Ask a general who knows how to win a war and a peace. Wes Clark said the American military is the greatest at what we do best, rapidly destroy anything in our way...but we don't know how to win a defensive operation or do civil affairs (nation building). That is why we did the heavy lifting and then turned the operation to others to help win the peace and get the civil affairs up and running again......combat losses during the war and after the war...(zero)...that is how we plan a modern war...to win the peace.
Do you disagree that we're doing pretty darned well in Iraq? We didn't even have Germany de-nazified in as many years as we've turned Hussein's regime around.
No, I don't agree we are doing that well in Iraq. In Germany, even with the SS Werewolves we didn't loose any American soldiers after the war to extensive armed resistance. We have never had a conflict until this one that lost us more U S soldiers lives after the "mission was accomplished." We will be an occupying force for many years to come....we can't have an exit strategy because we can not afford to exit because of the major civil war that will occur after we leave.
If we had concentrated on Usama Bin Forgotten and went after the terrorists who had actually had somethng to do with the attacks on this country we would be very much ahead in blood and treasure.
No, I don't agree we are doing that well in Iraq. In Germany, even with the SS Werewolves we didn't loose any American soldiers after the war to extensive armed resistance. We have never had a conflict until this one that lost us more U S soldiers lives after the "mission was accomplished." We will be an occupying force for many years to come....we can't have an exit strategy because we can not afford to exit because of the major civil war that will occur after we leave.
So losing close to 300,000 troops in four years is better than losing 1,500 in two years? We didn't lose many troops after the surrender of Germany and ***an because we literally blew the bejeezus out of both countries--they were in total submission to us. Flattening dozens of cities, hundreds of factories, and millions of people kind of knocks the fight out of an enemy, no?
In Iraq we're trying to fight as "gently" as possible so the people who suffered under Saddam actually have something to look forward to after the dust settles. I think we should've brought the hammer done (a la Falluja) much, much sooner, but regardless we're getting the job finished as we speak.
In case you've missed the differences between past conflicts and the present, we're not fighting a country, an army, or even a citizens' militia. We're fighting terrorists--murderers and criminals who lurk in the shadows and kill indiscriminately. Yet the numbers of terrorists in Iraq and the number of attacks have fallen sharply (and continue to do so) since the election. We did win this one--and so those cowards who haven't already been killed or captured (and we got thousands of them so far) are going to find easier targets, such as the Saudi royal family, and Mubarak in Egypt.
The Iraqis voted for the first time in history, and they actually have a democratic government for once. There is certainly much work left to do, but to say the mission isn't accomplished is just a display of ignorance.
Quote:
If we had concentrated on Usama Bin Forgotten and went after the terrorists who had actually had somethng to do with the attacks on this country we would be very much ahead in blood and treasure.
Bin Laden is but one thug in a sea of thugs. We've rendered him obsolete in terms of waging international holy war. Yes, he's still hobbling around with his cane, going back and forth to receive kidney dialysis, but killing him wouldn't do much good anyway (except to extinguish our desire for vengeance). These nutjobs are networked all around the world--one terrorist dead is as good as the next. We're lining them up and knocking them down, so it's just a matter of time before they're impotent on the global stage.
Yeah, we definitely don't know how to fight a war, do we?
Right put on a red coat & then stand in the open while ppl shoot at you? The qeensberry rules of engagment?
But even those following hitler& the nazi called us gangsters & thugs, uncivilized etc.
ppl say a lot of strange things at times including the brits.
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
We didn't have much choice in WWII. There were ememies who had acutally attacked up ***an in Hawaii and Germany in the Atlantic. Hussein was a bad buy, but only one of many in the area. We went for WMD not to fight for democracy remember.
Insurgency will be around until we leave....remember what we called our insurgency against he evil dictator British rule....patriots. We should have kept the Iraqi army and police intact like we did after WWII.
As far as I am concerned we had a golden opportuntity to fight terror around the world and blew it all on Iraq. There were many places around the world we could have done more good, finish Afghanistan, the Becca Valley region, Syria, Iran, NK, Indonesia...terrorists were already there
We didn't have much choice in WWII. There were ememies who had acutally attacked up ***an in Hawaii and Germany in the Atlantic. Hussein was a bad buy, but only one of many in the area. We went for WMD not to fight for democracy remember.
We didn't seem to have much choice after 9/11, either. We engaged in the proper course of action based on the intelligence we had. Looking back, we see how misled we were, but if Hussein hadn't fraternized with Middle Eastern despots, murderers, and criminals, we would've had more reason to doubt his military strength.
And while the given reason for the war was indeed the threat of WMD, I believe we actually did go for democracy. Bush and his administration knows the world doesn't have the balls to turn dictatorships into democracies, so there was little point trying to bring them along with us.
Quote:
Insurgency will be around until we leave....remember what we called our insurgency against he evil dictator British rule....patriots. We should have kept the Iraqi army and police intact like we did after WWII.
The Iraqis are now killing more insurgents than we are. I don't expect them to exist in substantial numbers unless the country breaks down completely. The army and police have done a complete 180° since the elections.
Quote:
As far as I am concerned we had a golden opportuntity to fight terror around the world and blew it all on Iraq. There were many places around the world we could have done more good, finish Afghanistan, the Becca Valley region, Syria, Iran, NK, Indonesia...terrorists were already there
Blew it on Iraq? What, didn't you notice all of the Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, and Pakistanis we've been killing over there (not to mention the intel we've gotten from across the borders in Syria and Iran)? Not only are we accomplishing are anti-terror goals by involving ourselves in Iraq, but we're sending a clear message to the other whackos out there--Democracy beats Islamic tyranny. We don't need to start dropping bombs on the Wahabis, Chechnyans, mullahs, or any other subgroup of religious fascism for everyone to get the picture. Like I said, terrorists are already networked around the globe.
I agree 06.
Today is not the same or seen that way by many anyways.
To them iraq IS the war- not just a small part of it- they think fix that& we will be done.
I see it more a world war & one that will be long& ongoing.
Some see it all as optional& poltical- a choice to fight this world war or not.I personaly dont think that is a option.
But i gota say i dont think most of the polticans today or the us citizins have what it takes to inflict the damage& death on its(our) enemys as we have in the past.
Ppl are to easly swayed by pictures & emotions- to do wht is needed.
.................................................. .....
Even seen some on here saying that if we just play nice now with the terriosts- they will be like in kind the same & let us live.
.................................................
The terriosts arent going away& reguardless of what or what dosnt happen in iraq- It - the war will go on.
Quote:
We didn't lose many troops after the surrender of Germany and ***an because we literally blew the bejeezus out of both countries--they were in total submission to us. Flattening dozens of cities, hundreds of factories, and millions of people kind of knocks the fight out of an enemy, no?
In Iraq we're trying to fight as "gently" as possible so the people who suffered under Saddam actually have something to look forward to after the dust settles. I think we should've brought the hammer done (a la Falluja) much, much sooner
__________________
Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.-- Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18)
Things ain't what they used to be and probably never was. ~Will Rogers
Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.
"Shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's 'bold new imaginative program' with its proper age?" "Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago.
There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. R.Reagan-1960
Brits Say We Fight Too Hard
