Where did it go wrong in Iraq?

[Argyll]

Ok gentlemen seems that some people think that the war in Iraq is lost,and that the Mighty Coalition will retreat with their tails between their legs,only for other Nations to sit back and gloat.

So my question is "Where did it go wrong in Iraq?".........forget the reasons for Invasion for this Thread,but focus on what went wrong,and why?

I'll start off by my thoughts here(I'm not throwing in the towel with Iraq),but from what I've seen,and listened to.

1.There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance to occupation from the Chain of Command,they were warned albeit by Comical Ali,that they'd be drawn into a long battle of unconventional warfare,possibly the only credible thing to have come from this man ,but he did warn the Coalition that was going to be the tactics.Nobody's laughing at him now are they?

2.GWB's historic and monumental cockup flying into the Aircraft carrier and declaring the Major War was over,It had never really started as many regular Iraqi Forces chose not to fight,I wonder who's doing the fighting now?Where did all his Special Forces go?
Special Forces/Irregular warfare..........sound familiar to the BTDT's?.
Forget the Terrorism link for now,though it is important,but again the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted.

3.The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

I don't blame the guys on the ground,but the Politicians of the respective Countries in the Coalition,mainly the US and Britain.

So guys without having this turn into a Flame war,can we keep the comments and reasons sensible and free from "Individual blame"

[mack pl]

2.GWB's historic and monumental cockup flying into the Aircraft carrier and declaring the Major War was over,It had never really started as many regular Iraqi Forces chose not to fight,I wonder who's doing the fighting now?Where did all his Special Forces go?
Special Forces/Irregular warfare..........sound familiar to the BTDT's?.
Im not sure,but maybe some of Saddams regime commandos are insurgents now.I doubt they stay at home and watching tv.

[Obergefreiter]

I think it went south when Bush showed that he did not have the political will to destroy the uprising in its early stages. Once he missed that chance, it was down hill from there.

[Shiruzu]

In my opinion, the simple people were not secured enough(remember the lootings after Baghdad was taken, but the oil-ministry was safe...) and the economy wasn't forced enough.
Much more contracts should have been given to iraqi companies and not to some like KBR etc. (Of course, the iraqi companies can't do everything, because they haven't got the technical knowledge in some aspects)

There should have been done more for the iraqi people, so that resistance could have been reduced this way.

[Shiruzu]

2.GWB's historic and monumental cockup flying into the Aircraft carrier and declaring the Major War was over,It had never really started as many regular Iraqi Forces chose not to fight,I wonder who's doing the fighting now?Where did all his Special Forces go?
Special Forces/Irregular warfare..........sound familiar to the BTDT's?.
Im not sure,but maybe some of Saddams regime commandos are insurgents now.I doubt they stay at home and watching tv.

As far as i know, most of Saddams "elite troops" have been over-estimated, they were trained badly and had just little will to fight.

[mack pl]

BTW maybe US shouldn't disbanded Iraqi Army and police.

[Argyll]

Some good replies here guys.......keep em coming

[mack pl]

2.GWB's historic and monumental cockup flying into the Aircraft carrier and declaring the Major War was over,It had never really started as many regular Iraqi Forces chose not to fight,I wonder who's doing the fighting now?Where did all his Special Forces go?
Special Forces/Irregular warfare..........sound familiar to the BTDT's?.
Im not sure,but maybe some of Saddams regime commandos are insurgents now.I doubt they stay at home and watching tv.

As far as i know, most of Saddams "elite troops" have been over-estimated, they were trained badly and had just little will to fight.Ohh,well I know **** about Iraqi SF,but they were better trained than other iraqi units,so they are quite good for sabotage etc.Maybe most of them havent got will to fight,but you cannot say that about all of them(100%).Maybe some of them are active in fights.

[Herrmannek]

No strong/healthy middle class, it takes long time and stability to raise it so its not much guilt of coalition its only one year after war, we can see initiatve of local people so nothing lost yet. Middle class guarantees furter peacfull development of country without external help including: political stability, economical growth, proper education of next generations etc.. I think that its realy early to say anyone failed, wait ten years, if things doeasn't change this will be failure...

[Marmot1]

1. Fighting again whole nation whey you wantet to get only Saddqam & Co was a bad idea.

2.Disbanding Iraqi army was bad, of course some units should be disbanded but leaving 400.000 ppl without a job just in one day was wery bad move. Of course command should be replaced but conscripts and NCOs should be left.

3.Underestimating of importance of local leaders.

4.To early pullout of troops, (400.000 coalition forces were reduced to 150.000) compare to to i.e. germany where after war in country 4 times bigger than Iraq there were several millions troops.

[Shiruzu]

And i think, that its wrong to pull out the troops now, because this would lead to total chaos, as seen today ( Isseddin Salim dead). The US-Troops need to stay there and help to rebuild the country, so that there will be better supported by the people.

[Shiruzu]

2.Disbanding Iraqi army was bad, of course some units should be disbanded but leaving 400.000 ppl without a job just in one day was wery bad move.

And when there was a new army, the soldiers weren't payed for their work. Another reason, why the troops are not popular (for the iraqis, the simple US-Soldier stands for the whole US-Government).

[Khabbi]

This whole "mess" could have been avoided if Bush Senior did his job back in 90/91.

And Rumsfeld dident use the full US Military power in the war , lifes could have been saved back when the attacking part was goin on.

Other then that I still think Iraq is going good , The US lost 100-200 soldiers in the attack part , thats not that many ( RIP ). The problems started with the peace keeping missions , Urban + insugents + terrorist = bad combo . I dont think theres a way to keep casualties down .

[mrfloppy]

In my opinion one of the crucial failures was the political decision to invade the country with a relatively small force, that couldn't really bring the country under its control. For those who want to resist the occupation, it must have been very encouraging to see, that the coalition forces couldn't stop the looting and destruction, that took place back in April 2003 (if I remember that correctly). It showed that the coalition either lacked determination, proper planning or manning level to control the situation.

Better planning for the post-war situation and more troops may have helped to control the country, right from the start.

It seems, that the coalition never thought about Arab/Iraqi mentality and culture and the problems that could arise when they were ignored. ROE should have been properly adjusted to make shure that you could really win the Iraqi's hearts and minds. Maybe it was arrogance, maybe naivety, that nobody seems to have thought about the cultural and social problems before occupying a country with an inhomogeneous society - with different religious groups, which neither love each other nor the occupants. This may be the biggest problem of OIF, and the world should have been told that this experiment will take years in any case, or may even fail completely.

[Durandal]

I take a stab...there are afterall a myriad of reasons....

Here are a couple...

Lack of foresight as a result of using politics to decide what was needed rather than listening to those that knew. To touch on a subject that I had posted...as dealth with in the Ralp Peter's new Op Ed piece, Rumsfeld want X and he mowed down Generals till he got one that parroted what he wanted.

Not good.

Lack of planning in post invasion rebuilding of Iraq. This, to me, is probably the worst part. The need to quickly get in and return things to "normalacy" was just as important, if not more, than the invasion itself. To avoid civil conflicts you need to restore some level of working order, both in infrastructure and rule of law. That simply DID NOT happen. Human beings go primative when stuff like this happens. It would happen here in America if we had to deal with the same conditions...law and order and a working infrastructure (communications, power, gas, water, sewage) is core to that. Remove those elements either completely or in part and you WILL see our society begin to breakdown if it is forced to live udner such conditions for a prolonged period of time.

Definately not good.

The WILL of the Iraqis. This is also key. No matter how good we do our job, handing the Iraqis "freedom and democracy" is not an automatic "win". They have to want it. Not a few, but a majority that is willing to sacrifice to maintain such freedoms. This is hard to do in a society in poverty, with areas ridden with fundamentalism, and a lack of anything resembling a modern non-secular education.

Even if we "win" we still have to accept that we will "lose".

A lack of will on the Coalitions part to use force where force is necessary. In peaceful areas, using HUMVEEs is ok. Not so in areas of hostility. Armor and overwhelming force is necessary both to protect the sodiers from unnecessary casualties as a result of light armored trucks (easily caused by insurgents using improvised devices). The lack of visible force also creates a sense of empowerment in those that would like to kill Coalition troops. The lack of numbers also prohibits proper responses to renegade towns requiring Coalition forces to rely and, at best, mediochre and questionable (in terms of alligence) Iraqi troops.

Comparing this to lets say German or Japanese occupation is difficult to do. We heard a lot of that early on. The problem here is that this is the Middle East. There is not a HUGE middle or working class. Education levels, why high for the middle east (though dropping rapidly since 1992) is below par for the rest of the modern world. combine this with the lack of any substantial export other than oil (no REAL industry) like most of the middle east as well as the lack of technology or knowledge expansion like the rest of the middle east and you have the basic problem. A parasticial society, who consumes but gives back little to the rest of the world...this HAS to change in order to both develop a non-confrontation "wants to live" culture as well develop an economy.

Finally, there is the need to understand that Iraq has become a magnet for the fight against Islam. Islam, in its more fundemetal form is a dying culture and religion. A society CANNOT continue for ever built upon such beliefs. The continued advancement of this culture is artificial, funded in part by oil and in part by a disaprity of wealth and education. You force these societies to change...both culturally and economically. Till you do, Iraw will continue to be a magnet for those that want to fight the change. They do not want to enter the Modern age. They want to keep women on a leash...Force religion down the throats of their people...Keep a segment of their population ignorant and cowed.

Iraq is the first domino, if things succeed, in the freeing of a great many people from oppression and a gradual change from, honestly, barbarism to the modern age. These regios throwbacks understand this and Iraq has been a call to arms to maintain the status quo...

There, that is my attempt...

[Tane Angle]

Great thread, Argyll.

I don't think the US has necessarily lost completely, but I think that a lot of grievous errors in judgement have been made, some catastrophic in extent.

I guess I'll get going by saying what, ideally, if we had to invade Iraq, we would have needed.

-Before going in, every soldier should have been instructed in basic Arabic; the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, etc.; the history of the Middle East, and in particular, Iraq; the theology and customs of Islam; and Islamic customs and taboos, such as "don't get freaked out if you see a guy with a sword on Ashura," "watch it around the women," and "don't show the soles of your shoes to anyone," among other things.

-Training in kidnapping prevention.

-Extensive peacekeeping/enforcement and law enforcement training.

-Extensive instruction for everyone from the private with an M16 to the SECDEF and US President about the Middle East, Islam, and the wars in SE Asia, Lebanon, Colombia, Afghanistan, and other areas. I see more of Lebanon in Iraq than I do of Vietnam.

-An Army with a ground force four times the size of the one we have now. Rotations of troops could only last for three months, tops, but currently some are lasting close to two years. Minimize the realiance on reserve and Guard forces. (Note: This would take at least seven, maybe as much as fifteen years to accomplish. We would need to build more basic training facilities, increase the number of drill instructors, etc.)

-Double the military pay and benefits.

-Interceptor Body Armor and two plates for everyone, plus shoulder pads, groin pads, MICHs, ballistic riot face-shields, ballistic goggles, ballistic/flame protective balaclavas, etc.

-Expand our militaary-related industrial capabilities. Have more factories able to produce products faster, as need be.

-A special operations capability much expanded, particularly in Civil Affairs, PsyOps, SF, and SEALs. Basically, more "hearts and minds" folks.

-A dedicated, centralized counter-kidnapping/hostage-taking command ready to go at the outset of the war, with a system for calling in QRFs and hostage-rescue forces as needed, and priority status in getting those forces.

-An effecient, quick-processing prison system; none of this detaining innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time for months nonsense. Want to detaina suspect, fine. But don't leave them in limbo for the next six months.

-Retain the Iraqi Army. Put SF soldiers at the company, or if possible, even platoon level, though company is a bit more possible to accomplish. Increase the Iraqi soldiers' pay.

