Questions about the Iraq War

[Dari]

Seeing that the Soviet Union attacked a weak state in 1979 and tried to install it's own puppets. America would have none of this and supported Arab/Muslim "jihad." When the Soviet Union wanted a "graceful exit" out of Afghanistan, they asked America for help, fearing they would have an unstable Islamic state on their hand. The Americans just told them to leave and the Afghan people would take care of their own problems. Their fears eventually came to fruitation when we abandoned the Afghans, leaving it to the warlords, after the Soviets left.

Fast forward to today and you have President Bush wanted a "graceful exit" out of Iraq, fearing an unstable country in such an important region, nevermind the initial objectives of freedom and democracy. But everyone and their mother is telling Bush to just leave and the Iraqis will fix their own problems. Besides, whether or not the Iraqis become a victim of genocide; start a glorious democracy in the heart of the Middle East; or continue to kill each other until they reach a steady-state condition, America is ultimately responsible since she "broke" Iraq, not unlike the Soviets who "broke" Afghanistan.

Do Americans ever make this comparison?

Also, I was listening to Thomas Friedman from the NY Times on CNN and he said that the carnage in Iraq will continue because Americans have no intelligence on the insurgency. He's right considering that 94% of Sunnis are against the occupation. If that is true, what do we hope to accomplish with this "surge"?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

Well, we certainly can't stay forever. And there is no military solution to the problem. The question is what to do next. Bush chose this "surge". I ask you, what is it's purpose?
What's the point of it when we supposedly have no intelligence on those causing the most havoc? After the surge, then what? You're right that we simply cannot up and leave, but what's the point of staying in an extremely hostile land where we are not wanted?

Is there a third way out of Iraq besides military? How about talking to the insurgents and terrorists? how about talking to Iraq's neighbors?

EDIT: Forget about the last two questions because the answer will simply be: LEAVE. It seems like we are stuck in that land, whether or not we want to be there doesn't matter. We are really stuck.

 

[ProfJohn]

The point of the surge is to create stability that will allow for two things.
1. The government to get its act together.
2. The people of Iraq to return to some sort of normal life.

The second one is the important one because we need the people of Iraq to say 'enough is enough' with the killings and take steps to stop the killings.

Read an interesting article about Richmond Va. It used to be the murder capital of the country, or close to it. There would be a dozen shots fired out and yet no one would hear a thing. And then one day things changed and the people got involved. Once the people got involved the murderers found their ability to commit mayhem and get away with it disappeared and the murder rate dropped drastically.

We need to create that type of environment in Iraq. Where the normal peaceful people on both sides no longer sit idly by while their neighbors commit acts of violence.

 

[ntdz]

I think the Soviet-Afghan war is a much better comparison to Iraq than Vietnam...lots of similarities going on with those wars.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

Those are not "very good reasons for us to stay", they are good reasons for Iraq to become a liberal, modern, democracy with peace and equal rights for everyone. Pro-war folks assume that the best way to achieve those goals is for us to stick around, but so far I haven't heard ANY argument supporting that idea. It's natural hubris for us to think that our presence, and our presence alone, can make sure Iraq turns out alright, but I'm not so sure that's true, at least not the way Republicans think of it. I'm not sure we're reading to leave yet, but I'm also not sure we can just hold their hand all the way, it's quite possible that the best possible outcome would be for us to leave relatively soon. I might be wrong about this, but I don't think your argument in any way goes without saying.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The point of the surge is to create stability that will allow for two things.
1. The government to get its act together.
2. The people of Iraq to return to some sort of normal life.

The second one is the important one because we need the people of Iraq to say 'enough is enough' with the killings and take steps to stop the killings.

Read an interesting article about Richmond Va. It used to be the murder capital of the country, or close to it. There would be a dozen shots fired out and yet no one would hear a thing. And then one day things changed and the people got involved. Once the people got involved the murderers found their ability to commit mayhem and get away with it disappeared and the murder rate dropped drastically.

We need to create that type of environment in Iraq. Where the normal peaceful people on both sides no longer sit idly by while their neighbors commit acts of violence.

