasingly aware that it is targeting them personally.

Draft? Politically impossible, we'll walk off with our tail between our legs if it comes to that.

I also seemed to have missed that meeting...who sent the flyers, anyway?



All I can say to the first part is that if that is indeed true, I will join you in your opposition to the war. Staying there permanently will likely ruin most of the long-term benefits I foresaw to the invasion...it would further indicate that only military objectives were considered, in what is clearly a political issue. I don't think this is the case...rather, I agree with Turnea:



I would add that what they were afraid of (turning insurgents into martyrs, thereby causing the insurgency to spread) is being taken care of by the insurgents themselves--as they target Iraqis, Iraqis are more supportive of our using extreme force to combat them.



Currently, I would agree. However, if it becomes necessary in the future, I think it is very feasible. Everyone agrees that leaving Iraq in chaos is easily the worst possible scenario....if a draft becomes necessary, I think it will get the desired support--with the ensuing fallout over why it was necessary, to be sure, but support nonetheless.

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

I look to see increasing use of Iraqi security forces over the next 6-12 months. Within that time from (and probably much sooner)...all the major bases of operations for the insurgents should have been taken out. At that point, the operations become less military and more police oriented....Iraqi security forces should be capable of handling at least a large share of this work in that time frame. Once that happens, the US can begin to draw down troops.

As for when we'll 'leave'--it depends on what your definition of 'leave' is. I think we'll be redeploying significant troops within a year. However, I also think a sizable force (40,000? less?) will remain for some time, to ensure stability.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

Maintain troops at what level? The current level? I don't see that happening. As a sizable security force? I think that both likely and achievable without implementing a draft.

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

Leave?

I don't think it was ever the plan to leave Iraq.

It looks very much to me as if the GW Bush administration has indeed revived the good old days and finally America has matured into Imperialism like so many other powerful nations have in the past. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power...

The US has been building large permanent military installations in Iraq. The sort of permanent installations with which they can control the region. I don't doubt that originally the plan was to have an Iraqi puppet regime manning the bulk of these bases, but this plan was dealt a serious blow when the neo cons based so much of their arguments on the Iranian agent Chalabi. Well done Donald.


If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

I don't know. The PDA seems to think it might be a problem.

Will GW Bush initiate a draft? he said he wouldn't. How far do you trust him to keep his word?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/front_1.html



What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

A complete US pullout? 50-60 years if that. I can see a major pullout within the next 3-4 years. We have allready pulled out around 20,000+ troops. Anything can happen though so it's not wise to put a timetable on a major pullout for a politician.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

It is partly true. It's also a small slice of the truth. Looking at the larger picture the IP and ING are just begging to carry out operations against insurgents without any US help. They also seem to be holding there ground more often than not. Of course this is more of an area specific problem. For instance in Mosul 2/3rds of the entire force abandon their position after the insurgents attacked. But you dont see that all over the country you see just the opposite. That is why IP's are dying everyday.

The US military will be able to maintain current troop levels in Iraq for the next ten years but it will be very expensive. Maintaining the size of the military has allready been established by increasing the the re-enlistment bonus to $10,000. Currently the enlistment bonus to sign up in the Army is $8,000. If they needed more people then they can simply increase the incentives.



You mean there are actually good things going on in a country of 25 million when 10 people are dying everyday? Youve got to be kidding me!

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/en/default.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=205
http://www.iraqischools.com/
http://www.9neesan.com/
http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/
http://www.portaliraq.com/
http://www.spiritofamerica.net/
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/11/good...aq-part-14.html

1. The insurgents control next to nothing
2. There's a 99% chance a US soldier will come home after a tour
3. The insurgents manage a car bomb and a few attacks every day that result in nothing more than to spread as much choas as possible -- no strategic area's are taken and held
4. Killing 10 civilians a day in a city of 10 million is a far cry from the city being in "choas"

Their only hope is to ignite a civil war. If I where playing chess I would much rather be on the US side of the board.

http://www.iraqischools.com/images/hines.jpg
The entire country is in not in choas -- a far cry from it. The population is not turning against us.