-Stay the heck out of several Iraqi cities, most especially Najaf. Do not go anywhere near Najaf.

-For the Air Force and Navy, a finished family of small-diameter bombs.

-Expanded UAV resources.

-Increase border security.

-Shut up about Syria and Iran, so that they might feel a bit more compelled to secure the borders, among other things.

-Have a ready-to-go, prefabricated social-support system ready to go. That means teachers, doctors, and nurses ready to go for every Iraqi town. They would have to be in place in Iraqi towns as soon as the towns had been liberated. That means engineers to fix the water and electricity grids immediately, again, ready to go as soon as the town is liberated. That means establishing universities and technical schools to train Iraqis to be teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc. Once a town has been liberated, there is a timer of only a very few months for such a social system to be in place. After that, we lose that town. (Note: this would require a serious civilian national service effort, which would take five to ten years to accomplish.)

-Thermal covers for helicopter engines. They have been canceled in budgets in the past several years, including for the Pave Low IVs. Some other requisition things as well.

I'll probably think of more later, I'm just jotting this stuff down for now. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[rafaelcb]

Sadam was a bastard not liked by most of the Iraquis, but this does not imply they would accept being invaded. So a lot more of information should have been given prior to the invasion. It would have helped a lot if western troops would have moved out much quicker; this was difficult without letting the iraquis control a lot of things. (Yes, probably the same iraquis that ruled the country when Saddam was in power).

Seen with perspective, the best moment for going home would have been after capturing Saddam and before the siege of Fallujah. This was a big mistake: bad PR, and on top of it the US retires, giving the impression of a moral victory of the Sunni militias.

Everything would have been different if Saddam would have had the WMD. But.... Would have Bush decided to go in in that case? (I am thinking of N. Korea)

Other point of view is that maybe the biggest mistake was made in Gulf War 1; that was the moment to get rid of Saddam.

Just my 2 cents

[Argyll]

This is great and not a single flame so far. ;)

[aktarian]

The biggest mistakes were made during prepartions. With relations toward "old Europe" and UN US basically ruled out any help from them. Which means you rule out help from countries with well trained troops to police Iraq which emans more US troops or less control.

Also with rhetoric toward Syria and Iran (but to a degree toward Saudi Arabia as well) US alienated them. Hinting that Syria might be next on invasion list right after war ended didn't help either. So You have p/o countries on both ends on Iraq. Specially Iran with their influence over shi'ias.

War done on the cheap. Barelly enought troops, logistics that left much to be desired, lack of armor (both armored Hummers and AFVs).

Heavy handed aproach to raids in villages and not enough sensitivity to custums.

[XASA]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I think some of these could have been foreseen:

1) Failure to build a coalition with major nations as we did in GW1
2) Unwillingness to work through the UN
3) Failure to commit enough troops per General Shineski's suggestion
4) Failure to secure the country after the fall of the Baathist government
5) Depending on an expatriate criminal, Chalabi
6) Dismantling of Iraqi Army
7) Use of combat forces, such as the Marines, for police actions
8) Failure to understand Arab culture and Iraqi internal politics
9) Leadership arrogance and failure to admit and correct mistakes
10)Alienation of populace by raiding houses and indiscriminate firing
11)Wrongful imprisonment of citizens
12)Torture of prisoners
13)Lack of "exit strategy"
14)Supply problems--everything from track pads to body armor
15)Dependence on civilian contractors
16)Cost of war and aftermath in lives and money underestimated
17)Insisting on June 30th turnover date
18)No WMD

[MEGR]

I think we should hand over the main policing to Special operations, and use largers more conventional forces (kept in the area) if needed in larger fights.

[Longbranch]

Argyll, I know you asked to forget the reasons for the invasion, but the cause of the fight and course of the fight cannot be separated. American fortitude in WWII cannot be separated from Pearl Harbor. How a soldier fights is based upon "why" he is fighting.

I believe the U.S. had the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Iraqis for at least six months after Bush declared formal hostilities over. This was the time for the coalition to prove to the average Iraqi citizen that their ideals and intent were different from those of Hussein's government. But what happened? Oil assets were given primary protection, all else was secondary. As the West has just recently seen photos of how prisoners have been treated, most Iraqis have known about this since last autumn. Innocents and private property have been destroyed while coalition troops clashed with Iraqi fighters.

The coalition has been seeking an environment of obedience, not mutual cooperation. Freed from their past ruler, it doesn't appear that Iraqis wish to obey another authority who's primary concern does not include the welfare of the people. There's still opportunity to change all this, but it would take a 180 degree turn in strategy from U.S. politicians. Personally I don't believe such a severe change in course will occur.

[martinexsquaddie]

it seems to be going as well as could be expected in the british sector.
But the overall plan before hand was pants :roll:
sure the iraqi army was going to roll over and die.
but the lack of bayonets on the ground ment the looting went unchallenged and that was the start of the problems :(

[Argyll]

Argyll, I know you asked to forget the reasons for the invasion, but the cause of the fight and course of the fight cannot be separated. American fortitude in WWII cannot be separated from Pearl Harbor. How a soldier fights is based upon "why" he is fighting.

I believe the U.S. had the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Iraqis for at least six months after Bush declared formal hostilities over. This was the time for the coalition to prove to the average Iraqi citizen that their ideals and intent were different from those of Hussein's government. But what happened? Oil assets were given primary protection, all else was secondary. As the West has just recently seen photos of how prisoners have been treated, most Iraqis have known about this since last autumn. Innocents and private property have been destroyed while coalition troops clashed with Iraqi fighters.

The coalition has been seeking an environment of obedience, not mutual cooperation. Freed from their past ruler, it doesn't appear that Iraqis wish to obey another authority who's primary concern does not include the welfare of the people. There's still opportunity to change all this, but it would take a 180 degree turn in strategy from U.S. politicians. Personally I don't believe such a severe change in course will occur.


I asked for the reasons to be left out for the reasons that people will use them to turn this topic into flames,the reason do not compare to what is happening now.

I wanted to know where peoples chain of thoughts are Post Invasion thesis?

However you've responded with some well thought out reasons ;)

[Mark_Aspen]

I think Mr. Floppy as well as the others have mentioned the primary causes. Loosely speaking there are three areas, inter-related but distinctly identifiable.

1. Diplomatic. Covers everything from a weak coalition, no UN or Arab League participation, to the soft break between the US and France and Germany.

2. Logistical. Not enough troops, weak planning for post-war period, wrong material in the theatre, maybe a streetch, but poor budgeting.

3. Psychological. Thinking that the Iraqis will behave or respond to a situation as if they were Westerners. Not giving enough understanding to the differences between Shias, Sunnis, etc, instead throwing them into one "Iraqi" pot.

I don't think all is lost, but requires a real re-thinking of the outcomes desired. It might be in the best interests of the coalition to expand the participants and lose the influence of the American neo-conservatives. I'd also lose the non-military contractors. Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts in business models and efficiency are being tested in the wrong place.

Does a private, armed security contractor get the same protections as a uniformed combatant?

[LordHalbert]

I think one of the biggest mistakes is to not get Fullujah under control.

In my mind, this was a distinct turning point.

It showed that the US lacked resolve.

The US did NOT lack the ability to get the city under control and I don't believe it would have made things worse in the long run - I think it would have made things better in the long run. If the US had gone in a killed all who resisted in the city, I'm not sure if this Al-Sadr guy would be such a problem now.

Al-Sadr is another example of US lack of resolve. This guy should've been dead many weeks ago - there's no excuse for him still breathing.

The US fears the Arab response to any of the suggestions I made. The US fears Jihad. I say tis better to face you foes now than to wait for them to attack you !!

[Spearin]

I think they have to realize that they are in for a prolonged counter-insurgency. As much as they don't want to be or don't want to admit it... they are. The US Gov't and the people need to be aware and accepting of it, but the problem is that they want to just get it done in as little time possible, which in reality is a long time.

They should do a little reading of past operations...

[Herrmannek]

So we know now mistakes were made. Logical is next question: If things are FUBARed in Iraq or chances to get well still exists there? And what to do after choosing one of the option? How to minimalize looses on both sides and do not destibilize this region, or if there still is chance what do to repair previous errors and don't do new ones?

[Argyll]

So we know now mistakes were made. Logical is next question: If things are FUBARed in Iraq or chances to get well still exists there? And what to do after choosing one of the option? How to minimalize looses on both sides and do not destibilize this region, or if there still is chance what do to repair previous errors and don't do new ones?

No I also don't believe Iraq is a lost cause,there's still a lot going on behind the scenes,good work ,thankless work,but lets not get off topic with the what next Question ;)

That's for another topic once this one has been exhausted enough

[LordHalbert]

There's no way to solve the problem without losing lives.

The enemy (or enemies) needs to be crushed - it's that simple.

If the enemy is not crushed then you must negotiate and settle for less than you wanted. I believe this is already happening.

It's really that simple.

[catdat]

I'm going to avoid speaking about all that's messed up because I think being there in the first place was a major mistake.

What we need to do to save it:

Establish quick reaction forces cav style out of the urban areas.

Give SF the go to start working with ICDC and IP.

Develop some AP rounds for Armor. SABOT and HEAT make no sense when battling insurgents. (anyone remember HEP and beehive)

Get the people here at home involved -tax breaks for body armor donations...care packages...whatever it takes.

Find out who f@cked up in intelligence - WMD and Prison abuse and remove them. I don't care if it goes to GWB. He won't be around in four more years and we'll still be in Iraq so get used to the fact someone else is going to finish this. Cheney? god help us his military record is zilch.

Iraq needs someone to step up to the plate politics wise. Demorcracies fail because there are no wise thinkers involved in the framing. You think there was no one around with a religous agenda when our constitution was written? Seperation of church and state is key or Iraq will just be another Iran - like it or not.

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny." - Abe Lincoln

[Secret Squirrel]

first off, sorry if these comments have been made earlier, i only glanced through the other posts.

I dont think the situation in Iraq is lost, but everyone should have expected whats happening now. You basically have a christain army occupying the center of the middle east and trying to rebuild a country. How many groups in the middle east were waiting to bring their holy war to the U.S forces? Its almost like a throw back to the crusades...terrorists dont have to develop extensive plans to attack the U.S on its home ground, they can now go to Iraq and fight the American military.
There is also the obvious religious differences. The coalition has repeated they want to bring freedom to Iraq correct? Bring them democracy and everything that goes with it? Well i dont think that idea is going to go over too well with some religious leaders in Iraq. Women's rights is going to be a hot topic and i think thats part of the problem with Sadr and maybe others. I think basically, some Iraqis wanted to be liberated from Saddam and then have the occupation end...but ofcourse that would cause more problems down the road.
But ofcourse the coalition has made problems for itself. The way some of its soldiers have conducted themselves has probably done harm that can never be fixed. The sad truth is, a thousand good deeds can be forgotten in the face of one "injustice"

[OldRecon]

What went wrong in Iraq?

1) From my contact with arabs (Lebanese arabs at least) don't like to be subjected to the experience of having outsiders decide things above their heads that directly affect themselves.

2) That Saddam was prepared to bomb his own people, not only speak about the man himself, but also quite a lot about the country he ruled.

3) On the part of coalition forces (USA and Brittain in particular) it's generaly politicaly and psychologicaly unsound to attack first.
As an example support in Brittain for the reconquest of the Falklands from the Argentinians during 1982 was much more wholehearted, than the present support in Brittain for the campaign in Iraq.
No rule without an exception though. The Israeli armed forces have a record of several pre-emptive campaigns (1956-war and six-days war in 1967 in particular) enjoying widespread political support from the Israeli people. But then Israel is a small country, born in war, with a small mainly Jewish population, surrounded by much larger arab populations, and a pre-history of pogroms and holocaust, and thus highly exposed to development of a common bunker mentality vs. its neighbours.
The USA and Brittain on the other hand are relatively large countries with quite sizeable populations, thus should not be exposed to the same degree to bunker fewer.