And how exactly are we going to "create that type of environment in Iraq"? I agree that the people need to become involved, but I don't see how US troops, no matter how many we surge, are really going to accomplish that. The presence of US troops there, if anything, emphasizes that we're really running the show and that we'll take care of things. Rather than trying to solve problems themselves, it encourages the Iraqis to be far more passive about the state of their country. And those that aren't passive about it tend to take up arms against the occupying troops as much as anyone else, we need them working with the government, but that doesn't seem to be happening. And promises of open-ended occupation are NOT the solution to this problem.

 

[ProfJohn]

Check out Ramadi and Anbar province, six months ago everyone wrote Anbar off and claimed it was run by AQ.
Just six months later and things have changed drasticly. The warlords are turning against AQ and supporting the elected government.
link

RAMADI, Iraq - The U.S. military has struggled for nearly four years to secure this city, which had become a magnet for Sunni insurgents and a lawless haven for al-Qaida militants.

Now - slowly, and in halting steps - something appears to have given way. At least by its own tortured standards, Ramadi seems to be calming.

"It's much safer than it was, but is it perfectly safe? No," said Army Col. John Charlton, the commander responsible for the city 75 miles west of the capital.

"As long as al-Qaida is operating in Iraq, it's not going to be."

Ramadi offers a snapshot of the Pentagon's latest strategies to quell violence in Iraq. Neighborhoods are being walled off to keep insurgents out. Military units are moving off major bases and setting up smaller U.S.-Iraqi posts in violent areas downtown.

Alliances are being struck with influential Sunni sheiks once arrayed against the Americans, and tribal leaders have provided people for a police force.

Anbar's Sunni leaders have had little direct contact with the Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, yet they control prime territory.

Anbar, stretching from Baghdad's western edge to Syria, serves as a supply route for anti-government militants who range from former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to al-Qaida fanatics.

Ramadi, a city of about 400,000, is Anbar's capital.

While the U.S. military claims progress, Ramadi remains a place where fear shadows even commonplace acts. Shoppers and school children carry white flags in desperate attempts to show neutrality.

"A lot of people are still scared in their hearts," said Mahmoud, an elderly man who gave only his first name.

"Jihadists were all around ... killing everybody. They could come back anytime."

In large part to allay those fears, Charlton said 70 percent of U.S. forces live downtown.

"We used to go on patrols and get shot at, then go back to base, eat chow and do it all again," said Army 1st Sgt. Michael Jusino, also in Ramadi two years ago.

"But we realized ... you have to go into the city and stay there." Suicide bombers still strike, the most recent one on April 6.

But troops show off graphs indicating a recent turnaround in violence. Compared to 20 to 30 daily attacks a year ago, now there often are just a few bursts of small-arms fire in a day.

Marine Brig. Gen. Charles Gurganus, commander of U.S. ground forces in Anbar, said insurgents who fled Ramadi are still in Anbar.

"They're going to places we aren't. They regroup ... but wherever they go, we're going to go with them."

 

[Lemon law]

Get a clue non Prof John---the GWB mini surge is not working---too little too late---now if you can come up with 200,000 extra American troops I will start believing you are something other than a forum troll telling fairy tales.---failing that---watch the birdie.---as Iraq desends into a civil war that will take the whole middle east with it.

And all you offer is more GWB stinking thinking.---how many more must die for his lies?---after four long years----your faith may be inspiring--but totally misplaced.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think the Soviet-Afghan war is a much better comparison to Iraq than Vietnam...lots of similarities going on with those wars.

Like how Iran is arming the insurgents just as America and Pakistan armed the Afghan Muhajadeen.

And just as Russia bombed Pakistan and America in retaliation, so to will America bomb Iran.

 

[WiseOldDude]

I haven't really studied the Russian/Afghani war, but I fear that the out come will be much the same. Ten years after it starts we will be trying to get our beaten ass out of the country after a humiliating defeat. The occupying army will never come out the victor.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

Well, we certainly can't stay forever. And there is no military solution to the problem. The question is what to do next. Bush chose this "surge". I ask you, what is it's purpose?
What's the point of it when we supposedly have no intelligence on those causing the most havoc? After the surge, then what? You're right that we simply cannot up and leave, but what's the point of staying in an extremely hostile land where we are not wanted?

