If Americans supported the Iraqi war more, what would be different?

[Neomega]

Escalation of attacks in the months prior to the last November US elections, and also prior to every election that Iraq has had.

.

Already been debunked. The past three months have had very high fatality rates for americans, and the elections are over. We have been over this.

Remember, texas sharpshooter?

Nice shootin, tex.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Many folks have argued that the American people's lack of support has lost Iraq. So tell me, what exactly would change?

The Americans on the whole supported the war when it started, unlike the Brits who had 2 million (me included) in the streets of London to protest against it. That support has been failing because the war is giant failure, just like me and those 2 million kept telling everyone it would be.

 

[MobBoss]

Assume the first sentence is true, that their sole goal, their entire point, is to force the US to retreat through manipulation of public opinion. Assume that there was no impact upon US opinion. You really don't think they'd adopt new tactics, come up with new ideas to force a retreat?

There is an old saying. If its not broke, dont fix it. I think it readily apparent that their strategy (if this is their intent) is working. Why alter a plan that is working?

I think the first quote above implies that they're ignorant. That they have one and only one strategy, that if that one strategy didn't work, they'd simply stop complaining and accept things.

I think its true that its a mistake to assume if their current strategy failed, they would merely accept the status quo, but however improbable that might be, it would still be a possibility. And I disagree they are ignorant - if your only one strategy is working against the enemy, there is simply no reason to change it.

It's intelligent to use tactics that are working for you. It's intelligent to not use tactics that don't work. It's naive to expect that someone is unable to think of new tactics, or change tactics. Especially if you actually think they're not ignorant.

I totally agree. However, there is also a limit where none of their tactics work. Even insurgents eventually lose the spark if things are seen as hopeless (consider the Rebel insurgents from the South in the US civil war; or the 'werewolf' remnants of the Nazi's in Germany).

So really, the biggest factor in making an Iraqi into an insurgent is US free speech? That if the US was a totalitarian state, rather than nominally a democracy, the war would be over, the war would be won, the insurgents would have knuckled under, and everyone could go home? Because the US govt wouldn't have been accountable to the US public, therefore the insurgents wouldn't have had any viable tactics, therefore they'd have just given up?

I think you take it to an illogical extreme here. Given Osama Bin Ladins own words, and the fact that they view Vietnam as a playbook, I think its fairly obvious what they are trying to do. And although I am loath to inject civ-esque generalizations into real events, but in answer to your above analogy dont democracys suffer from war weariness far more than communist states? And if that is a given, wouldnt it be prudent of an enemy to play to it?

You worded this well, but I'd still like to add something. It worked because the goverment tried to pin it on ETA, knowing damn well they weren't responsible. The anger over the attack focussed on the goverment lying to the public. It might have focussed on Al Quaida if they'd been straightforward, I don't think we'd have seen the same result. But I left my crystal ball at home, so who knows.

Yes, it still means they tried to influence the elections. Sadly they succeeded where they could have failed.

Something simular couldbe happening in the US.

If the anger was at the Government for lying, then why the immediate pull-out of Spanish forces supporting the war?

Already been debunked. The past three months have had very high fatality rates for americans, and the elections are over. We have been over this.

Remember, texas sharpshooter?

Nice shootin, tex.

Actually, you are incorrect. The fatality numbers for Americans rose just prior to the elections in October and just after the elections in December, but have fallen again in the last two months. Also, they ramped up in the Jul, Aug and Sep 06 months prior to the election. http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx The numbers from last fall actually support my premise more than debunk it.

Again, the fatality rates for Americans in the past three months are falling from a Dec high. If you were a sharpshooter, you might have noticed.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If the anger was at the Government for lying, then why the immediate pull-out of Spanish forces supporting the war?

How not? I was an official promise of the socialist party since the first day of the war, and in consonance with the 99.9% of the public opinion btw.