I read the headlines everday. But I also know that convicted child rapists escaping from a courtroom is not the only news floating around this country of 280 million people. I cant remember the last time I read breaking international new's about a water treatment plant opening or an increase in Albany's police force or the latest update on the progress of the swamp cleanup in Georgia.

Apparently if it doesnt make the cut of breaking international new's it simply doesnt exist or isnt painting a real picture of the situation.

I guess from now on I will only read the latest in breaking new's on CNN to figure out what's really going on.



I tend to believe that the majority of the human species wishes to elect their own leader and to be ruled without repression. Maybe it's just me but I dont see it as "westernizing" but more of removing the ball and chain.

Where do you get that number? It is completely false.

Back in the spring the number of our troops in Iraq fell to nearly 100,000 before being spun back up to nearly 138,000, where it has stayed since the summer. There have been units redeployed - with other units relieving them in place. No "pullouts" up to this point.

In fact, in October around 6,500 troops already in Iraq had their tours extended for a couple of months until the January elections - in order to maintain max troop strength for the expected upsurge in violence. Due to the violence already exceeding expectations, decision makers are now looking at either speeding up the scheduled deployment of 3rd ID - or deploying the ready-brigade of the 82nd. That seems more likely, as the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Cav looks as if its going to have to remain in the Fallujah area for a while longer - and thus is unable to return to its previous mission in the Baghdad International Zone.

No, the picture isn't as bad throughout the country as some would like to paint it - but the rosy glasses need to go as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/13/...rq.deployments/



http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/21/blair.iraq/



That is how I got the 20,000+ number. That estimate seems to include troops in the general area so you are right, im not sure what the exact numbers where used to invade. Im not painting a rosy picture of Iraq, I explained the attacks that occur frequently and was only attempting to shatter the "country is in choas" image. Many problems remain and the country is not stable. However the four points that I made remain which is why I believe that we are currently winning and will ultimately win the war.

Just a quick update - as I alluded to in my first post in this thread, the decision has been taken to deploy the ready brigade of the 82nd. The 2nd Brigade of the 1st Cav is now having its tour extended for the second time - they'll now remain in-country until March. Altogether, another 12,000 US forces are being deployed to Iraq, bringing the overall troop strength up to around 150,000.

I just read that to...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/01/...main/index.html



Shortly after I read this.

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...e=200411101.txt



The reasons I believe for the troop deployment.

The security situation has deteriorated since April.

They are sending additional troops to guard elections in anticipation of an upsurge in violence when the election take's place.

They see a real opportunity to maintain the offensive operations so they can free up troops from defending the city to carrying out operations.

I think it's most likely a combination of the last two.

EDITED TO ADD :

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Re...se=20041202.txt



Just as I suspected.

http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200410120831.asp



Pic of the new Iraqi SWAT team.
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/iraqi_swat.jpg
The Iraqi SWAT team, pictured here, rounded up 87 suspected insurgents in a citywide sweep of the south-central Iraqi city of Iskandariyah Oct. 18. An emerging elite unit within the Iraqi security forces, the SWAT team is playing a key role in restoring security and stability in Northern Babil province, where the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit has been operating since July. The Iraqis live, train and operate alongside the MEU's Force Reconnaissance platoon. The combined force has carried out dozens of precision raids and cordon-and-knock searches aimed at capturing anti-Iraqi forces and disrupting their activity.

Interesting they use "swarm" tactics instead of precision point tactics used by the spec. op's. I see a new development here that seem's to be very effective...

First of all, of course the US military commanders are going to talk up the Iraqi troop performance. And I'm sure that there are many examples of stellar performance, but there are also indicators that there are serious problems with these forces. Otherwise, the US wouldn't have seen the need to raise the number of troops by 12,000 more.

Repeatedly Iraqi forces have wilted in face of intense pressure, as has been the case in Mosul. The fact that not only do they abandon their posts in moments of crisis, but some actually join the insurgents, is startling. Another scary prospect is the idea that insurgents have actually infiltrated Iraqi forces.

And good performances by Iraqi Police in the Kurdish and Shiite areas is to be expected, especially in the Kurdish region. But it is in the Sunni region where the greatest need is for security forces, and it is these forces which are not performing well.