4) If it was the weapons of mass destruction, why put som much emphasis on topling Saddam. Why didn't one use the military superiority to come and go as one liked, leaving Saddam to rot from humiliation for not being able to repulse the outsiders snoozing around in his arsenals?

5) Establishing democracy with the gun is not a very practical propsition.
Post WW-2 Germany f.ex. (if one wants to use that as an example of the opposite) allready had a long standing at least partly democratic tradition pre Hitler, with local community councils, a parliament (the Reichstag), elections etc.
As for the role of Matthew Perrys squadron of warships in the establishment of democracy in Japan, the Japanese reformist leaders seem to have been well aware of the negative consequences of the attempts of just ignoring the westerners by the government in China.

6) The coalition went in with too few troops. One of the problems for the coalition forces is that the locals see they can't be everywhere.

7) When first starting the 2nd war against Saddam, one should not have been so soft about hitting civilian targets.
Strategic bombing campaings don't win wars alone. But having the locals occupied with cleaning rubble of their houses, and suffering from shell-shock type of war-weariness, seems to make things easier for an occupant afterwards.

As for "Who wins" in Iraq, it isn't a question of who's got the most guns, rather as much who's got the strongest will.
To "win" by crushing the will of the Iraqi people (or perhaps more correcty the many factions that make up "the Iraqi people" who at least seems to have one thing in common in their dislike of the coalition troops who now occupy Iraq) you would have to be prepared to do COIN the "Roman way" and colonize the place with more reliable subjects than the "Iraqis" allready living in the area (f.ex. the settlers Sharon wants (?) to move from Gaza). Which, given both the geographical location of the place and the geography of the place itself, is rather unsound from a military economic point of view.
Another way to "win" is to try to establish some form of stable government that in the least is on speakable terms with the USA, and don't think too much along the line of revenge. Though a full blood pro-US "puppet" ruler will have a rather slim chance of attaining the recognition of the locals. One should not be too insistant either on that the new self rule in Iraq should be "democratic" in the way we tend to interpret that word here.
Besides all factions in Iraq, even those that now fight the coalition forces openly, must be included in the establishment of a new Iraqi self-rule.
A period of factional infighting between the local factions positioning themselves would also have to be reckoned with in the process.
Several target dates, that on good cooperation can be moved forvard, with an ajoining set of political targets to be met and widening turnover of responsibilities to the locals at each stage, would also have to be made.
Saddam seems to have used his armed forces as a way of reducing the posibility for social unrest through unemployment, by enrolling and offering career oportunities to people that would otherwise have "been on the dole". Some way of occupying the time and securing prospects of those no longer enjoying employment in the armed forces would thus also have to be found.
Or as a third option you could combine the two previous options and do COIN Tukhachevsky/Frunze style, by offering promise of co-operation truces and amnesties (as a way of pinpointing the political "ringleaders" of the oposition) of (unknown to the oposition) temporary nature.
Then moving in against the ringleaders (rounding them of for extermination in far away prison camps, with some mass deportations for sheer terror on the side.

What option is chosen or not rests on the outlook of the politicians at the top however. In terms of what a democraticaly elected government can/can not do without damaging its own legitimacy,, and the limitations of the forces available, I personaly guess options 1 and 3 is not the way to go however.

[Kitsune]

Many things said here are correct. But I think the real point "where it went wrong" was...before it began.

As far as I concluded it, the very reason for the Iraq campaign was NOT the fear of WMD. While the Neocon leadership may have thought that Saddam still has some, they were never afraid (because they knew that he kept them out of desperation and that Iraq was in no shape to pose a threat to anyone). NOR was it the interest to free the Iraqi people in the first place.
The reason for this campaign was to militarily transform the Near East by force, Iraq was just the starting point.
The idea was to create an Iraq that was first and foremost pro-US, an American satellite state. Democracy, liberty to the people, that were secondary aims only.
There is one word for that what the Neocons wanted with Iraq: CONQUEST.
To expand the American sphere of influence with force.

There is just one problem.
Democratic nations make very bad conquerors.

Because, if you want to conquer you have to apply oppression. You have to subdue any opposition...consistenty. On the long term. That they did...err, tried. But doing so they got into trouble, the military of a democratic state has to justify its actions, to his people and to the world.

And that, I think is were it went wrong: The main objective (the real one, not the pretext) contradicted basic democratic principles. If the US were a dictatorship, the Neocons could win this war: simply subdue the resistance, Saddam-style (Remember: Husseins army, which was beaten on the battlefield with ease, did what the US are unable to do...it controlled Iraq). But the USA are still a democracy: therefore they cannot truly oppress any resistance without mercy...and therefore they will loose it. And the methods they used terribly backfired.

If the US troops would have come TRULY as liberators, treating the Iraqis with respect, telling them: "Look, we just wanted to get rid of Saddam. Now we are still here to help you to prevent chaos. But we have no interests here. This is your country. You want a fundamentlistic state? A government that can critisize Israel? Well, this is your cup of tea, its a free country now, isn't it?"...
in that case, I think, it would have worked.
But the Neocons had more on their agenda.

Sry if this was offending to some, but think about it.

My 2 cents.


PS: I have to agree with T. Angel, great thread Argyll. Much more productive than much of the other bickering.

[Argyll]

There is just one problem.
Democratic nations make very bad conquerors.

Because, if you want to conquer you have to apply oppression. You have to subdue any opposition...consistenty. On the long term. That they did...err, tried. But doing so they got into trouble, the military of a democratic state has to justify its actions, to his people and to the world.


Some good points there Kitsune,but can the above statement be realistic as it worked fine in Germany and Japan after WW2?

[aktarian]

There is just one problem.
Democratic nations make very bad conquerors.

Because, if you want to conquer you have to apply oppression. You have to subdue any opposition...consistenty. On the long term. That they did...err, tried. But doing so they got into trouble, the military of a democratic state has to justify its actions, to his people and to the world.


Some good points there Kitsune,but can the above statement be realistic as it worked fine in Germany and Japan after WW2?

Germany had tradition of democracy and what Wallies did was remove Nazis and let Germans return to old ways. also German and American culture weren't that different frome ach other.

OTOH Iraq had no tradition of democracy and have very different culture than US.

[Tane Angle]

Perhaps two things should be noted that differ between Japan and Germany and Iraq. In Japan and Germany, the people were relatively homogeneous in ethnic and religious background. This is not the case in Iraq.

Also, in Japan, the US used the emperor to its advantage. The US knew the people who obey the emperor, so they made sure that the emperor took orders from the US. We did this mainly by ensuring that the emperor would retain his power and title. Logical, no? The closest thing to an emperor in Iraq is Sistani. Problem is, we're not really cozying him up lately. In fact, we've been pissing him off by getting into a fire fight in their equivalent of the Vatican City.

As I've said before, Iraq is more like Lebanon-an artificial nation with too many different factions to ever really understand-than Vietnam. Remember, the South Vietnamese were ethnically tied to the North Vietnamese. It was the Hmong and other minority groups from the western highlands that had been oppressed by the Vietnamese for so long who made up the majority in the now famous units such as the MIKE Force teams.

I think we went wrong by going in in the first place. Never mind the reasons for going to war or not. It insulted the Iraqi's pride to be "liberated." They wanted to be free, yes; but they wanted to liberate themselves.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[BlackRain]

Where did it go wrong in Iraq?

Well, start at the begining.

1) Failure by the world community to follow through and enforce the 16 U.N. Resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council.

2) The "Fraud for Oil" scheme by the U.N. and the other henchmen that undermined the effect of sanctions and propped up Saddam's dictatorship.

Just to name a few. Had these two example problems been dealt with effectively at the time; we would not be having this conversation.

[Argyll]

There is just one problem.
Democratic nations make very bad conquerors.

Because, if you want to conquer you have to apply oppression. You have to subdue any opposition...consistenty. On the long term. That they did...err, tried. But doing so they got into trouble, the military of a democratic state has to justify its actions, to his people and to the world.


Some good points there Kitsune,but can the above statement be realistic as it worked fine in Germany and Japan after WW2?

Germany had tradition of democracy and what Wallies did was remove Nazis and let Germans return to old ways. also German and American culture weren't that different frome ach other.

OTOH Iraq had no tradition of democracy and have very different culture than US.

Which is absaloutley true,perhaps the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy,and never lived Democratically?
I've often said here you cannot make people accept something that is fundamentaly no within them............which pehaps comes down to a lack of respect for the general Iraqi citizen?

Guys this is superb,not one statement here has been posted as a "Negative" towards the topic thread,it's great to keep things civil is it not for a change?

[Herrmannek]

Democracy is not necesasry...Take a look at South Corea and Japan, first was poor non educated country know is one the reachest...There were made some ground checks for numbers of countrys (source polish printed newspaper) and there is no corelation betwen method of rulling and prosperity of country(dictators, democracy or whatever)...Only positive corealation was find between market system, size and health of middle class(not always in US style but still) and prosperity of country...

[Tane Angle]

incubz5, my friend, welcome back! I have missed you, compadre. My apologies for not being able to respond to the rather large thread about Argyll and I (we were honored to have such a large thread dedicated to us, though), I was flying back to Iraq because somebody kicked over a hornet's nest, not to mention broke promises I had been ordered to make.

I can respond now, if you would like.

Hope all is well over there.

[mack pl]

Argyll,

Iraq is fine and the Iraqi people are the reason it's fine. It is there peacefull willingness to have their govt changed under the American occupation that has obviated the need to keep 300,000 troops there. Your fantasies of anything to the contrary are just that, fantasies. Cry quagmire all you want, but our casualty rate for one battle in Vietnam (battle for Hue city) is more than our casualty rate (from hostile fire) after over one year of occupying this country of 25-30 million arabs.

Perspective please!

As for George W. Bush landing on that carrier, it was uplifting for everyone and yes, it was the end of the major conflict. We had taken the country and deposed its leadership. We run Iraq now Argyll.

And as for your assertion that our commanders did not expect this a resistence, puh-lease! They're doing fine.Man,you cannot compare Vietnam to Iraq.You could compare D-day to Hue battle if you want, but what you wanna say?US losed less soldiers coz they have better equipment(bulletproof vests etc.).My 2 eurocents.Regards.

[Argyll]

I spoke too soon! :(

[Secret Squirrel]

There is just one problem.
Democratic nations make very bad conquerors.

Because, if you want to conquer you have to apply oppression. You have to subdue any opposition...consistenty. On the long term. That they did...err, tried. But doing so they got into trouble, the military of a democratic state has to justify its actions, to his people and to the world.


Some good points there Kitsune,but can the above statement be realistic as it worked fine in Germany and Japan after WW2?

Germany was a beaten country after 6 years of war under a totalarian regime. War duing the second world war was practiced a lot differently than now; back then you waged war against a country and against its people. There is a lot of historical research on post war germany and the extent to which its male population was physically and psychologically defeated, leaving the "women of the rubble" to play a significant role. Also, there werent people waiting on the borders of Germany to enter the country and attack the occupiers. And religious differences didnt play a part (could be wrong?). Post war germany yeilded no significant deaths due to former regime members. Iraq on the other hand was "beaten" in weeks, has open borders for terrorists, major religious and idelogical differences..etc. I still dont think Iraq is lost, and i hope it does work out for the better...but that better will not be overly evident very soon.

[Tane Angle]

Herrmannek, I think South Korea and Japan worked because they were homogeneous and therefore could work relatively easily together. There was not quite the same history of slaughtering one another.

incubz5, sorry, as much as I hate to admit it, most of the SOF are centered in Iraq. There are not nearly enough in Afghanistan, from what I have heard. There are some, yes, but apparently nowhere near enough.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Argyll]

Ok gentlemen seems that some people think that the war in Iraq is lost,and that the Mighty Coalition will retreat with their tails between their legs,only for other Nations to sit back and gloat.

