Are We All Wrong on Iraq?

[stormbind]

If you're talking about society then by definition, we are never wrong, we are manipulated.

 

[Mr. Do]

I'm not talking about hindsight; I'm talking about the present situation in Iraq and how the Iraq war is and not was being fought.

How can any of us really know what the siutation on the ground is? We can only go by what we see and are told. That doesn't mean we can't congratulate the armed forces for taking out an Al-Qaeda thug, or that we shouldn't condemn actions performed that were clearly horrific.

 

[blackheart]

No-one invited us.

No one invited Saddam either?

They always hated us.

Then why was there a massive display of American flags hanging on Iraqi homes when we first invaded?

We are wasting good men.

Occasional military actions keep our military on its feet and adaptive.

We are wasting good cash.

Indeed we are, but then you're talking about a government that pork barrels to no end.

We should be preparing for the challenges of Chinese power.
Instead we are frittering Western potency in this imbecile war.

America lacks any longterm planning capabilities to deal with Chinese power projection

 

[tomsnowman123]

No one invited Saddam either?

Well, it's not like he invaded us.

 

[Leonel]

Can you ever win against guerillias ?
It didn't work in WW2 (Yugoslavia), Vietnam, Afghanistan (soviet invasion), Chechnya...

But boy did it work in post-war Malaysia!

 

[Winner]

But boy did it work in post-war Malaysia!

Exactly. If you want to defeat a guerilla, you need to cut off a support from the outside. In Vietnam, US was unable to stop the supplies for Vietcong flowing through Laos and Cambodia. If this supply line had been cut, the US would have probably managed to defeat the Vietcong once and for all.

There are two basic facts regarding a war against guerilla groups:

1) They don't need to win, they just need not to lose in some major battle. That's why they avoid major battles. Their objective is to continue fighting for a long periods of time, until their enemy (regular army) become demoralized or the government gives up.

2) The government needs to win, preferably in some major battle. It can't afford to prolong the fight forever, especially when the government is democratic and it seeks re-election. Therefore, the government is loosing even when the guerilla isn't winning.

In Iraq, anti-US insurgents are supported from other islamic countries (usually by individuals) and they have also a support among the population. Moreover, US is being drawed into the Iraqi civil war between Kurds, Shias and Sunnis.

My advice: get the hell out of there before you become so demoralized, that you'll be unable to wage war when you'll have to.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I just assume we are actually all ultimately wrong on everything. Thus, yes, your theory is quite plausible.

 

[Flotsam]

Yea we were wrong to invade Iraq. Killing Zarqawi doesnt make it right since it was invading Iraq that gave Zarqawi a platform. If we had never invaded Iraq I doubt anyone would've even known who he was.

With that said, I hope SO MUCH that we can turn things around in Iraq and make it a better country then when we invaded. I love my country and hope we succeed, even if I do think Bush is a %*&^*(& moron.

 

[warmonger]

I'll try to answer Sharpes original question.

The war is being fought the wrong way - the tactics are totally wrong. The British were masters at doing this correctly in their colonial days.

It takes large numbers of troops and even larger numbers of police. You start from one or two central points; drive out insurgents, bring in police; fix inferstructure and gradually expand from these centres.

You win over the locals by providing what they want; security, food, water and shelter. This takes away the support for the insurgents.

You let parts of the country rot until you can get to them in force. You do not clear a city and then leave no one to hold it. This just lets the bad guys back again and you have to do it over and over again. (Sound familiar?)

I firmly believe it was wrong to invade Iraq and I was vocally against it at the time. But now that it has happened it would be an even greater mistake to get out and leave it to anarchy. Here's hoping someone within the US administration (current or future) will have the balls to stand up, admit mistakes and do it properly.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

My advice: get the hell out of there before you become so demoralized, that you'll be unable to wage war when you'll have to.

That would be the worst-case scenario.
Remove the Saddam regime so islamic terrorists can take over the country...

 

[SupremeC]

My advice: get the hell out of there before you become so demoralized, that you'll be unable to wage war when you'll have to.

Like the Iranian one where you actually know they have nuclear capabilities instead of sexed up reports?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Like the Iranian one where you actually know they have nuclear capabilities instead of sexed up reports?

Exactly like that.

To be honest I can't claim to have nearly enough knowledge of what is happening on the ground to advise a way ahead. The US & UK Governments have, presumably, access to copious advise from all quarters and even they admit 'thousands of mistakes have been made'. Looks to me like we've adhered to the old adage of "fighting the last war".

I think the main problem is now that we lost any support from the populace early on when we didn't put the necessary infrastructure in to provide for people's basis needs. Food, water, electricity. Even Saddam provided those. I can't say why is wasn't done but I'm sure it wasn't entirely down to the insurgency.