Is there a third way out of Iraq besides military? How about talking to the insurgents and terrorists? how about talking to Iraq's neighbors?

EDIT: Forget about the last two questions because the answer will simply be: LEAVE. It seems like we are stuck in that land, whether or not we want to be there doesn't matter. We are really stuck.

Well...we've been in Japan for 62 years.....

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think the Soviet-Afghan war is a much better comparison to Iraq than Vietnam...lots of similarities going on with those wars.

Except that no sane person is suggesting the US to leave Iraq

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well...we've been in Japan for 62 years.....

Are xou suggesting you see yourselfs as occupiers still rather than a valuable strategic place for having a base - then count Germany and dozens of other countries conveniently placed all over the world in as well

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

I would certainly be happier with agreeing with a Democrat if the solution was something victorious, instead of an advocacy of a defeat which will make a horrific situation far worse.

I have NOTHING against questioning our leadership, calling it a complete disgrace, and wanting improvements/replacements. However, I will forever always be against the replacement when it offers no solutions and instead calls for our defeat.

Recently, however, I have read from a similar point of view, the reasoning for which staying in Iraq and ?protecting it? from descending into chaos might be, by itself, a stupid mistake when looking at the OVERALL global perspective in the war. Now I shall explain briefly.

Iraq is not why we?re in Iraq. 9-11 is why, and although being lead into Iraq was a mistake there can be no doubt that the global war is far and above Iraq. We have a greater responsibility to combat our opponent?s ideology but I fear we cannot properly do this while our fixation and focus is on Iraq. Therefore, I do now question whether letting Iraq burn is not better for us overall.

If it were to allow us to move on, and begin to focus on the less pressing but FAR more critical matter of the religious ideology that pervades this country and ferments future terrorist attacks against us, then abandoning Iraq to its genocidal fate could be viewed as a necessary move. We may win the battle in Iraq many years from now but the exertion could guarantee our loss in the overall war.

This is something very troubling to consider.

 

[Train]

Do Americans ever compare it with the Soviet-Afghan War?

Yes. In fact a lot of our urban strategies stem from it. During, and for long after the Soviet-Afghan conflict, Brittish, US, and Isreali forces studied the Soviets techniques, and for the most part came up with a large list of strategies NOT to use in urban combat. One of the Soviets biggest mistakes was to put too much faith in heavy armored vehicles. While great in the open against ill equiped enemies, they can easily be disabled using crude and improvised means in an urban environment due to the fact that the enemy can get very close without detection.

Brittish and Isreali forces used the knowledge to come up with much more successful techniques and used them in urban combat against the IRA and Hamas, respectively. They continued to make modifications and improve thier urban skills, making thier casualty rate a fraction of what the Soviets expirienced in urban environments. But while the US was not engaged in urban combat during that time, they watched the Brits and Isreali's closely, sometimes even training with them, to keep thier own urban skills up to par. The US's urban operations today are a far cry from Hue city.

So yes, the Soviets attack on Afghanistan has had a huge impact on the current war.

 

[tomywishbone]

Q:Do Americans ever compare it with the Soviet-Afghan War?

A: I have from day one. It will undoubtly end the same way as well.

 

[dahunan]

Is this war just as big a waste of time and lives and resources and CASH

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Well...we've been in Japan for 62 years.....

Are xou suggesting you see yourselfs as occupiers still rather than a valuable strategic place for having a base - then count Germany and dozens of other countries conveniently placed all over the world in as well

It starts as occupiers until the country is stable. Thats what we do, thats what we've done, thats what we'll continue to do. There's no reason to believe Iraq is any different. NONE.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Get a clue non Prof John---the GWB mini surge is not working---too little too late---now if you can come up with 200,000 extra American troops I will start believing you are something other than a forum troll telling fairy tales.---failing that---watch the birdie.---as Iraq desends into a civil war that will take the whole middle east with it.