So my question is "Where did it go wrong in Iraq?".........forget the reasons for Invasion for this Thread,but focus on what went wrong,and why?

I'll start off by my thoughts here(I'm not throwing in the towel with Iraq),but from what I've seen,and listened to.


Now where have I personally said Iraq is a lost cause?

[Kitsune]

@Argyll:
"It worked back then with Germany and Japan"
That is a statement many people made. Possibly it is one of the main reasons why the Neocons thought it would work. But "learning from history" is a tricky thing, Argyll. You sometimes learn the wrong things.

Why did it work in Germany?

1) Germany is a European nation. Democracy and its principles (applied in France and the US, to a lesser degree in Great Britain) were known and discussed in Germany. In 1848 there was even a peaceful democratic revolution attempt, that nearly succeeded in transforming Germany to a democratic state (did you know that? ;) ), complete with a drafted constitution (Paulskirchen Verfassung) on which later German democratic constitutions were based. In the end, it did not work...but it came quite close.
After WWI, there was a democratic period (which did actually take longer than the Nazi "era") and had the Franch and the British not consistently humiliated this democratic Germany, and undermined its economy (the "roaring twenties" weren't that roaring in Germany because of the huge reparation payments, Germany had to pay) it just might have been stable.
So Germany had a democratic tradition. Not as proud and deep as the ones of France or America, but it was there.
But something like this is missing in Iraq.

2) When WWII ended Germany was in ruins. Soldiers brought the memories of years of fighting back home (if they came home at all). And WWI with his million of dead was still in many peoples bones...so you can say, the Germans had enough. Most wanted a boring life, a boring wife, boring kids, a boring job, three boring (but filling) meals a day...people who might have seen both the hell of Verdun AND the horror of the eastern front have had enough "adventure" for 10 lives.
So there was not that much interest to keep on fighting.
That't different in Iraq.

3) Then there is the Holocaust. The horrible pictures of the American bulldozer with the countless skeletal cadavers in Bergen-Belsen...the horrible stories of victims of the Nazi terror....Auschwitz...Treblinka...the questions: "What have we fought for?" and "What have we done?"....this is what created self doubt (lingering with the Germans to this very day) and effectively sucks the fighting spirit out of the people. After all...you start to understand your enemies: YOU were the evil one.
That prevented many from fighting for a resistance movement.
That is not the case with Iraq, there is no comparable sense of guilt there.

4) Main difference: The Soviet Union. So suppose you (as a West German) join the resistance. Suppose you kick the butts of the Americans. Suppose they start to piss their pants and run back home to mummy...in that (rather unlikely) case...what would happen? Presumably, the Sovets would take over. Thats just wonderful! Of course we all want that to happen...
Without irony: The antagonism towards the Soviet Union (the main war adversary) created an effective bond between the US and Germany (and Britain, and France). This threat very much stabilized the situation. Even if you are a battlehardened, proud German-super-warrior-killing machine, with endless thirst for battle in you that all the years at the Eastern front could not quench, if you care **** about democracy and feel not the slightes bit of guilt for the Holocaust...this is the convincing reason why NOT to join (or found) a resistance movement against the Americans. Probably you even join them, or the french foreign legion, to kill commies in Vietnam (some did actually)...
But in Iraq there is no such external enemy.

So, Argyll, while there may be a superficial similarity between Germany in 1945 and Iraq in 2003...actually both situations are quite different.

[Ichhabe]

What about getting Egypt and Iran in on the team? It is about time that we in the western world get down from our high horse and try, at least a little to get some co-operation with these countries.

No arab country has ever liked being occupied by "infidels". Just look at the history of the crusades.

By inviting to closer co-op with the Iranians we might be able to pull of the Iraqi-problem.

If not, the USA is going to enjoy thise situation for a long time to come.

[Trident-za]

Argyll,

Iraq is fine and the Iraqi people are the reason it's fine. It is there peacefull willingness to have their govt changed under the American occupation that has obviated the need to keep 300,000 troops there. Your fantasies of anything to the contrary are just that, fantasies. Cry quagmire all you want, but our casualty rate for one battle in Vietnam (battle for Hue city) is more than our casualty rate (from hostile fire) after over one year of occupying this country of 25-30 million arabs.

Perspective please!

As for George W. Bush landing on that carrier, it was uplifting for everyone and yes, it was the end of the major conflict. We had taken the country and deposed its leadership. We run Iraq now Argyll.

And as for your assertion that our commanders did not expect this a resistence, puh-lease! They're doing fine.

A question : how are you defining "casaulty rate"? How many troops were in Vietnam at the time of Tet, relative to KIA numbers? I'm not necessarily disputing your point, but I am curious.

Lots of good points made here. The comparison with Vietnam is probably not accurate Incubz, for a variety of reasons (read Tane's posts :lol: ) For one, it took several years for Vietnam to become the seriously dangerous place it was at the time of Tet. This is probably the least important reason, though....

Serious question: can we honestly see Iraq through the rose-colored glasses that Incubz uses? Or is he right, and we are being too pessimitic? My opinion varies from day to day. Sometimes I'm optimistic, sometimes I feel we aren't being pessimistic enough, purely because I feel this war will last for years and years. Sorry, I'm kinda off-topic, but I have thought right from the start that the coalition went in with a seriously naive expectation of their welcome (see any posts I made this time last year). I'm still not sure that people realize how long the coalition involvement in Iraq will need to be, if this war is going to have been worth the effort.

Note: this post doesn't mean I don't think it's worthwhile - I'm just not sure the politicians can handle the pressure of sustained, year in year out, losses.

So, where did it go wrong? All the reasons mentioned in this (excellent) thread... and completely naive thinking from the planners right at the beginning. This naivety is the root cause of all the other problems such as lack of troops, lack of sufficient equipment etc. etc. In some ways the planners still don't seem tob e sure of what they want to do (other than the rebuilding stuff, which is great). How to deal with the bad guys? They seem.... uncertain, facillating between a "kill them all" and a "lets back off" approach.

Oh, and I think the attitude of some of the posters here might also lead to problems. SQUASHING the "rebellion" is OK, if the rest of the population is not going to take offence, and I'm not sure how realistic this belief is. Like Tane, I believe that certain places must be left completely alone, no matter what. Najaf should be off-limits to US troops. Why? Well, I want to win the war, not post short-term body counts......

[Ichhabe]

sorry, as much as I hate to admit it, most of the SOF are centered in Iraq. There are not nearly enough in Afghanistan, from what I have heard. There are some, yes, but apparently nowhere near enough.

I would assume that too, except that every time I read about one dying, it's in Afghanistan. But since you know, could you supply the breakdown? I am especially curious to know since hundreds of them (TF121) are in Afghanistan.

Thanks in advance.

Please, don't fook this thread up by waving with your "knowledge".

[Tane Angle]

Not everyone in USSOCOM, much less JSOC, is in TF 121. And I don't know about hundreds, I've never really counted. I think we both know that it's not exactly good manners to write about specific unit locations, but let's do the math, shall we? About 9,000 Americans in Iraq, including some rather large conventional units that together add up to most of that 9,000 personnel. Take the size of USSOCOM's resources put into the Islamic world, consider that only a relative few are in Afghanistan (the minority of that 9,000 troops), and there you go. Naturally, some are in other areas, such as the the Horn of Africa and other places, but most are in Iraq because that's where most of the need is. It's that simple, the supply goes where the demand is. Problem is, there is more supply than demand.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Argyll]

Good to see the "thinkers " arrive.

Kitsune,I hear you loud and clear,about Germany and Japan,indeed those neocons may well have looked at this as a template.

Off the top of my head,has there ever been an Arab country invaded,occupied,then restored to a democracy?

[Ichhabe]

Off the top of my head,has there ever been an Arab country invaded,occupied,then restored to a democracy?

Are there any "true" Arab democratic countries at all?

The biggest problem is that we are so divided in culturale and thinking that we are like magnets trying to be put toghether the wrong way.

The "funny" thing is that we all share the same morale and etichs. But when meeting eachoter: Cats & Dogs.

As for now, this is actually a problem that can't be solved untill the Arab countries have had their renaissance of their own.
They have to be "re-born" to say it at best. I might step in to a hornest's nest now, by saying it. But the Arabs still live in the Feudal age, and what they learn from their leaders and clerics, is the truth, wether we like it or not.

Edidet due to some horrific spelling errors. :oops:

[Trident-za]

Off the top of my head,has there ever been an Arab country invaded,occupied,then restored to a democracy?

Dunno about your head mate, but off the top of mine - no :)

Kitsune raised an excellent point about the "starting point" of these "invaded" countries. Germany in particular was familiar with the idea of democracy. Iraq? Well... cultural differences are an amzingly powerful thing. South Africa is a "democracy" nowdays, but you guys from US/UK/Europe would not recognize it as such if you were here.... you also wouldn't believe half the stuff that goes on in the name of democracy! Trust me, as someone who lives in a non-western world, cultural differences are incredible, and it takes generations for those differences to disappear, if ever.

Again, I think the planners were naive. Even if ALL Iraqi people embrced the concept of MacDonalds/MTV/Jerry Springer tomorrow, the differences would be immmense. Add the apparent tendency of Arab people to "rebel" against foreign orders and you have a problem...

BTW, how much effort is REALLY being put into making the troops on the ground understand Arab culture? Or are we all assuming that its the Arabs who have to learn our culture??? Are we going to force them to display "western" characteristics (at least while the guns are pointing at them), or are we seriously trying to persuade them to adopt a different approach?

[Trident-za]

Off the top of my head,has there ever been an Arab country invaded,occupied,then restored to a democracy?

Are there any "true" Arab democratic countries at all?

The biggest problem is that we are so divided in culturale and thinking that we are like magnets trying to be put togheter the wrong way.

The "funny" thing is that we all share the same morale and etichs. But when meeting eachoter: Cats & Dogs.

As for now, this is actually a problem that can't be solved untill the Arab countries have had their rennassance of their own.
They have to be "re-born" to say it at best. I might step in to a hornest's nest now, by saying it. But the Arabs still live in the Feudal age, and what they learn from their leaders and clerics, is the truth, wether we like it or not.

Sorry man, I obviously took too long to type :) We seem to be making the same point..... your post wasn't up yet when I started typing.

[Ichhabe]

Now where have I personally said Iraq is a lost cause?

Yeah, you just said:


There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...and to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war (CIVIL WAR?? COME ON ARGYLL!!!!),ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy,and never lived Democratically?

In short: Our commanders were caught with their pants down, there is a huge civil war (ROFLOL!) in Iraq, and Iraqis are too stupid for democracy.

Oh, then there was that bit about Bush being arrogant for addressing troops on an aircraft carrier. You couldn't be more a more doom and gloom liberal if you were Jane Fonda.

mack pl writes:


Man,you cannot compare Vietnam to Iraq.You could compare D-day to Hue battle if you want, but what you wanna say?US losed less soldiers coz they have better equipment(bulletproof vests etc.).My 2 eurocents.Regards.

Sure I can, especially since the media loves to use the comparison whenever they try to justify this as a 'quagmire' or 'Bush's Vietnam.' But if you want a more recent comparison, shall I compare it to our peacekeeping efforts in Beruit?

This is as successful as war is going to get people! Defeat of Saddam Hussein and year plus occupation of a country of 30 million arabs with under 500 combat deaths!

Tell me: Do the Latin alphabeth and it's way of putting them together and form readable words work different for you, than the rest of us using it on a daily basis?

Where in that line can you find the statement from Argyll that there IS a Civil War going on in Iraq?

Where in those letters making up pretty readable words can you find the letters forming the words "LOST CAUSE"?