I don't think that we can stablize this region for at least year, and that is dependent on the successful intergration of Sunni's into the new government. Otherwise I think it will be at least five years before our troop level in Iraq can fall below 100,000, if will maintain our goal of achieving a functional democracy.

It is always interesting to read people's posts about how we are winning this war and how the population supports us. It reminds me of a report that occured just after we finished the invasion. It involves a news reporter talking to a man and his son. The son shouted, "Saddam good, Saddam good!" The father immediately corrects him and the boy shouts, "Saddam bad, Saddam bad!" These people have been living under the rule of a man who terrorized them for years. They learned to accept and support this man for fear of death or worse. We come in and "liberate" them by force. We ask them what they think of us and, not surprisingly, they say they support us. This does not mean they do... it just means they say they do. I mean, we're the guys with the tanks.

So... now... with all these troops performing this huge humanitarian effort in Iraq -- liberation is fun -- what will we do to handle the actual enemies developing WMD that can reach the US? Will we abandon Iraq to tackle Iran who, with the help of China -- you remember... our partner in the multi-lateral talks with N. Korea -- the N. Koreans themselves, and our good friends in Russia, are developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads that could reach US soil? Let's hear it folks! Say it with me! Say it proudly! "The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein in Iraq!"

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

I’ll reiterate what others have said – what exit strategy? Since no one has seen fit to plan one, I can easily see this mess dragging on for ten years or more. And I heard on the news last night that more troops are being sent, bringing troop strength up to 150,000. That’s more troops than Rumsfeld thought necessary from the beginning.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

No. Recruiters are already failing to meet recruiting goals. It’s not like the old days, when high school dropouts, and petty criminals are offered a chance to join. Now there are minimum requirements. And people meeting those requirements aren’t lining up like the Army hoped.



From the same article, a related item of interest:

What I find really low-down and despicable is that recruiters are staking out high schools (in addition to the malls, Walmarts and the like). I found this ominous tidbit in an article about Army recruiting:

Recruiters use NCLB as a recruiting tool?! I’d be going waaaay off topic to address that and Dubya’s role in it. Suffice it to say, I’m horrified and disgusted, but not surprised.

What sort of timetable do you see for the U.S. leaving Iraq?

I'm going answer this indirectly....

Imagine spending a lot of money on something, say, a car. Let's say that six months after you purchase it, something breaks. So, you fix it. Six months later something else breaks, so you fix that. A few months later after that something else breaks so you fix that. A friend tells you: "Seems like you bought a lemon. You should dump the car before you spend anything else on it." A rational person would calculate probable repair costs based on the historical data vs. the value of the car over time and conclude that yes indeed it is more likely than not that the car will continue to have problems and the problems will cost more than the value of the car. However, sometimes the rational is ignored. Sometimes, the person will say: "Well, I've put so much money into it that I might as well continue to do so." I've dubbed this type of thinking as the "lemon fallacy" which is not so dissimilar to the gambler's fallacy (in the contrapositive sense).

It is this type of thinking which I fear dominates the Iraqi occupation. I don't believe there's been a realistic cost vs. benefit analysis. Yes, we have the flag-waving, freedom-is-worth-any-price crowd, but even they don't believe that. Clearly, there is a price which is too great; they just don't believe it has been reached. The problem is I don't see any honest dialog about trends. I see hopefulness; I see maybes; I see possiblys. But, I don't see how those things reconcile with the actual data we do have.

So, back to the question, while I do see trends suggesting that Iraq is a "lemon", I don't see the US assessing it in a rational sense. Thus, I do not believe the US will ever pull out of Iraq.

If the above scenario is even partly true, do you see the U.S. government being able to maintain troop levels in Iraq for five to ten years without a draft?

The answer to this question depends on many variables. One variable is the insurgency. Another variable is civil war. Another variable is conflagration points in other parts of the world (particularly in the Middle East). Another variable is brinksmanship with countries like Iran, that is, Iran doesn't back down from an ultimatum. Another variable is the inevitable continued terrorists attacks on US soil (particularly those involving nukes). Should any of these variables work against the US, then there will likely be an increase in US troop levels. Eventually, recruitment will be insufficient and a draft will follow.