 

[MobBoss]

How not? I was an official promise of the socialist party since the first day of the war, and in consonance with the 99.9% of the public opinion btw.

Did the socialists carry 99.9% of the vote - or are you simply over-exaggerating the truth?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Nope, they didnt carry the 99.9% od the votes. But i didnt say that, if you can read.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope, they didnt carry the 99.9% od the votes. But i didnt say that, if you can read.

Yeah, I can read. You said that 99.9 percent of the people agreed with the socialist party on the issue of the war.

So why didnt they vote for them?

EDIT: Went to google it. You did overstate it, but only slightly. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/29/sprj.irq.spain/

 

[IglooDame]

I think you take it to an illogical extreme here. Given Osama Bin Ladins own words, and the fact that they view Vietnam as a playbook, I think its fairly obvious what they are trying to do. And although I am loath to inject civ-esque generalizations into real events, but in answer to your above analogy dont democracys suffer from war weariness far more than communist states? And if that is a given, wouldnt it be prudent of an enemy to play to it?

If you want to get civ-esque, how about USSR vs Afghanistan? The Soviets were hanging tough against the same sort of insurgency, but then they changed civics from communism to democracy (courtesy of Gorbachev) and the war weariness forced them to pull out of Afghanistan.

Apparently democracies cannot outwait motivated insurgencies, so unless one wants to switch to something other than free speech for a few turns, one is just going to have to crush the insurgency quickly, or just leave, because one more Mobile Infantry unit in the capital isn't going to make the anarchy go away in fewer turns.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yeah, I can read. You said that 99.9 percent of the people agreed with the socialist party on the issue of the war.

So why didnt they vote for them?

First becuase in Spain there are more than two parties and second becuase Iraq war is not the main issue in most people lives so many right-wingers voted the rightist Popular Party even not agreeing with the war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I think you take it to an illogical extreme here. Given Osama Bin Ladins own words, and the fact that they view Vietnam as a playbook, I think its fairly obvious what they are trying to do. And although I am loath to inject civ-esque generalizations into real events, but in answer to your above analogy dont democracys suffer from war weariness far more than communist states? And if that is a given, wouldnt it be prudent of an enemy to play to it?

Mobboss vis versa is also true.
Given the US experience during Vietnam all competent commanders and capable civilian leadership would plan according to avoid the mistakes of vietnam.

 

[BasketCase]

To answer the OP: not much would actually be different. But then, I haven't found much of anything that makes Iraq different from any other nation that has a problem with terrorism.

Most of the problem is with our own perceptions to begin with. A magician making a dove appear out of thin air is, for most in the audience, an amazing thing. To those who know how it's done (such as myself), the answer is....well, less exciting.

What we see has a lot more impact on us than what actually happens. To the uninitiated, when that dove magically appears out of nowhere, perched innocently on the magician's wrist, the impossible just became real.

 

[bobgote]

here's a novel idea - if you want the support of the people, don't get involved in pointless, unjust wars!

oddly enough the majority of the american people (unlike the rest of the world) didn't much care that the war was unjust, they only turned against it when they saw their soldiers coming home in boxes and an occupation with no end in sight.

either way, you can hardly fault the american people for their reactions. at most it's a factor the administration should have taken into account rather than anything else. so you can add it to the long list of the US administration's failings in their war management.

 

[Marla_Singer]

To answer the OP: not much would actually be different. But then, I haven't found much of anything that makes Iraq different from any other nation that has a problem with terrorism.

Maybe the difference is only a matter of scale ?

I don't know many countries where there are several terrorist bombings daily.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Anyway, during the first 3 years of the war, the US public supported the war whole-heartedly, and the situation in Iraq was a mess. Since about a year, the US public becomes more sceptical, and the situation in Iraq is a mess.