You really do live in a dimension of your own.
I can't remember who said it, but you are from the Bizarro world. How's the weather over there? Is your sky also blue?

[BlackRain]

Off the top of my head,has there ever been an Arab country invaded,occupied,then restored to a democracy?

These days I think France would count as estimates are that 20-25% of its population is Muslim. Tongue-in-cheek of course! ;)

[Tane Angle]

incubz5, I think you're reading too much into what Argyll wrote, bud. I think he asked if it's a lost cause, but I don't know if he thinks it is one just yet.

[Trident-za]

Ichabe, its obvious that Incubz has a "thing" for Argyll and Tane. His posts lack anything vaguely suggesting objective reasoning whenever these 2 post (dunno about the rest of his posts, he is on my "skim read list")

[Ichhabe]

Ichabe, its obvious that Incubz has a "thing" for Argyll and Tane. His posts lack anything vaguely suggesting objective reasoning whenever these 2 post (dunno about the rest of his posts, he is on my "skim read list")

So true, and so sad.

I have yet to see that post anything that can get this forum to go forward.

I think he thrives in his world where he think that he is the one that always know best. Just sad if you ask me.

[Argyll]

Now where have I personally said Iraq is a lost cause?

Yeah, you just said:


There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...and to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war (CIVIL WAR?? COME ON ARGYLL!!!!),ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

read the word possibility..........different from probability
ie it's a possibility that it might rain tommorow.......to it's a probability you will be banned from here in the next few hours

The phrase "civil war" has been used by Commanders on the ground

the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy,and never lived Democratically?

In short: Our commanders were caught with their pants down, there is a huge civil war (ROFLOL!) in Iraq, and Iraqis are too stupid for democracy.

Your words there ,not mine

Oh, then there was that bit about Bush being arrogant for addressing troops on an aircraft carrier. You couldn't be more a more doom and gloom liberal if you were Jane Fonda.

read again what I wrote,I said it was stupid to declare major offensive action over,the number of casualties and the operations ongoing today tell's you that major combat is still ongoing.

mack pl writes:


Man,you cannot compare Vietnam to Iraq.You could compare D-day to Hue battle if you want, but what you wanna say?US losed less soldiers coz they have better equipment(bulletproof vests etc.).My 2 eurocents.Regards.

Sure I can, especially since the media loves to use the comparison whenever they try to justify this as a 'quagmire' or 'Bush's Vietnam.' But if you want a more recent comparison, shall I compare it to our peacekeeping efforts in Beruit?

And you'd again be an expert on Beirut Operations,Tane will be able to respond to this one more

This is as successful as war is going to get people! Defeat of Saddam Hussein and year plus occupation of a country of 30 million arabs with under 500 combat deaths!

So in your perfect little world,all is well in Iraq,the actions of the last few months in Najaf,Fallujah,and Karbala,and Basra etc.............are........minor and trivial details?

[Trident-za]

How many troops were in Vietnam at the time of Tet, relative to KIA numbers? I'm not necessarily disputing your point, but I am curious.

There were 500,000 American troops in Vietnam during the peak of our involvement there, around 60,000 of them came back in body bags.

We have around 150,000 plus in Iraq right now (double that a year ago).

About 700-800 are in body bags, hundreds for non-combat related reasons.

Ergo, by the numbers, the casualty rate in Vietnam for total soldiers committed was around 12%. It is currently less than one-quarter of 1% for Iraq, or .25% - if one just considers the troops there now, rather than the number of troops during our peak build up there, it's still less than 1%.

Amazing.

OK, so you are "averaging" over a 7 or 8 year period of involvement? Next question, how many US troops were KIA after the 1st year of involvement in Vietnam? Again, not saying you're wrong (and I don't really believe the Vietnam analogy is apporpriate)... but lets see how this plays out.

[Tane Angle]

Ok, so I know I'm not the only person who judges things in body counts, right? The anti-war movement did that in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese did, and the US/ARVN sure did. Maybe we should judge how the war is going a bit more by how much progress we have made, and how Sistani and other popular leaders is currently feeling about us. Note: Sistani is not feeling very warm and fuzzy towards us since-you guessed it-US troops entered Najaf in force, engaging in a firefight around the Shrine of Imam Ali and the ancient cemetery.

Trident-za, how come I don't get any girls getting things for me? Stupid James and his super-sexy muscle Marine gets all the ladies. p-) And Jack Black gets one too. Even Vance is making out like a bandit here. :D

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Trident-za]

Do we see Argyll, who supposedly is or was in Iraq, posting about our building new schools, roads, innoculating thousands of Iraqi children, setting up power plants, opening classrooms, etc?

Nope.


Probably because, we aren't going to lose this war over number of schools built etc. etc. We all know that goes on, and its GREAT... Thats how we will win the war, if we don't lose it (if you see what I mean)

The rebuilding thing is vital, but we have to "not lose" first, otherwise the building is irrelevent. Simple stuff, really....

[Tane Angle]

Well, I can't speak for Argyll, but I know that Sadr has built more schools and clinics faster than we have in some key cities, including Najaf. That's a big part of the problem. People like schools and clinics, and thus Sadr gets that support. Of course, the moderates have built even more.

About all this "fantasy" stuff...I know that you mentioned "my" fantasies on the big 25-page thread. I don't know what you think old hats fantasize about, but I've pretty much got just two fantasies-one is world peace. The other involves my wife and... p-) yeah, you all know what I'm talking about! :D I'd put good money that Argyll doesn't sit home and get off on the fact that our friends are being shot at, so what's with fantasy? It certainly isn't fantasy like mythical dragons fantasy, though the Shiites do often use swords during Ashura.

Since you seem to know so much about how things are in Najaf, I'm sure you could tell everyone what Ashura is. Or better yet, what happened in Nabatiyeh, Lebanon on 16 October, 1983, during the Ashura commemorations? It's very worth noting in regards to the US troops entering Najaf in force.

By the way, I understand that it is sometimes necessary to dehumanize the enemy, but can we not use terms like "room-temperature." They died, and some of them were good men. Some of them were quite honorable. Over here, old enemies make for new friends, and old friends make for new enemies. Part of winning "hearts and minds" is about respecting the dead. Just because they're shooting at me and my people doesn't mean I hate them. If anything, it just makes me try to understand them more. In Lebanon and other places around the world, I learned how far people could get by treating the enemy dead respectfully and returning the enemies' fallen to their comrades.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Ichhabe]

incubz5 said:



It's not anywhere near a "lost cause"

No-one has yet to havestated that. OK???


there is NO civil war to speak of,

Either there is a Civil war, or it's not an Civil war. There is no in-between.


Every day I read the news, it's 2 Americans dead, 30 insurgents room-temp.

We're doing great.

Yes, by 1944-standards you are doing great. But how long can the audience at home think the same. No country like losing their soldiers on foreign soil today.


Do we see Argyll, who supposedly is or was in Iraq, posting about our building new schools, roads, innoculating thousands of Iraqi children, setting up power plants, opening classrooms, etc?

Iraq was not a back alley third world country before the Coalition attacked. As an occupying force it is the Coalition's responsibilty to re-build the structures they destroyed. This is not done out of love, but out of duty.

[usa320]

Considering what weve accomplished i think weve done a better job than i would have thought. We took out the entire Iraqi army in less than a month, made it to Baghdad in a few weeks, caught Saddam, have restored basic services to Iraqi civilians to BETTER levels than before the war, Iraq has a stable currency and an oil industry that is doing better every day. Iraqi kids are going to school. They are on the road to democratic government, and now the WMD seem to be turning up everywhere in the region. Once Al-sadr and Al-Zarquawi are captured or killed, Iraq should become far more stable.

[Tane Angle]

How does that even address what I wrote? I'm talking about specific Shiite cities. By the way, hi, I was a soldier too. So was General Shinseki. So is Pete Schoomaker. Guess how those two feel about Iraq? So are lots of people. You know, I even heard a rumor that Argyll was a soldier.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Argyll]

Tane,

I'm reading what he wrote just fine.

No your not,your reading yourself just fine

It's not anywhere near a "lost cause" - and for him to have to scratch his head and wonder if it is betrays his penchant for doom and gloom fantasy. That's my point. It's amazing how this supposed military man can throw fits when we're rebuilding that country and doing a great job, there is NO civil war to speak of, and good god, some marines might get shot while eliminating the insurgency? Imagine that! Every day I read the news, it's 2 Americans dead, 30 insurgents room-temp.

Try reading the bit again where I said I have not thrown in the towel with Iraq..........see the probleme here is that you are flaming another good topic,I'm also pretty sure I actually mentioned the rebuilding of Iraq and all the good work going on behind the scenes,a lot of which gets no credit in another thread here in general topics,but then why would I expect nothing but Bull**** from you?
The doom and Gloom fantasy of mine......provide a link to me posting/saying this........otherwise shut up.Listen up you clown did I say there was a civil war.......no instead of attempting to Hijack threads,try reading the whole sentances of what people post instead of single words!
Oh and incase you want to read a bit more it's the Brits and My old regiment who are wracking up the cricket scores with their encounters with the Militia.
We're doing great.

Do we see Argyll, who supposedly is or was in Iraq, posting about our building new schools, roads, innoculating thousands of Iraqi children, setting up power plants, opening classrooms, etc?

Nope.

Try looking 1st,I've posted plenty,and the forum members know I was in Iraq,you just cannot accept it,that I can do more for the Iraqi people than people like you who sit at home and do NOTHING!
Tell you what hero...........tell the forum about your service to your country,and the tales of great humanitarian deeds you performed,tell the forum how you pull on that uniform and look at the flag on your arm,and the comrades around you ,and step out into a new day with pride?
Oh that's right..................you can't can you?

[catdat]

As of mid-November 2003 the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps Forces was at about 13,000 strength. They are a local militia of such, and they're projected to get up around 40,000 by mid-2004. The border police and the border patrol were at about 4,000 strength, moving up to 25,000. The Iraqi Police Services were at around 62,000, and they'll move to 71,000 by mid-2004. The Facilities Protection Forces free US forces up from having to do static guard duties. They will eventually be as high as 50,000. And the new Iraqi army that's being formed, was at one battalion strength, and it's going up to 35,000 strength.

source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/iraq-corps.htm

I was a soldier too.

Nothing incubz5 has written surprises me it's the same old same old SSDD

[Kitsune]

@incubz5:

Yeah you lost 60.000 in Vietnam, and that created a shock that America has not entirely overcome to this very day.
But why? You lost 300.000 in WWII and there was no shock. You felt great.
What is the difference?

Self doubt. In WWII you knew what you were fighting for. Or, if you didn't the horrible pictures of the Holocaust told you: Therefore. To end this. And it was a good fight. It made sense.
Not so Vietnam...the USAF destroyed villages, killed more than a million civilians. The enemy remained unseen for a large part...Vietcong were everywhere. "What are we doing here?" Then My Lai: American soldiers behaving like SS troops. "We are the good ones, are we...or?"..."What have we become?"...
Self doubt,no the lack of military strenght made the US loose Vietnam.

And that is the similarity to Iraq, although they may seem different if you look at the casualty numbers: The Neocons led your troops in a situation that was ****e to generate self doubt. They wanted not just any free Iraq. They wanted a special Iraq...a satellite state. A nation were the US can station troops, a nation that provides you with auxiliary forces. A base from which the Neocons planned to spread American influence over the whole Near East: Apply pressure on Saudi Arabia to the south west, to the caucasus region to the north and keep tabs on Iran in the east.
But to do it, Iraq has to be moulded into the right shape for this. And to do that you have to use force...subdue the persons who stand in your way.
With force it is a funny thing: you have to use it consistently, methodically. Only then it works. If you use force and oppression only a bit...you create resentment...which is contraproductive to your cause. And there is the Neocron problem: A dictatorship like Saddams can use oppressive force consistently, a democracy cannot. Therefore the very try to mould Iraq into the shape they wanted was destined to lead to a situation of greater and greater resentment of the Iraqi people...a people who just had tasted a bite from the cake of freedom and now want to eat it all...and not just half of it. They do not want to exchange one evil dictator for a more benign one...they want total freedom, a government that is not a puppet on Washingtons string.
But how do you counter resentment? You apply more force...but you can't, thats the problem.