I think that even though things look bad now, we need to look at history.
How long were we in Europe after WWII? Remember the mess with the Berlin wall?
The cold war was the result of our occupation and rebuilding after that war.

People are being impatient.
Remember that terrorists are easilhy crossing the borders into Iraq to engage our troops.
I'm an an airline captain for a major US airline. I fly to Europe all the time.
Personally I'm glad that the terrorists are being killed over there by our soldiers and not here in the US or continuing to try to blow up our planes.

I'm about to post a very long article in my web site about the weaknesses in our present security process. It if flawed and vulnerable.
You can read it shortly at Pilot Pauls Travel Accessories

Pilot Paul

To me it seems if we dont not get what we want for iraq, then opposition will lay claim to it, or it will just degenerate into a civil war, either way it just looks like lots of destruction ahead. The insurgency for the most part is looking capable of making a strong roadblock to what we want in iraq, and for the most part, the struggle their from what i can know, seems to be a gridlock really in terms of advance of either groups desires for the hostage nation and or iraqi people, that are themselves rather divided it seems over the whole issue in a variety of ways.
I feel the lack to escape this situations gravity can become very grave over a long period of time, being the economic resource and humanities issues that this war takes on, that and the almost psychological war at home about it, either for or against or no clear cut position or reason to be found that can cure such really. This is then coupled with an administration that for lack of better words is beyond the point of no return on terms of this decision and course of action. So with this administration not willing to even think about bringing troops home until mission complete, and an america populous unable to come together on the war, and the inability to make headway for the u.s desired iraqi nation and populous, i dont see anything or anyone combing home all to soon really.

I think it puts the american people at hostage to try and rescue the troops overseas in the war, not for any particular reason save just the people themselves actually.i think this point is played by many political groups in a rather diverse range to gain political play or power in politics overall. From if you dont like what bush says, you are against the troops or not a patriot, to if you do agree with it, you are into killing babies for oil and or being an imperial dictatorship of self interest, to so much more. THis could lead to a strategic game of compromise/other that falls short of really getting the troops home or the mission accomplished to me, this is not only the politicians anymore, but the people themselves.

"The problem is that I don't see any honest dialog about trends.

Realistically, the American public only reaches it's conclusions via what they see on (the blatently slanted) nightly news. There are few military experts or people whom have a realistic idea as to what will/can happen in Iraq. CBS (along with most other news networks), contrary to popular belief, is not a military expert, is not unbiased, and only presents the side of the story that sells.

In a military incursion, there generally isn't anything set in stone. There is a definite amount of uncertainty, an element of surprise, and no amount of planning can prepare you for every obstacle that you will face. That being said, in Iraq, our military is maintaining control beyond what any news network will ever care to show. I wish the military would publish an objective report that discusses the progress.... because Tom Brokaw will never talk about the successes in this war. Success doesn't sell their political agenda nearly as well as casualty reports.

Being a Marine that served in Afghanistan, I understand the fact that things have not gone as planned. I understand that as an officer, we're facing obstacles that we're not necessarily prepared/trained for. However, the picture the American media paints is far more cynical than actuality. Our ability to adapt and overcome is unparalleled. I've had numerous personal conversations, seen operations reports, and talked with brass about the effectiveness of this incursion. There are plenty of areas to improve, however, most tenured military professionals believe that all goals can be reached if they have not already. Watching this war on network news is like watching one quarter of a football game with a commentary from a school girl... you only get part of the story and the part you get is from an obscured perspective.

I don't want to get into a debate of the value, accuracy or bias of the media. I do believe though there's been a trend of "shoot the messenger". Whether we like it or not, bad things are happening in Iraq. This is why we need complete and accurate data, so that pundits, pro-militarists or anti-war apologists do not hold unreasonable sway over us. If there is no honest dialog and no honest assessment, then that vacuum will be filled with ideologies, biases and agendas.


It's fine discussing successes in Iraq, however the successes will mean little should civil war break out. This is the justified fear amongst people observing what is going on right now. Iraq is not a PR campaign. It is a war with people dieing and people killing. Whether we like it or not, death and destruction will always get more headlines than life and reconstruction. As for planning, I do believe the US military commanders suggested that to take and stabilize Iraq will require far more soldiers than are currently occupying Iraq. Is this the media's fault too?