I guess you got the answer... the different parties fighting against each others in Iraq couldn't care less about what Americans think in their far away country.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, you are incorrect. The fatality numbers for Americans rose just prior to the elections in October and just after the elections in December, but have fallen again in the last two months. Also, they ramped up in the Jul, Aug and Sep 06 months prior to the election. http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx The numbers from last fall actually support my premise more than debunk it.

Again, the fatality rates for Americans in the past three months are falling from a Dec high. If you were a sharpshooter, you might have noticed.

If October and December are "election-related" months what say you of November's numbers? Or are you doing more cherry picking than the guy who runs the Muslim fanatic afterlife program?

August - 65
September - 72
October - 106
November - 69
December - 112
January - 83
February (so far) - 67

As for your July-August-September "ramping up", the total is 180, compared to 206 for April, May & June and 150 for the less-than-two months of your "let's-exclude-the-bad-math-for-my-argument-month-of-December" January-February "cooling down" period. Comparing September-October-November (the lead-up and 3 week aftermath to the election) with December to date, you get 247 (Sept-Nov) to 262 (Dec-Feb). What's next, 2 + 2 = 5, because I'm pretty the "war is peace/freedom is slavery/ignorance is strength" thing has been extensively covered already by various Bush administration officials.

Back to the shooting range for some target practice. As for me, I only have to be able to hit fish in a barrel.

 

[malclave]

Nope, they didnt carry the 99.9% od the votes. But i didnt say that, if you can read.

That's true, you didn't.

Can you post the polls that support your assertion that 99.9% of the population held that view?

I imagine it must have been a huge survey, since the margin of error on the poll would have to be nearly nonexistent.

What's next, 2 + 2 = 5, because I'm pretty the "war is peace/freedom is slavery/ignorance is strength" thing has been extensively covered already by various Bush administration officials.

Actually, it's the antiwar people who are embracing Orwell, though they don't seem to be satisfied by the time limit of the Two Minute Hate.

The AP is making a solid run for promotion to Minitru, considering how many of their reports appear to have a Winston Smith byline.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's true, you didn't.

Can you post the polls that support your assertion that 99.9% of the population held that view?

I imagine it must have been a huge survey, since the margin of error on the poll would have to be nearly nonexistent.

Or you know, not to be taken litterally.

 

[malclave]

Or you know, not to be taken litterally.

Oh, I know it wasn't.

I realize it's just 217.38% easier to make hyperbolic statements to "prove" one's arguments.

 

[Neomega]

Actually, you are incorrect. The fatality numbers for Americans rose just prior to the elections in October and just after the elections in December, but have fallen again in the last two months. Also, they ramped up in the Jul, Aug and Sep 06 months prior to the election. http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx The numbers from last fall actually support my premise more than debunk it.

Again, the fatality rates for Americans in the past three months are falling from a Dec high. If you were a sharpshooter, you might have noticed.

Your methodology is wrong, and the way you pick your numbers would get you failed in statistics. I realize you painted the bullseye well over the clump of holes you shot into the side of the barn, but it doesn't mean you are a sniper.

If you want a review of the lesson recieved last time, you can look here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=191196

and look here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4915078&postcount=110

Do I have a crystal ball.... or am I just right again?

And of course, it has remained well above 1.7 fatalities a month in January and Febnruary. What elections are these in response too?


"Oh geeze", you say, "that's just cuz so many were killed this way or that way"

yeah, but when counting deaths before elections, it doesn't matter hwo they were killed, it just matters it supports your bunk argument.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If the anger was at the Government for lying, then why the immediate pull-out of Spanish forces supporting the war?

Because the then elected president, Aznar's oponent Zapatero was against the war. If Aznar loses because he lied, Zapatero wins. If Zap had been in favour they would not have withdrawn, but he still would have been elected.

Here's some dirt

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1854.cfm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1373280,00.html

Now I don't know if you were one of the people calling the Spanish cowards and stuff for chickening out of Iraq buckling under the presure of the terrorists, I really hope not, but lets just say, I have little respect for those who voiced that opinion.