These numbers, they just lead one astray. This has nothing to do with military strength. The US is MUCH more powerful than Iraq and its guerillas. But it is not a military problem you have here.
Right now you have two basic ways out of this:
1) Redefine your objectives. "We just wanted to get rid of Saddam." Ok, you have done that. Congratulation. Mission accompished. You have won.
2) Develope the neccessary preconditions for the use oppression on a level to solve the problem of the Iraqi insurrection with force. All you have to do is to become a dictatorship. Make Bush your Emperor and rename the Marines to the Imperial Stormtroops...and thats it. Then send them into Iraq and finish it.

The original objective, the transformation of Iraq and the Near East to a pro US region is not reachable anymore. That is gone and lost...and if you send 500.000 soldiers to Iraq.

The main fault of this war is the objective. The Neocons wanted simply too much, more than the armed forces of a democratic state could give them.


Another 2 cents of mine.

[Tane Angle]

Self-doubt? Looks like that's a concept lost these days on some when it comes to Iraq.

[Kitsune]

(Looks as if I pressed the mouse button to often as I corrected my post...) :lol:


@Tane Angel: The decisive battles of this war are fought in Washington, not in Fallujah. And the self doubt of the American people will decide the outcome, not the fighting sthrength of the marines.

[catdat]

incubz5 wrote:
There were 500,000 American troops in Vietnam during the peak of our involvement there, around 60,000 of them came back in body bags.


Vietnam

1961-1965 1864 KIA 7337 WIA 18 MIA
1966 5008 29992 61
1967 9387 56013 113

Above numbers do not count non-hostile deaths and I'll not continue beyond those years for now.

Iraq
3/2003-4/2004 786 KIA 4327 WIA 1 POW

[catdat]

I need to point out some things about those Vietnam numbers above.

Peak involvement was Jan1 1969 - 440,029 troops on ground (372,429 support 67,600 Combat arms) a lot of REMFs

First Cav had high casualty rate (unit) for entire war - 5464
MOS 11E (now 19K) had highest casualty rate - 27%
Infantry 11B had highest casualties - 20,460

[Ichhabe]

[quote]

Chuckle.

...like a little schoolgirl. :bash:

[Argyll]

Make the most of it Incubz5 you're not going to be around much longer woot


Tell you what hero...........tell the forum about your service to your country,and the tales of great humanitarian deeds you performed,tell the forum how you pull on that uniform and look at the flag on your arm,and the comrades around you ,and step out into a new day with pride?
Oh that's right..................you can't can you?

How many projects are you involved in in the rebuilding of Iraq?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/

This is the Company I work for in Iraq.
Hmmm..............do you have a CPA pass............nah didn't think so?

[Argyll]

like a little schoolgirl

Not if one is talking about Al Sadr High.

Man, the moderators here crack me up every day. I have to say Tane, you win though. Al Sadr outdid the US in terms of schools in "certain" cities? Where's the proof? What cities? Time for hard evidence, not mealymouthed fantasies!

Education

Schools. The United States has renovated more than 1,993 schools, enabling approximately 5.1 million students to resume their education in October 2003. Five million books are being printed and distributed. Approximately 1.5 million Student Kits, 140,000 Teacher Kits, and over 10,100 Schools in a Box that include furniture and classroom equipment have been distributed.

Teacher Training. Four hundred primary and secondary school teachers have already received the Master Teacher Trainer certification, with another 800 to follow in the short-term, and tens of thousands over the long-term.

Babylon University Dorms. The United States is providing $76,000 for the University of Babylon for the rehabilitation of two women's dorms, which enabled female students to return to classes.

Higher Education. Five grants valued over $15.0 million were awarded to strengthen partnerships between American and Iraqi Universities.

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh04011401.html

Tane would love to reply but he's asleep now...............you know how much of a child you look making assinine coments about the moderators like this.................what a dork

Guys this topic will be cleaned up and the posts attributed by Incuz5 will be deleted,and then we'll resume objectively,till then and I recieve the word from Hood,this topic will be locked to prevent it from being ruined any further................sorry guys.

[ibstolidude]

Make the most of it Incubz5 you're not going to be around much longer woot


Tell you what hero...........tell the forum about your service to your country,and the tales of great humanitarian deeds you performed,tell the forum how you pull on that uniform and look at the flag on your arm,and the comrades around you ,and step out into a new day with pride?
Oh that's right..................you can't can you?

How many projects are you involved in in the rebuilding of Iraq?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/

This is the Company I work for in Iraq.
Hmmm..............do you have a CPA pass............nah didn't think so?
Kinda interesting side note - Ray Reynolds in a statement made through the Iwoa National Guard PAO stated he took information for the before posted letter from the following site.
http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2004/fs040318.html
as well as Iraqi civilians and police.

kinda interesting considering your post Argyll.

[Argyll]

Topic reopened,and cleaned up.Thanks to Incubz5 for ruiing the thread with his I'm a wanker attitude. ;)
Most of his posts have been deleted.

[Tane Angle]

(peers out from behind door)

[Durandal]

(peers out from behind door)

Its ok Tane, you can come out now. ;)

I had what I though was a beautiful response your post on the difference between Japan, Germany, and Iraq...hit post, found that the thread had been locked....and cussed.

Should have saved it.

Bah!

[incubz5]

See everyone I am important too - people want to hear from me!

They had a rotten convention
and everyone was there:
Hamburge Face and Gruesome Grace
And the Skull with the slimey hair.

There was Mr Mud and Creepin Crud
and the Drooler and Belchin' Bob.
There was three headed Ann - and she was holdin hands
with the Whimperim' Simperin' Snob

The Un****ouncable Name, he came,
And so did Saw Nose Dan
and Poopin' Pete and Smelly Feet
and the Half Invisible Man.

There was Sudden Death and Sweet-Sock Breath,
Big Barg and the Deadly Bore,
and Killin' Dillion and other villians
we'd never seen before.

And they all sat around and told bad tales
of the rottenest people they knew,
and everybody there kept asking....
where were you?



Stop hijacking good threads - take it up in PMs, take it up elsewhere, go away, knock it off, or take the time to reread his posts and correct yourself.

love Stoli.

[Durandal]

Edit

"If you ain't got anything nice to say, don't say it."

Tane or Argyll, can you delete my posts? They did nothing to contribute to the actual thread...

[incubz5]

Excuse me, it must have been someone else. It was an asian communist leader. The guy had hammer and sickle crap and pics of Che Guevara and Soviet posters on his wall. Trust me, he was a total communist. Which was fine, he fit in, as the guy next to me had a picture of Bush as Hitler on his desktop.

[Argyll]

Argyll:


Make the most of it Incubz5 you're not going to be around much longer

Care to wager on it?

Argyll, given your proclivity for making wild ignorant, baseless claims and your hostility to my subsequent questioning of said claiams, I'm surprised I've even lasted here this long.

So are the moderators,and far from happy about it



Tell you what hero...........tell the forum about your service to your country,and the tales of great humanitarian deeds you performed,tell the forum how you pull on that uniform and look at the flag on your arm,and the comrades around you ,and step out into a new day with pride?
Oh that's right..................you can't can you?

I ran for city council in a city of 100,000 in New Jersey. Won the primary but lost the general election by 600 votes out of 15,000. I was the only Republicn to come that close to winning in one of the largest counties in New Jersey (GOP just doesn't win local elections in NJ). I've been fired from a consulting job in downtown Manhattan for having a pic of an American soldier in Afghanistan as my desktop wallpaper (even got the image from militaryphotos.net) - this place was so radically liberal one employee had a bust of Chiang Kai-shek and a shrine to communism on his desk. My flags are everywhere and I do my part by supporting our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and getting the truth out to whomever I can, which is in itself a full time job.


So you claim,you call that proof?How do you get the truth out?Perhaps you can pass your pearls of wisdom to those in the CPA,seeing as you know everything that's going on?


How many projects are you involved in in the rebuilding of Iraq?

One: The dispelling of myths about the war at home.

Oh yeah another **** who thinks he knows it all


http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/

This is the Company I work for in Iraq.

What a shame you have to undermine your company's spirit of reconstruction by coming and here and blabbing that the Iraqi people are close to turning against us, that civil war is raging there (LOL!), that you have to wonder if the war was a mistake, etc.

Try reading what I wrote you moron,I said the possibility of civil war,did I even say the war was a mistake or even have my doubts?They are your words Incubz5 not mine,the US Commanders on the ground have also used the buzzword "Civil war".......so they're liars too?And again you'd be right at the sharp end to know all the details?
I'm not undermining anyone,I'm out there doing what my company ask of me,provide them protection,tell me ,when's the last time you visited an Iraqi Ministry office?


Thanks to Incubz5 for ruiing the thread with his I'm a wanker attitude.
Most of his posts have been deleted.

As will this one be,at a time of my chosing

Small minds can't handle dissenting opinion much less objective questioning Argyll, no news there!

It's your clouded opinions that are questionable,everyone else here including guys in Iraq,know full well things there are not rosy,but I guess we all lack your knowledge of the General situation............which is based on what?.....certainly not experience that's for sure

I'll keep this topic open for the timebeing

[Durandal]

Edit

[Argyll]

Ok gentlemen seems that some people think that the war in Iraq is lost,and that the Mighty Coalition will retreat with their tails between their legs,only for other Nations to sit back and gloat.

I fail to see where this states it's what I personally think

So my question is "Where did it go wrong in Iraq?".........forget the reasons for Invasion for this Thread,but focus on what went wrong,and why?

I'll start off by my thoughts here(I'm not throwing in the towel with Iraq),but from what I've seen,and listened to.

Again where have I admitted saying Iraq is a lost cause?

1.There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance to occupation from the Chain of Command,they were warned albeit by Comical Ali,that they'd be drawn into a long battle of unconventional warfare,possibly the only credible thing to have come from this man ,but he did warn the Coalition that was going to be the tactics.Nobody's laughing at him now are they?

Did he or did he not make those remarks?

2.GWB's historic and monumental cockup flying into the Aircraft carrier and declaring the Major War was over,It had never really started as many regular Iraqi Forces chose not to fight,I wonder who's doing the fighting now?Where did all his Special Forces go?
Special Forces/Irregular warfare..........sound familiar to the BTDT's?.
Forget the Terrorism link for now,though it is important,but again the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted.

So where are those Fedayeen and Republican Guard Loyalist troops,and his "Brigades" of Special Forces?

3.The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

Either they knew Sadr would raise a Militia or they did not,which is it?if they did,why was there no steps taken to prevent it?

I don't blame the guys on the ground,but the Politicians of the respective Countries in the Coalition,mainly the US and Britain.

So guys without having this turn into a Flame war,can we keep the comments and reasons sensible and free from "Individual blame"


Incubz5,
try focusing on these red highlighted parts,no part of the original post has been altered,see if you can actually understand these points,then when you do rebuke them

[incubz5]

So are the moderators,and far from happy about it

Uh dude, if my questioning your empty chest-beating that you have "the whole story" about the apprehension of Hussein (a story you refuse to divulge) and your doom and gloom, ridiculous assertions about our efforts in Iraq are pissing the moderators here off, I think it says far more about the moderators than it does about me.

forum - Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR -- a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas


So you claim,you call that proof?

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html


How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


Oh yeah another **** who thinks he knows it all

This from a guy who bandies about his "whole story" nonsense regarding Operation Red Dawn but who can't produce. Nice!