Of course, things don't go as planned. I have no doubt that on the whole the US military is doing better than expected with the tools they have available. However, these tools are insufficient for the job before them. Moreover, the "goals" for Iraq have not been honestly discussed and vetted. Lastly, while I agree that the network news is not the greatest source of information, I disagree that they are like "a school girl". They refer and defer to military experts in this domain. It just happens that not all military experts agree with your assessment.

Its funny to me how the complexity of the issue in iraq is simply brushed away. Basically you have x amount of millions of people, living in a very conservative region of the world, in a nation about the size of california, that is developed, that in itself is segregated by various social or other reasons. Everyday these people have to go outside and make that day occur, in whatever it turns out to be. this simple mountain of a variable is never really taken into account by much anyone or the complexity in it. If the people of iraq, say 80% of them wanted with passion and emotion, or whatever in their heads made it so, put into force by their actions to want the iraq the coalition wants, it would happen i think very fast, or more fast if anything then it is now, or faster overall. Then again it is complex, and for all the times nations have gone into nations to turn them how they like, this simple issue always seems to be one of vast importance and so on, and such activity has a rather large case history in our history in general.

ON this note, a large amount of problems or success if you will have occurred and or are still occurring and or will in the future. like the vote coming up, and everything that surrounds that, or getting the iraqis that support us mobile to do such in their own nation, or having a positive message for the people overall that the people want and working on such. Things like having around a 100,000 dead civilian rate due to combat does not help this, nor does the various social issues that relate the current mideast to the current u.s, which is not all some bright thing of care bare type happiness. None of the complexity of even that simple thing, the populous is ever really spoke on in great detail, its hard to find the interviews with local iraqis that speak ever, its very hard to find much on it really, and for the most part the reports are on nothing but the u.s battles the insurgents, day in and day out, and iraq is stuck in that stasis, that i dont think will bring what we want for victory over a long period of time. Its no ones fault for making the u.s military the prime force in changing a culture, that is not something that really goes along with typical training for anyone i know in the army, and for the most part is a complicated thing not easily understood by people that work with it our the rigor of academia.

The current u.s administration has stayed its course and will continue to do that. To not even delve into the relativity that surrounds the war in iraq, with simple questions of what does it actually mean on the WOT, we hear its in our best interest, but again all the pros and cons cannot really derive much fact but just opinion, just like the wmds we knew all about but did not really, to iraqi children that wave to troops on news channels, its a big quagmire in more ways then one, and i dont see any troops coming back under our leadership until what they want is in place in iraq. i see the complexity in that in terms of what we are trying to do in iraq, and i see an insurgency for the most part that is stalling what we want to do in iraq, and a terrorist methodology that overall seems to be honed at fighting with what its got against a better military overall, so no, i just dont see anyone coming home anytime soon.

What i fear is what vietnam was. It was a place lead by the "smart" guys and it never came to what we wanted. it became something bad with a lot of dead people overall and many questions, that is my prime fear overall with iraq.

There are military experts who are saying that despite tactical successes -- such as Fallujah, the US military has not been succeeding in curbing the insurgency. Now, this is not information coming from the media, but from reports by military experts. Military experts are the ones telling us that it isn't going well. Now, the generals and the administration tell us it isn't that bad, but these are the same people who are only recently admitting that the war was handled badly at the start. Is there some reason that these people's portrayal of the status of the war should be accepted - given their track record for being less than honest about it all along? I'll go with the objective military experts over the guys with the mud on their face, thank you.

Given the objectives of this mission and the time that we've taken to achieve them, I'd say the Iraq operation has been an unprecedented success.

I can't think of another US military operation, on this scale, that has been this successful. Can you?

This month, Iraq will hold free elections in spite of the last ditch efforts of the fascists who want to regain power. On top of it, Saddam's capacity to create WMD's and then distribute them to his terrorist allies has been eliminated. On top of it, we will be able to establish a strategic military presence on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Has it been without pain and sacrifice? Of course not. Nothing worthwhile ever is.