And all you offer is more GWB stinking thinking.---how many more must die for his lies?---after four long years----your faith may be inspiring--but totally misplaced.

Did you just totally ignore the article I posted?
If you wish I can find others than point to Anbar having made a drastic change in recent months.

If we can turn around Anbar, the worst of the worst, then we can make progress elsewhere.

 

[Lemon law]

to non Prof John,

If we can turn around Anbar, the worst of the worst, then we can make progress elsewhere.

Have we indeed turned around Anbar?----or just temporarily pushed it elsewhere---and you again ignored my question---where are your extra 200,000 troops that will be needed?---and needed badly to catch what is pushed elsewhere----140-165,000 troops is not enough to police a country of 25 million.---------its military doctrine---its what Shinseki told Rummy----and the mini-surge is just another version of total illusion.--------as for the Iraqi police and army you used to tout---I suppose you will tell us that they are now training another group.---because the groups we previously trained
have proved to be totally unreliable.

Nor do I believe your other contention---3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

Progress---what progress?---the GWB&co. have had a failed strategy in Iraq for four long years---the only progress we are making is negative progress.---and partly because we try to reach the Iraqi people from the top down---and the so called insurgency is reaching the Iraqi people from the bottom up.---------where the beef----where is the beef------200,000 extra troops and I will believe we have a chance.

During the Vietnam war various experts we constantly seeing light at the end of the tunnel---and they were wrong---I see zero evidence that any real progress is being made.

 

[piasabird]

More and more Iraq is looking like Afghanistan.

I think that it will take a tough and strict Regime that is brutal and willing to torture hunt down their enemies to end this civil war. I am kind of surprised the Shia's have not hunted down and killed all the Sunni's in a mass genocide by now. Maybe if we pull out they will get brutal and do what needs to be done.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Dari
Seeing that the Soviet Union attacked a weak state in 1979 and tried to install it's own puppets. America would have none of this and supported Arab/Muslim "jihad." When the Soviet Union wanted a "graceful exit" out of Afghanistan, they asked America for help, fearing they would have an unstable Islamic state on their hand. The Americans just told them to leave and the Afghan people would take care of their own problems. Their fears eventually came to fruitation when we abandoned the Afghans, leaving it to the warlords, after the Soviets left.

Well the Soviets pretty much had their own puppets in place before the invasion in Babrak Karmal and Najibullah. Fact is, in 1979 Afghanistan was a fairly stable secular country with a comparatively high level of education. Women had rights for example and Kabul was still unscarred by war. Then Carter and the US decided it was a good idea to support the islamistic fundamentalists rebelling against the communist rule in order to bring the Soviets their own "Vietnam" (quote Washington old hand Zbigniew Brezinski). This plan worked admirably but the consequences of the chain of events the US unleashed eventually sucking the US into another Vietnam like disaster of it's own is highly ironic.

 

[Lemon law]

Then Carter and the US decided it was a good idea to support the islamistic fundamentalists rebelling against the communist rule in order to bring the Soviets their own "Vietnam" (quote Washington old hand Zbigniew Brezinski).

Thats a fine bit of revisionist history---when it was Ronald Reagan who implementing aiding terrorists in Afghanistan in a big way.---isn't there a comic strip called Ziggy?
But I guess its ok when you relabel terrorists as freedom fighters.---it only becomes a problem when some of those same freedom fighters became AL-Quida.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Then Carter and the US decided it was a good idea to support the islamistic fundamentalists rebelling against the communist rule in order to bring the Soviets their own "Vietnam" (quote Washington old hand Zbigniew Brezinski).

Thats a fine bit of revisionist history---when it was Ronald Reagan who implementing aiding terrorists in Afghanistan in a big way.---isn't there a comic strip called Ziggy?
But I guess its ok when you relabel terrorists as freedom fighters.---it only becomes a problem when some of those same freedom fighters became AL-Quida.

To let Brzezinski himself speak:

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

and a little later:

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Source: Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, January 15-21, 1998. Posted at <http://globalresearch.ca> Oct. 15 , 2001. Translated from French by Bill Blum.

linky