Try reading what I wrote you moron

Try reading it yourself cupcake:


Where did it go wrong in Iraq? There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted. The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

perhaps the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy... you cannot make people accept something that is fundamentaly no within them............which pehaps comes down to a lack of respect for the general Iraqi citizen

There is not even a "remote posibility" of civil war, Sadr and his gang are marginalized w/ the Iraqi people, we are the authority in Fallujah, and no, the Iraqi people are not too stupid or "fundamentally" unable to accept democracy. It is you who have a "lack of respect" for them with that attitude. They've endured immense brutality. The insurgents bomb their children and hide out in their hospitals, schools, and mosques.To suggest that they don't want this and that it is the "greatest failure" is atrocious. If even 1% of them did not want it and armed themselves against us, we would be in big, big trouble.


when's the last time you visited an Iraqi Ministry office?

Oh god, here we go again. Argyll, visiting any place does not preempt you from being a dunce. Some people have a good grip on reality, some do not. Your travels aren't going innoculate you from your own character. While they should be character-building and give one a germane sense of a place (such as that great letter from that soldier I posted earlier), some people simply can't escape their own myopic worldview regardless of where they go or what they see.

[/quote]

[moughoun]

Stop calling people cupcake you fruit, and **** off back to what ever hole you crawled out of

[moughoun]

So are the moderators,and far from happy about it

Uh dude, if my questioning your empty chest-beating that you have "the whole story" about the apprehension of Hussein (a story you refuse to divulge) and your doom and gloom, ridiculous assertions about our efforts in Iraq are pissing the moderators here off, I think it says far more about the moderators than it does about me.

forum - Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR -- a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas


So you claim,you call that proof?


I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html


How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


Oh yeah another **** who thinks he knows it all

This from a guy who bandies about his "whole story" nonsense regarding Operation Red Dawn but who can't produce. Nice!

Try reading what I wrote you moron

Try reading it yourself cupcake:


Where did it go wrong in Iraq? There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted. The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

perhaps the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy... you cannot make people accept something that is fundamentaly no within them............which pehaps comes down to a lack of respect for the general Iraqi citizen

There is not even a "remote posibility" of civil war, Sadr and his gang are marginalized w/ the Iraqi people, we are the authority in Fallujah, and no, the Iraqi people are not too stupid or "fundamentally" unable to accept democracy. It is you who have a "lack of respect" for them with that attitude. They've endured immense brutality. The insurgents bomb their children and hide out in their hospitals, schools, and mosques.To suggest that they don't want this and that it is the "greatest failure" is atrocious. If even 1% of them did not want it and armed themselves against us, we would be in big, big trouble.


when's the last time you visited an Iraqi Ministry office?

Oh god, here we go again. Argyll, visiting any place does not preempt you from being a dunce. Some people have a good grip on reality, some do not. Your travels aren't going innoculate you from your own character. While they should be character-building and give one a germane sense of a place (such as that great letter from that soldier I posted earlier), some people simply can't escape their own myopic worldview regardless of where they go or what they see.

[/quote]



The U.S is bombing them too, and have you been there to see what it's like.................................no thought not, you are just one big waste of space aren't you living out whatever fantasy pop's into the head, why don't you go jerk off to black hawk down and leave us alone

[XASA]

incubz5,

Why am I not surprised you were fired from your consultant job for your political beliefs. If you were half as rude to you coworkers as you are here on militaryphotos.net in verbalizing those beliefs, I can understand why you no longer work there.

You also mentioned that a co-worker had a bust of Chiang Kai-Shek on their desk along with a communist shrine. Anyone with an modicum of education knows Kai-Shek was an arch enemy of communism, so I find that statement a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you meant Mao ;)

Your political views aren't the problem here, it is how you post them on the forum. Try limiting yourself to writing about the thread's topic instead of insulting others and you might get along better with everyone. Just a suggestion.

[moughoun]

incubz5,

Why am I not surprised you were fired from your consultant job for your political beliefs. If you were half as rude to you coworkers as you are here on militaryphotos.net in verbalizing those beliefs, I can understand why you no longer work there.

You also mentioned that a co-worker had a bust of Chiang Kai-Shek on their desk along with a communist shrine. Anyone with an modicum of education knows Kai-Shek was an arch enemy of communism, so I find that statement a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you meant Mao ;)

Your political views aren't the problem here, it is how you post them on the forum. Try limiting yourself to writing about the thread's topic instead of insulting others and you might get along better with everyone. Just a suggestion.

Xasa, good try but he doesn't want to listen to anyone, he probaby read's the post's he make's out loud just to hear himself speak

[Argyll]

So are the moderators,and far from happy about it

Uh dude, if my questioning your empty chest-beating that you have "the whole story" about the apprehension of Hussein (a story you refuse to divulge) and your doom and gloom, ridiculous assertions about our efforts in Iraq are pissing the moderators here off, I think it says far more about the moderators than it does about me.

I've divulged it to some people for Verification,and they did so,it's OPSEC when you have that clearance past SECRET I'll tell you

forum - Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR -- a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas


So you claim,you call that proof?

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html

Yeah the people listened to you by not voting,sounds like they had you sized up as being a loser as well........600 votes.........who gives a fok......you still LOST!


How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.

When's the last time you talked to the Soldiers on the ground in Iraq,when's the last time you Talked to LT.Gen Sanchez?Try talking to some of the Iraqi's in Fallujah and Najaf,or Basra........if you have the bottle to travel there .....on your own with no security if you feel all is well ?
Perhaps you can ask them why the Road from Baghdad to Amman is out of bounds........or many of the other major Highways for that matter?I hope you get your book published one day,cause it sure as hell is going to be very very very interesting,what's the Title?....."Saddam Hussein....my part in his downfall" by Ivan.T.Gotaklew?


Oh yeah another **** who thinks he knows it all

This from a guy who bandies about his "whole story" nonsense regarding Operation Red Dawn but who can't produce. Nice!

I don't need to ,to someone who claims to know all about current SOF missions and deployments

Try reading what I wrote you moron

Try reading it yourself cupcake:


Where did it go wrong in Iraq? There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted. The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

Is this why so many Iraqi's it's claimed no longer want the presence of Coalition troops in their Country?.You never answered the questions I wrote in blue so by that I'll take it means you have no foking idea....just as I though!

perhaps the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy... you cannot make people accept something that is fundamentaly no within them............which pehaps comes down to a lack of respect for the general Iraqi citizen

"Perhaps the greatest failure........."is a leading question,you're supposed to be a politician,and yet you never picked this up?The rest of the statement is true,when is the last time the West has imposed a democracy on an Arab country?


There is not even a "remote posibility" of civil war, Sadr and his gang are marginalized w/ the Iraqi people, we are the authority in Fallujah, and no, the Iraqi people are not too stupid or "fundamentally" unable to accept democracy. It is you who have a "lack of respect" for them with that attitude. They've endured immense brutality. The insurgents bomb their children and hide out in their hospitals, schools, and mosques.To suggest that they don't want this and that it is the "greatest failure" is atrocious. If even 1% of them did not want it and armed themselves against us, we would be in big, big trouble.

And tell me,these good people who do not want this 1% of bad boys,why are they not doing the right thing then and handing them over to the Coalition?The CPA is not the Authority in Fallujah,and the troops there cannot go where they want to go. In Places like Najaf,Nasiriyah and Karbala there are still place OOB to them.........does that sound like you're in charge?You need a severe reality check Mister.,infact you sound like a typical foking politician,well out of tune with whats going on on the ground.
Oh and I do have respect for the Iraqis who are trying so hard to make their country work,but none for those who want to keep it in fear


when's the last time you visited an Iraqi Ministry office?

Oh god, here we go again. Argyll, visiting any place does not preempt you from being a dunce. Some people have a good grip on reality, some do not. Your travels aren't going innoculate you from your own character. While they should be character-building and give one a germane sense of a place (such as that great letter from that soldier I posted earlier), some people simply can't escape their own myopic worldview regardless of where they go or what they see.

Oh you mean a cut and paste job from a website.....anyone could do that.
My travels to Iraq means I see things you don't,I see 1st hand accounts,I see the death and smell it,you get the edited version heavily sanitized.Like I've said in previous posts I'm proud of what I do in Iraq,I've got the balls to do it.........do you?

[/quote]

[moughoun]

Argyll, man you have better thing's to be worring about then what that loser think's just ignore him, there are other people here who enjoy plying with the tosser ;)

[mack pl]

just ignore himagree

[Argyll]

I just found something very interesting about the man called incubz5

He called himself Edward Richardson and he ran for office in New Jersey

take a look at this lying scumbag's so called truth



http://www.elec.state.nj.us/CFD2004/pdffiles/050504c16.pdf


Seems he was a bit of a crook?

[fdt]

I just found something very interesting about the man called incubz5

He called himself Edward Richardson and he ran for office in New Jersey

take a look at this lying scumbag's so called truth



http://www.elec.state.nj.us/CFD2004/pdffiles/050504c16.pdf


Seems he was a bit of a crook?WTF sheriff? What is this? Whos is that Richardson guy? What is his connection to incubz5? Any detailed explanation plz... :| ???

[Argyll]

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html

[quote]How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


All the connections are there

[catdat]

Argyll

incubz5 related to me his real feelings about Soldiers and described his respect for their awards a week ago. I saw this coming a long way off.

(To put this in perspective I had been in a running argument with 2sheds_jackson who seemed to think Hackworth's 9 Purple Hearts only gave him experience in medevacs and keeping his head down.)

incubz5 then interjected:


Medals mean very little to me...Hitler was a wounded decorated war veteran too, who gives a flying F. Medals a great leader doth not make.

thread: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14516&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16

LOL I'm sure his would be Vet constituents would love that.

[Maine Finn]

So are the moderators,and far from happy about it

Uh dude, if my questioning your empty chest-beating that you have "the whole story" about the apprehension of Hussein (a story you refuse to divulge) and your doom and gloom, ridiculous assertions about our efforts in Iraq are pissing the moderators here off, I think it says far more about the moderators than it does about me.

forum - Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR -- a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas


So you claim,you call that proof?

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html


How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


Oh yeah another **** who thinks he knows it all

This from a guy who bandies about his "whole story" nonsense regarding Operation Red Dawn but who can't produce. Nice!

Try reading what I wrote you moron

Try reading it yourself cupcake:


Where did it go wrong in Iraq? There was a complete failure in underestimating the resolve of the resistance...the underestimation of the what the Iraqi people themselves wanted. The Failure to take into account of the remote possibility of an Internal Civil war,ie Sadr and his gang of thugs,the failure to stamp authority on places Like Fallujah.

perhaps the greatest failure in Iraq is attempting to impose a democracy on a Nation that has never seen Democracy,never understood Democracy... you cannot make people accept something that is fundamentaly no within them............which pehaps comes down to a lack of respect for the general Iraqi citizen

There is not even a "remote posibility" of civil war, Sadr and his gang are marginalized w/ the Iraqi people, we are the authority in Fallujah, and no, the Iraqi people are not too stupid or "fundamentally" unable to accept democracy. It is you who have a "lack of respect" for them with that attitude. They've endured immense brutality. The insurgents bomb their children and hide out in their hospitals, schools, and mosques.To suggest that they don't want this and that it is the "greatest failure" is atrocious. If even 1% of them did not want it and armed themselves against us, we would be in big, big trouble.


when's the last time you visited an Iraqi Ministry office?

Oh god, here we go again. Argyll, visiting any place does not preempt you from being a dunce. Some people have a good grip on reality, some do not. Your travels aren't going innoculate you from your own character. While they should be character-building and give one a germane sense of a place (such as that great letter from that soldier I posted earlier), some people simply can't escape their own myopic worldview regardless of where they go or what they see.