They say that there're as many opinions as there're people. I think that the Iraq operation was, quoting Dick Gephardt, "a miserable failure".
Elections? What kind of elections you're talking about if , according to USA Today,



And guess what? Up to 80 percent of population support Shiite Islamic party with Iranian backing. From the same USA Today article:



If this is something we had in mind for the future of Iraq - no doubt, mission accomplished. I don't envy future presidents who would have to deal with Irano-Iraqi Alliance down the road.

I don't think it was included in the objectives of the mission to allow crazied fundamentalists to bomb and kill civilians by dozens on a daily basis. (Saddam, by the way, used to hang Islamic fundamentalists along with Communists right across from Russian Embassy in Baghdad).
There's no need to repeat GOP talking points about "capacity to create WMDs" (at least noone is talking about Saddam actually posessing WMDs anymore) and distributing them to his "terrorist allies" (and those would be...? Let me guess... drum roll.. the bogeyman appears... Osama! Never mind that Colin Powell himself said that there's no evidence that Osama and Saddam were linked at all - the truth is, Osama probably couldn't stand Saddam with his secular Pan-Arabism).

I support the war in Iraq and see it as a continuation of Desert Storm! Sadamm continued to (violate) the No fly zone,Obstructed Inspections and turned the Oil for food project into a gold mine.Liberals would alow these violations to continue un checked. Sadamm was no threat to the USA? ...sure he was!..This war is not an easy situation,but we must take a stand over there not here! How long must we remain? Long enough for the election to take place and for their security to be set in place. After that...let them decide their own fate! I oppose nation building with or without the bogus WMD issue.In my view,we had enough to justify our actions without playing the stupid wmd card.Yup..some Democrats in the center support this action. I do admit some concern with preemption but in this case,I believe we are doing the right thing.

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" E.Burke


Adam Stone

That is a good point. In many respects the Desert Storm never ended. Saddam routinely violated the terms of the cease fire and committed multiple acts of war including firing on our aircraft and attempting to assassinate one of our former presidents (George H.W. Bush). In my view, that was justification enough to finish that war once and for all. Attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq were never made except by those on the left trying to "prove" Saddam was not directly involved and thus de-legitimize our war effort there.

The UN was clearly exposed as a paper tiger. The USA would be in that same category if we would have let Saddam continue to defy the terms of his own surrender.

Of course Gephardt, who was running for president made that comment. Yet, he was unable to back it up with any historical perspective. It was just political hyperbole designed to stir up the democratic base.

I'll ask you again, which other US military operation, on this scale, has been more successful than the operation in Iraq?

http://www.historyinfilm.com/jacket/namkia/compare.htm

The link contains a list of major US conflicts and the associated casualties.

It's important, in my view, to put this issue in perspective. We're in a major war and the average US citizen has very little practical impact on him/her. There is no draft, no rationing of resources, no special taxes, nothing.

We are winning the war in Iraq and frankly, the bulk of our casualties are the result of our attempts to fight a more "humane war" and to minimize civilian deaths. We could have simply vaporized that nation and eliminated the insurgents in one fell swoop. But, that is not our mission there. What we're doing is harder, will cost more in terms of people and property, but will have better long-term results.

In 10 years, Iraq will be more peaceful and democratic than Turkey and the balance of power will shift away from the tyrannical regimes in that region and away from the Islamist fundamentalists to self rule by free people.

One day in Iraq, they'll have a national holiday to celebrate George W. Bush's birthday.

And the liberals in this country will complain that they don't have enough civil rights or that they pollute too much or that they use too much oil. And they'll conveniently forget that they rabidly opposed the entire liberation effort in the first place.

It's all depends on definition of "success". As I hear, the governor of Baghdad was assassinated today. A fierce and prolonged gun battle was raging on the streets of Baghdad between insurgents and governor's bodyguards. Are you saying that we achieved our objectives if we can not protect our puppet officials as high-sitting as governor of Baghdad? Give me a break.



What makes this war a "major war"? We attacked an economically ruined nation which for 12 years was under strict UN sanctions prohibiting it to buy any kind of weaponry. Its military was in shambles. Iraq was using the same Soviet T tanks from the 70s that it was using during Iran war. It had no air defences.