Fact is I can't say for certainty where we go from here. But I think there needs to be a focus upon getting the basics right, if it's now possible.

 

[bigfatron]

I'll try to answer Sharpes original question.

The war is being fought the wrong way - the tactics are totally wrong. The British were masters at doing this correctly in their colonial days.

It takes large numbers of troops and even larger numbers of police. You start from one or two central points; drive out insurgents, bring in police; fix inferstructure and gradually expand from these centres.

You win over the locals by providing what they want; security, food, water and shelter. This takes away the support for the insurgents.

You let parts of the country rot until you can get to them in force. You do not clear a city and then leave no one to hold it. This just lets the bad guys back again and you have to do it over and over again. (Sound familiar?)

I firmly believe it was wrong to invade Iraq and I was vocally against it at the time. But now that it has happened it would be an even greater mistake to get out and leave it to anarchy. Here's hoping someone within the US administration (current or future) will have the balls to stand up, admit mistakes and do it properly.

Spot on - I'd add that, in these days of instant media coverage, you need to do it without shooting, raping, pillaging or running over the locals, which is very, very difficult when a minority of those same locals are doing their best to blow your arse off.

There are too many stories in and around the British military of utter despair with US military tactics and training for peacekeeping/counter insurgency for them to be wrong/fiction.

Yes, we could all be wrong, although given the disparity of views on this forum its almost inevitable that someone on CFC will turn out to have been right!

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

No-one invited us.

They always hated us.

Just to hit a couple points, we were invited by many Iraqis in exile to free their nation; in fact we failed to do so after the first war to the dismay of many of them. And who is 'they'. I spent over two years in the Middle East and felt nothing but friendship from those I knew, not hatred. The only ones who hated us were the extremists.

 

[Lotus49]

The other day I was browsing around on Google maps, I went over NYC, and after checking out Wall Street, etc., I found my way over to the WTC 'hole' in the ground (didn't intend to go there, just wound up doing so). I sat there, and stared at it. Took only about 2 seconds for all my 'second thoughts about the war' to fade away into nothing.

I say bomb 'em, and shoot 'em up. Like Curt said, they've always hated us, and some come over here periodically to tell us, in person. So, fire back. And keep firing. That's the only thing they understand.

Sympathy, and seconds thoughts - are far more dangerous than the alternative.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

The other day I was browsing around on Google maps, I went over NYC, and after checking out Wall Street, etc., I found my way over to the WTC 'hole' in the ground (didn't intend to go there, just wound up doing so). I sat there, and stared at it. Took only about 2 seconds for all my 'second thoughts about the war' to fade away into nothing.

I say bomb 'em, and shoot 'em up. Like Curt said, they've always hated us, and some come over here periodically to tell us, in person. So, fire back. And keep firing. That's the only thing they understand.

Sympathy, and seconds thoughts - are far more dangerous than the alternative.

Who is this 'they' we are supposed to be bombing and shooting? Such generalization without any specification concerns me.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I think we went in with a lightwieght force, too much tail and not enough teeth. I also think there are too many large scale operations, not enough of a " small wars " mentality wich is vital in a conflict like this. See Stingray patrols in Vietnam.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I think we went in with a lightwieght force, too much tail and not enough teeth. I also think there are too many large scale operations, not enough of a " small wars " mentality wich is vital in a conflict like this. See Stingray patrols in Vietnam.

Do most of your fellow Marines on the ground feel this way? I know when we first went in most of us had the same thoughts; we had enough to defeat their military, but not maintain peace or fight insurgents. Reminded me of the mistakes the nation made by trying to rely on technology for intel instead of people on the ground.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the phrase "armchair general", but is it possible that we're all being armchair generals, with no real first-hand knowledge of the Iraq situation?

I don't know how accurate this can be, but are our opinions on the military or political situation in Iraq all that intelligent? There are others out there, within the military and civilian worlds, who have studied for years on the Middle East, desert combat tactics, etc., so how really right can our opinions be?

I'm not questioning the validity of our opinions, because they're all valid; but are our opinons all that right?

If the military was a force onto itself, that didnt have oversight from civilians who are elected by the people, then we'd be living somewhere else, it wouldnt be America.

 

[Keshik]

The average person posting on CFC has no clue how to prosecute the Iraq campaign. Some want to win and are frustrated that we are not free of the commitment and may never be. Some want all the troops out no matter what the cost or consequence. Some want to see America defeated at every turn. Some only want America to fail because of the administration. The bottom line is everyone here is focused on the result. As far as how to conduct the campaign, unless Colin Powell is a or someone like that is a poster here, I think most opinions on strategy and tactics are shots in the dark.