Bush Attacks Democrats

[Kayak]

And given the collective national guilt over misdeeds in VietNam, and the worldwide disapproval of Russian tactics in Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think a "MOAB 'em all and let Allah sort them out" is feasible at any level in Iraq - we're there to implement democracy, not stain it.

I agree with your analysis here. So what is your opinion as to staying or going at the moment? Put in any qualifiers you want.

Personaly I am torn between the feeling that we cannot win (read achieve our stated objectives) and the fact that if/when we leave the sunni are of the country has a high likelyhood of becomming a terrorist haven. Not to mention the Kurdish issue.

 

[theim]

I agree to that statement. I mean, we have the freedom of speech which gives us the right to criticize political leaders in the US.

And they have the right to call you on your BS.

 

[MobBoss]

In VietNam (and in post-Saddam Iraq), there were never any front lines. There couldn't be, as US military power would overwhelm VietCong/North Vietnamese forces in straight-up confrontations, neatly proven by the results of the Tet Offensive.

Of course there were front lines in both wars, but there are significant differences too. Tet was a massive suprise attack, cordinated to attack cities and bases in the rear away from the front. The Tet offensive was a huge military failure for the vietcong, but in turn was a huge psychological and propaganda victory for them as well.

Using the tactics the US (and the Russians, for that matter) use - just trying to bleed the insurgency as much as possible - won't work in the long run because they eventually have to go home. At least in Iraq they're working on stabilizing the government and infrastructure, but I don't see an Iraqi government without considerable US military assistance being able to control an insurgency on their own.

The way to win in this situation is you must have the support of the local populace in order to win. In Korea, we were supported by the South Koreans and thus we have been there for over 50 years stabilizing the region. In Iraq, the US Military is putting forth MASSIVE effort to support the local populace (believe it or not) in order to foster good will in the area. The plan for victory here is the model from Korea, definitly NOT the model from Vietnam.

 

[MobBoss]

I agree with your analysis here. So what is your opinion as to staying or going at the moment? Put in any qualifiers you want.

Personaly I am torn between the feeling that we cannot win (read achieve our stated objectives) and the fact that if/when we leave the sunni are of the country has a high likelyhood of becomming a terrorist haven. Not to mention the Kurdish issue.

We will probably never leave totally unless the Iraqi government orders us out completely (yes, we would honor such a request despite what some think). I think the overall goal once things have stabilized, will be to keep a Brigade sized element there at all times (ala Korea) in case of a major uprising.

As long as the will of the American people holds out, we will do fine. This war will be won or lost due by the propaganda, not by any real action on the ground.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Regarding Vietnam: It could have been won, but the US started out wrong from the get go. There were really 3 sides and the US was on one of the wrong ones. A great book, A VietCong Memoir by Truong Nhu Tang, changed my mind about our ability to win if we had only taken the right stance and tactics.

Insurgencies can be beat; and have been beaten. The problem right now in Iraq is the number of foreign fighters. I was disheartened when I friend of mine there recently said it was turing into a war of attrition, with the US killing about 20 terrorists for every US troop killed. If that becomes reality, the US will surely lose the will to fight first. The key is friendly Iraqis willing and capable of defending themselves. He did say there were signs of even the Sunnis getting fed up with the foreign fighters. If that happens first, the Iraqis (and hence the US) wins. If the Shia get tired and start taking actions against the Sunni or the US first, then all Iraqis (and hence the US) loses.

 

[IglooDame]

Of course there were front lines in both wars, but there are significant differences too. Tet was a massive suprise attack, cordinated to attack cities and bases in the rear away from the front. The Tet offensive was a huge military failure for the vietcong, but in turn was a huge psychological and propaganda victory for them as well.

I agree, somewhat. Tet was a huge military failure for the VC (going to my original point), but the propaganda victory for them (as far as the reaction in the US) was by all accounts unexpected - they were aiming to foment a popular uprising in South Vietnam, not influence the US public.

The way to win in this situation is you must have the support of the local populace in order to win. In Korea, we were supported by the South Koreans and thus we have been there for over 50 years stabilizing the region. In Iraq, the US Military is putting forth MASSIVE effort to support the local populace (believe it or not) in order to foster good will in the area. The plan for victory here is the model from Korea, definitly NOT the model from Vietnam.

I agree, any insurgency must have the support of a significant percentage of the native population (be it via fear, respect, or whatever) to have any hope. In South Korea (more akin to Kuwait and southern Iraq in GW1 than anything now) the NK invaded, setting themselves up as the common enemy. In VietNam and now in Iraq the US has tried to get that goodwill, but is more "outsider" than the insurgents are and is having a tough time overcoming that. Iraqis can very reasonably ask why we didn't hang around after GW1, and the answer, "your leader wasn't such a threat to our homeland back then," understandably doesn't inspire confidence.

Imagine South Korea's reaction if we'd let North Korea overrun and unify the country, and then five years later when Kim threatened to invade Japan that we decide to invade and spread democracy there. I bet it wouldn't have worked out as well.

 

[MobBoss]

I was disheartened when I friend of mine there recently said it was turing into a war of attrition, with the US killing about 20 terrorists for every US troop killed. If that becomes reality, the US will surely lose the will to fight first.

Its a real sad state when you are winning every fight 20 to 1 and yet the propaganda paints the picture of abject failure. Thank god todays press wasnt around during WWII...all of Europe would be speaking German.

 

[IglooDame]

I agree with your analysis here. So what is your opinion as to staying or going at the moment? Put in any qualifiers you want.

Personaly I am torn between the feeling that we cannot win (read achieve our stated objectives) and the fact that if/when we leave the sunni are of the country has a high likelyhood of becomming a terrorist haven. Not to mention the Kurdish issue.

I'm similarly torn, except replace "terrorist haven" with "bloodbath of US supporters and generally screwing the country over a second time". If we're truly just delaying the inevitable, then yes, pull out as expeditiously as possible. But, if we can give the Iraqi government significantly better odds of surviving by hanging around six or twelve months longer, then we do
owe it to them.

If it was up to me, I'd very reluctantly say we hang in there for a bit more (unless, as MobBoss points out, we are legitimately asked to leave). I just feel like the Bush Administration isn't shooting straight with the public on it, though, and being held hostage to their mistake is easier to swallow when they actually admit that it is a mistake.