Right, and Soviet Union was building a successful and prosperous future for Poles, East Germans, and Hungarians. Guess what? They were "celebrating" birthdays of Lenin, Karl Marx, and such.
The bulk of our casualties comes from roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, etc. If there's anything history teaches us is that the harder the punitive actions by the occupiers (look at the Germans "vaporizing" entire villages along with partisans in Belorussia), the fiercer the resistance becomes.



You are certainly free to believe that.

I suppose that I can keep asking you the same question time and time again and continue to not get a response so that you can continue to push your assertion that the Iraq war has been a "miserable failure".

We have NOT achieved our objectives in Iraq and that's why we are still there. As I stated (so eloquently in the most humble of fashions) our casualties in this war are precisely because of our long-term strategy to win the war with minimum civilian deaths.

War is filled with uncertainty and no level of "planning" can change that. The left in this country (and the world) was against the war in Iraq independent of the justification, the circumstances, and the global impact of us NOT fighting there. There is no way that people wearing those political stripes will EVER consider the Iraq war to be a success. There is just to much emotional energy invested opposing it.

Since you won't answer my question, I'll pose another one.

What would the impact be on the USA and our global war on terrorism if we would have backed away from Iraq and allowed Saddam and his sons to:

1. Continue to pursue the development of WMD's.
2. Continue their long established ties with anti-American terrorist groups and individuals who would be willing to deploy those WMD's.
3. Motivate terrorists by showing them that the US will back down when confronted.
4. Demonstrate that the terms of the UN resolutions and cease fire with the US didn't mean anything.
5. Show the world that the attempted assassination of a US former president resulted in zero repercussions.

Perhaps you can address this topic?

Since you continue to press the issue, here's my answer: the last war that was decisively won by United States against the worthy opponent (you don't consider the Grenada or Panama affairs to be "wars" by any chance?) was the 1945 victory over Japan.
As for your questions, the answer is as follows: the so-called "rogue nations" learned a lesson: get the WMD and the most advanced conventional weapons ASAP. Nobody, including us, is willing to pick a fight with North Korea or even Iran. Saddam and his goons didn't have a trace of WMDs, that's why they got stomped over. Is that the result we were willing to achieve?

That wasn't even my question. We lost hundreds of thousands fighting Japan and it took two nuclear weapons to finish it (something that the left is still complaining about by the way).

Saddam didn't have a trace of WMD's? That's just not true. There is plenty of evidence that he was pursuing multiple programs. The fact is that stockpiles haven't been found and there is related evidence that these were moved while the UN and the French were delaying the war's start for their own selfish reasons.

The lesson is this. Make the situation painful for the US and the left will be out in full force declaring it a "miserable failure" and injecting defeatism and negativity constantly across a wide spectrum of media outlets.

As in Vietnam, the insurgents don't plan to win the war on the battlefields in Iraq. They plan to win it by coopting the left here and by subverting the media to their aims.

That's what I'm afraid of. I'm sure our military can do the job in Iraq. I'm not sure the people have the stomach to stand up to a coordinated propaganda campaign from the left.

lordhelmet

This question can't be answered without straying into the realms of fantasy because success can only be measured with hindsight and unless you have the ability to predict what is going to happen over the course of the next few years then how can you maintain Iraq is a success?

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of confident voices that predicted US success in Vietnam and Somalia as well, but the truth is, just winning the battles, doesn't win you the wars.




1. What WMD's?

2. What 'long established ties with anti-American terrorist groups'? We've had numerous threads with regards to the supposed links to anti-American terrorists here at AD and so far no one has come up with any credible evidence to support the claim that Saddam was in bed with Osama.

3. Do you mean as opposed to the terrorists who have backed down in the face of US determination?

4. Strange.... I seem to remember Saddam Hussein handing in a dossier which showed he HAD NO WMD's

5. What difference does that make when the whole world already believes a US president (JFK) was assassinated without any one being held to account?


Well, actually the topic here is the questions posed by Ultimate Joe:




Plenty of evidence?

Where?


edited to add:

A few weeks ago, Ali al-Haidri declared that the situation in Iraq was becoming desperate. This morning he was assassinated.