[/quote]

You haven't been tossed out the door headfirst yet? Damn. Please do us all a favour - including yourself - and simply go away. You really don't contribute much to this section of the Forum.


I am Edward Richardson

Are you begging for someone to mess with you, if indeed this is your real name? Does PerSec mean nothing to you? I'm amazed at how much some people are willing to reveal about themselves.

I only give out my first name, and then only irregularly. All anyone will get from me directly is "Emily". They would have to do some digging to get anything more.

My point is simple on this one. Revealing so much personal information here, where so many people are hostile toward you, invites trouble.

But then again, it doesn't seem to me that you are able to think with your head.

~Emily

[fdt]

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html

[quote]How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


All the connections are there Hmmm.... I buy that for a dollar... RU sure he didn't lie about his identity?

Look....

*I am Pope Jon Paul II*

Convinced?

[Argyll]

I'll bet
Considering the man never wore the flag on his arm,or the wings on his chest!
Thats why he was not voted in coz he was a cok!

[Maine Finn]

I'll bet
Considering the man never wore the flag on his arm,or the wings on his chest!
Thats why he was not voted in coz he was a cok!

The funny thing (to me) about politics is a mere accusation can ruin a person's career. I wonder if that was the case with this gentleman.

[Argyll]

I am Edward Richardson:

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,831028,00.html

[quote]How do you get the truth out?

Talking to people, working on book.


All the connections are there Hmmm.... I buy that for a dollar... RU sure he didn't lie about his identity?

Look....


*I am Pope Jon Paul II*

Convinced?

Makes no difference fdt,he claimed ,I searched,and it's there in Black and White...........co-incidence?or stupidity on his behalf.......no matter....hes Strike 3 now anyway...............shall we continue with this topic?

[fdt]

Makes no difference fdt,he claimed ,I searched,and it's there in Black and White...........co-incidence?or stupidity on his behalf.......no matter....hes Strike 3 now anyway...............shall we continue with this topic?
Glade time... This thread has been rated http://www.racingtrack.de/****_award/bilder/****.gif

[Tane Angle]

Ok, question here regarding Argyll's legitimacy. Who knows what Occam's Razor is?

For those who don't, it is a scientific precep that states "All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one."

Applied here, what is a simpler explaination: That we know 100% of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in regards to Hussein's capture? Or that we don't know 100% of what happened? We can look at D-Day, *****sburg, hostages in Lebanon, POWs in SE Asia, the Battle of Trenton, and a thousand other battles-I'd put good money that to this day we still don't know the whole truth about everything that happened.

Personally, even the places that I was, even the events that I witnessed, I know full well that I don't know the whole truth about what happened.

Also, what is a more simple possibility: That Argyll faked photographs, faked a service record, has such intelligence, and is a complete lie? Or that he's who he says he is? Look at what's he has written; is there that much that has been proven wrong? Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that Argyll is indeed who he says he is.

Logically, even someone with little or no experience in personsal conversations with Argyll would take him to be real, no? I'm a skeptic, of course. It's saved my neck. But in my humble experience, Argyll would certainly seem to be real. Of course, some folks don't care for what I say either.

Apply this to me, or don't. I really don't care. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[The Walrus]

I would say that the reason above all reasons is this:

Hasty, over-optimistic planning

They expected Iraq to practically rebuild itself with minimum effort from the coalition. The troops sent to Iraq were trained for war, but had virtually no training for the peace, so it was practically a no-brainer that the US troops would alienate the local populance.
Some of the predictions made by the pentagon were so ridiculous, that if one were to mention them now it would be difficult to believe it was said at all, comments like Iraq is going to rebuild itself and become a democratic free-market economy within half a year.
They didn't even contemplate the difficulties in rebuilding a country that has been ravaged by Saddam and UN sanctions (mostly Saddam) for two decades. They expected Iraq to practically re-build itself, they ignored the long term situation completely, and also ignored the two most successful US nation-building projects in history (probably for any country), Japan and Germany, it took many long years, troops and resources to turn Japan and Germany from ruins to the successes they were. So above all, I would say it was the sheer ignorance of the planners of the war that doomed Iraq to failiure.

[Tane Angle]

incubz5, even though you don't seem real fond of me or some folks that I consider friends, I should probably advise you against posting personal information on the internet. You don't have to listen to that, but just a friendly reminder. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Maine Finn]

incubz5, even though you don't seem real fond of me or some folks that I consider friends, I should probably advise you against posting personal information on the internet. You don't have to listen to that, but just a friendly reminder. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I think he's beyond any semblance of reason, Tane. If he wants to let people have free shots at him, let him. I'd care if he wasn't such an ass.

~Emily

[Argyll]

Ok, question here regarding Argyll's legitimacy. Who knows what Occam's Razor is?

For those who don't, it is a scientific precep that states "All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one."

Applied here, what is a simpler explaination: That we know 100% of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in regards to Hussein's capture? Or that we don't know 100% of what happened? We can look at D-Day, *****sburg, hostages in Lebanon, POWs in SE Asia, the Battle of Trenton, and a thousand other battles-I'd put good money that to this day we still don't know the whole truth about everything that happened.

Personally, even the places that I was, even the events that I witnessed, I know full well that I don't know the whole truth about what happened.

Also, what is a more simple possibility: That Argyll faked photographs, faked a service record, has such intelligence, and is a complete lie? Or that he's who he says he is? Look at what's he has written; is there that much that has been proven wrong? Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that Argyll is indeed who he says he is.

Logically, even someone with little or no experience in personsal conversations with Argyll would take him to be real, no? I'm a skeptic, of course. It's saved my neck. But in my humble experience, Argyll would certainly seem to be real. Of course, some folks don't care for what I say either.

Apply this to me, or don't. I really don't care. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

Have you been watching "contact" with Jodie Foster today? ;) Log in to MSN and I'll tell you all that I know,then draw your own conclusions,and just to add cheer to your day...........I think incubz5 has left the building............from a swift boot in the ass ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

They expected Iraq to practically re-build itself, they ignored the long term situation completely, and also ignored the two most successful US nation-building projects in history (probably for any country), Japan and Germany, it took many long years, troops and resources to turn Japan and Germany from ruins to the successes they were. So above all, I would say it was the sheer ignorance of the planners of the war that doomed Iraq to failiure.

Compared to Iraq, Germany was much easier. Germnay under Hitler had run its eugenic course to destruction. Granted you had a divided country and the Cold War to contend with, but no one in Germany, at least on the FRG side fought the occupation. As well, there were no major religious differences and no will or desire (after 6 years) to continue fighting. So comparisons to Germany, on any level, at least in my opinion, are pointless. Iraq has major religious differences, it has Iraqi elements fighting the occupation, it has terrorists fighting the occupation...etc. I've seen people throw off the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam. However, what if you compared it this way...Vietnam was a product of the Cold War just as Iraq was a product of the war on terror. Two ideologically based wars which were/are fought under a heavy political climate. But instead of fighting communism the coalition is now fighting terrorism. It only takes one person with a bomb to be a terrorists and personally i dont think you can ever truly defeat terrorism. However, terrorism is much like common crimes or more serious crimes; you can never truly win but you try because it keeps things to "reasonable" levels. Would Iraq have been worse without the occupation? The answer is certainly yes. Rebuilding Iraq would have been all but impossible without an occupation. As of right now, everything is not lost. But the problem is restoring Iraq to the status of a stable country as quickly as possible so de-flame the insurgents by leaving. However, the occupation of Iraq will not be over any time soon ( i believe theres already plans to keep troop levels at current levels through to the end of 2005). Hopefully, things will go smoother from here on out, and that no more scandles hurt the coalition's chances of success. A sad fact of life is 1000 good deeds can be forgotten in the face of one bad deed.

[RomanS]

is he banned yet?

[catdat]

Secret Squirrel wrote:

Germnay under Hitler had run its eugenic course to destruction. Granted you had a divided country and the Cold War to contend with, but no one in Germany, at least on the FRG side fought the occupation.

Two things here, there was some resistance. The werwolves assassinated a few people. The Mayor of Aachen was one I believe. The Werewolves were put down pretty fast and everyone hunted down as much of the Nazis as possible...except for those that would have a special value. Hence the second point, Eugenics did not run it's course with Hitler. It's alive and well and allied itself to ultra right wingers in the US and UK among other countries. Operation PAPERCLIP was a US covert OP to bring as many Nazi Scientists over to help us as possible. Some believe as many as 5000 were aquired.

I have lots of details but this is for another thread.

catdat

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel wrote:

Germnay under Hitler had run its eugenic course to destruction. Granted you had a divided country and the Cold War to contend with, but no one in Germany, at least on the FRG side fought the occupation.

Two things here, there was some resistance. The werwolves assassinated a few people. The Mayor of Aachen was one I believe. The Werewolves were put down pretty fast and everyone hunted down as much of the Nazis as possible...except for those that would have a special value. Hence the second point, Eugenics did not run it's course with Hitler. It's alive and well and allied itself to ultra right wingers in the US and UK among other countries. Operation PAPERCLIP was a US covert OP to bring as many Nazi Scientists over to help us as possible. Some believe as many as 5000 were aquired.

I have lots of details but this is for another thread.

catdat

can you point me towards any research on post-war resistence in Germany? This topic came up on H-War but i dont think anyone mentioned any specific research. How didnt eugenics run its course? The arguments concerned seem now to only be upheld by racist groups.

[Argyll]

Secret Squirrel wrote:

Germnay under Hitler had run its eugenic course to destruction. Granted you had a divided country and the Cold War to contend with, but no one in Germany, at least on the FRG side fought the occupation.

Two things here, there was some resistance. The werwolves assassinated a few people. The Mayor of Aachen was one I believe. The Werewolves were put down pretty fast and everyone hunted down as much of the Nazis as possible...except for those that would have a special value. Hence the second point, Eugenics did not run it's course with Hitler. It's alive and well and allied itself to ultra right wingers in the US and UK among other countries. Operation PAPERCLIP was a US covert OP to bring as many Nazi Scientists over to help us as possible. Some believe as many as 5000 were aquired.

I have lots of details but this is for another thread.

catdat

Yes this is about Iraq,can we keep it to this please?

[Tane Angle]

Argyll, you know how I love that Carl Sagan stuff. p-) Haven't gotten to read or watch Contact in a long time though. I actually had a professor years ago who was obsessed with Occam's Razor who pointed it out to me long before Contact. And no, the professor's name was not Carl Sagan. :D

PS: Oh yeah, I forgot to include half my point in the above post-that we should perhaps concede the possibility that the other side might be right. I can admit that it's possible, and indeed, I hope, that everything is going great. Can some admit that it might not be?

What's the more simple possibility? That everything is going great? Or that things have gone wrong? Some say that things naturally devolve into chaos.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[farmgirl]

Tane:

Trident-za, how come I don't get any girls getting things for me? Stupid James and his super-sexy muscle Marine gets all the ladies. And Jack Black gets one too. Even Vance is making out like a bandit here.



I'm going to tell him you said that!!! p-)

Somehow... I don't think you're probably hurting in the fan club department, Tane. If you weren't so busy fantasizing about your wife... you'd probably notice a few women mooning about... p-)


Tane:

Argyll, you know how I love that Carl Sagan stuff. Haven't gotten to read or watch Contact in a long time though. I actually had a professor years ago who was obsessed with Occam's Razor who pointed it out to me long before Contact. And no, the professor's name was not Carl Sagan.



Didn't CJ talk to you about laying off the pot?

Personally, when I hear hoofbeats.... I automatically think zebras.... life is far more entertaining that way.... ;)


PS... woot woot Ding dong the troll is dead woot woot

Perhaps we can get back to civil discussions..... (well... a girl can dream, can't she??? ) :D

[Tane Angle]

rofl Zebras do make life interesting, if a bit confusing when trying to figure out which one's your zebra.