Somehow, I don't think the problem here is the left's defeatism, but rather the right's blind refusal to accept the truth.

If your worldview is that the "rest of the world" is on the left, then yeah, left still complains about Hiroshima bombing. We had a whole thread here on that subject so we can debate it there.
There are no conventional battlefields in Iraq. Iraqi ragtag army did the only prudent choice they had, disappearing into the civilian population. Now, every street, every house, every dead cow lying on the road is our battlefield. Unfortunately, civilian population, which doesn't give a rib who is on top as long as it's safe to go out to the market to buy rice and bread, is drawn to the battlefields and are being killed by both sides (on purpose by terrorists, as a collateral damage by us).
I grew up in a totalitarian society with nasty secret police and brainless dictator in the top office. I thank God that the "free world" was smart enough back then to avoid (and that my country was strong enough to deter any thought of) any "military liberation" of the country I was living in. All of my family, myself included, are still alive today.

so if at any part of the iraq war you do not agree with, you are to the left and are an evil insurgent then??? or if you dont like the fact we nuked civilian sites, you are a insurgent working for the left, or if the media does not agree in every single detail with the right its all for the left then.

If you dont have anything to debate with, then dont, its a debate, things get debated. i can say a whole bunch of stuff, like how when big oil in america dumped 90 million metric tons of waste, stuff that causes cancer in humans, the bush admin cleared them of all charges by the EPA, or just the overall destruction of the EPA, and or care for the environment, but i guess caring for the environment is not patriotic in your world adam, and is a product of the left to help the insurgency in vietnam. Lets not dare question the ethics of the bush families relation to the bin laden family, but i know sex is a big big issue and should call for an invesigation right? or question anything related to iraq, for its just all the left and its propaganda to help the insurgency in vietnam again. sorry to be so blind and dumb, i will now allow the light of your all knowing position to show me the correct way to think and view things, and all the hard core facts that speak so much truth on everything and our actions as a nation, i am sorry for being so blind.

What WMD's? We have found strong evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program. We've also learned that his scientists were not as far along as Saddam thought. The issue is stockpiles of weapons. That's still an open issue.

What long established ties with terrorists? Are you serious?? Ever hear of Zarqawi,
resident of Bagdhad and welcomed guest of Saddam Hussein prior to the US invasion? How about Abu Nidal?

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/abunidal.html

Terrorists aren't going to back down in the face of opposition and they are CERTAINLY not going to back down when appeasement efforts are attempted. We aren't negotiating with them, we are destroying them.

JFK assassination? You are clearly misinformed on that topic. I suggest you not go there unless you want to be completely destroyed in a debate. Oswald killed JFK. He was an American left-wing lunatic.

There is a chronological history of most everything the bush admin saying being taken back in a bit of time, as not being on the level with reality, then a blame laid to someone else, like how we knew of all these stockpiles and everything else we stated at the u.n. to date the u.s government at large, as in terms of the 9-11 committee cannot relate saddam in any fashion to 9-11, against all the various things we were told. ON the campaign trail, we were being told that terrorists are getting ready to do all this nasty stuff, and nations that do have a case history of supporting terror agains the u.s and were making nukes among other things received no action against. I dont see how its patriotic to do that going with what is stated to be patriotic by the right in general.

TO get to the WOT, how does it relate to iraq, how does having democracy in iraq stop it from being a place terrorists can live and do stuff, terrorists live and do stuff and have organizations in nations that are friendly to us. We dont have much of a direction in the iraq war or a time frame when we will be able to leave do we, we dont have any wmds, not a trace save one empty canister that have mustard gas in it, and dug up fragments with traces that were destroyed during the inspections. You have in general more muslim hatred for the actions of the u.s in iraq though, that is fact, and in general, you have a large scale insurgency that is capable of working in a surgical fashion in iraq. Plus not we have home grown jihads popping up all over the world, more assassinations of "infidels" but being its a conservative religious thing, it should be good though to the right anyways, all we have going in iraq is a desire to make it a democracy, and some words on that its good for us, but no words on why or how, or really anything on ending terror, save using it to get elected.