Views, notes and opinions on OIF.

[Erik]

Here one can sum up his views and feelings on the controversial Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I'm having kinda mixed feelings about this conflict.

[thinking aloud]
Why Iraq? Why Saddam? There are so many tyrants and "evil" leaders in this world that how come Iraq was targetted? WMD? Turned out to be a joke. Freedom for Iraqi people? They don't seem to need or want it. Why not Liberia or Uganda? Why not use the money and manpower to make things better for U.S. citizens?
[/thinking aloud]

Maybe the most disturbing thing about this conflict is the way how everthing was and is presented in the media. Embedded journalists under heavy coalition sencorship and everything is shown in a 'proper' way to ensure the public has only one view on this war.

Then at forums I see kids writing "how cool M4 SOPMOD looks on that SF guys fighting in Iraq", "Kill em all" etc. and clearly these poor kids (or adults) have no idea what's it all like when it's happening in reality. Computer games, movies and the media just paint this 'cool' image on soldier's life and duties. I've said it before and I'm saying it once more; I hope all the pro-war military enthusiasts should at least go through military service to see things in quite different perspective. Not to mention how actual combat would affect the minds on counterstrike/americanarmy generation.

Just my views on some things, not ment to offend anyone.

[fantassin]

My feelings:

-doubtful aims and greedy political leaders who need to dump their bibles for a minute

-courageous soldiers and impressive mastery of the network centric warfare; the US armed forces are now a class of its own and it's no longer feasible for any country to try to even remotely keep abreast.

[WARPIG]

America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.
Arnold Toynbee (1889 - 1975)
I think that is a fairly accurate description of the US know. The only difference is that we look more like a large friendly Rottweiler.
US interests in Iraq are obvious. If we are a success we gain a solid oil interest for the future. That is the difference between Iraq and other tyrannys. For the US to take such a historical risk, the benefit has to be there. Not just for the US but for Iraqi's as well. Most Anti-US sentiment is based on this. "American's are out for themselves." Please, what country could survive without looking out for their futures? How exactly was the rebuilding of Iraq going to be accomplished without Iraqi oil? The EU? Well, that answer is obvious. Regardless of US support over several decades to rebuild Europe people expect the US to turn Iraq around over the weekend. Perspective... that is the bottom line.
I was going to try and explain the US fascination with all things military but from this forum there are many people from many countries that like the hitech weaponry of all militaries. Boys with toys. Nuff said. Americans have the bragging rights to being the "big kid" on the block as far as militaries go. I think some attitude is expected.
One more quote to spark some thought.
The process of creating new, democratic organs of government power is beginning, and, as never before, the greatest responsibility rests with the broadcast media.
Eduard Sagalaev

[front]

- US administration polishing the latest chapters of a long term strategic goal of acquiring a massive foothold in one of the most important strategic areas of the world under the pretense of another "war on terror", "liberation of the Iraqi people", and "weapons of mass destruction".

- Aghast at the fact that the same butchers, torturers, and thugs which made up the Baathist-led security forces are being rehired, rearmed, and released back into the society, with the same power...

- Iraqi people understanding that while the word "Freedom" in the phrase is meant to apply to them it really means "Plunder" and that any democracy will only be ever allowed (read: considered legitimate) if it is sympathetic to the USA.

- Impressed that for the first time in the history there was a massive outcry and public opposition to a war BEFORE it even started.

cheers

front

[pinkeye]

- US administration polishing the latest chapters of a long term strategic goal of acquiring a massive foothold in one of the most important strategic areas of the world under the pretense of another "war on terror", "liberation of the Iraqi people", and "weapons of mass destruction".

- Aghast at the fact that the same butchers, torturers, and thugs which made up the Baathist-led security forces are being rehired, rearmed, and released back into the society, with the same power...

- Iraqi people understanding that while the word "Freedom" in the phrase is meant to apply to them it really means "Plunder" and that any democracy will only be ever allowed (read: considered legitimate) if it is sympathetic to the USA.

- Impressed that for the first time in the history there was a massive outcry and public opposition to a war BEFORE it even started.

cheers

front

well said.
however, many western governments are to blame for this mess. western democracies have screwed up a few too many times...

[WARPIG]

The most wasted of all days is one without laughter. Thank you for the absolutely hysterical rhetoric posted here.

[Jack Mehoff]

To anti war people,

What is your suggestion that America should do now after Saddam gone? Should we completely withdraw from Iraq or should we stay there until the Iraqis can govern themself? Your constant bitching and moaning doesn't solve anything.

[Erik]

To anti war people,

What is your suggestion that America should do now after Saddam gone? Should we completely withdraw from Iraq or should we stay there until the Iraqis can govern themself? Your constant bitching and moaning doesn't solve anything.
There's not much to be done. Too late to run when **** hits the pants.

Just take the beating and stop whining. When time is right you'll receive large scale support from other nations. But good thing the WMD are now gone and also the people of iraq and free and happy in a safe, solid country.

God bless america woot

[wholagun]

There's not much to be done. Too late to run when **** hits the pants.

rofl rofl rofl

[front]

"To anti war people,"

Hehe... most are not going to bother answering your questions when you start off like that. It's like asking a politician "Do you still beat your wife?". A lose-lose proposition.

"What is your suggestion that America should do now after Saddam gone?"

Suggestions? Any of these would work if they were carried out to the letter... but they won't be.

Get rid of the unilateralism. Sack Bremer. Get UN control in there straight away... Kofi will be more apt to convince the envoys to put themselves in harm's way if they have some real power. Set up a multilateral council composed of UN member states to remove the US appointed Governing Council. Reaffirm the UN Declaration of Human Rights and educate the Iraqi people of those rights. Slowly replace the "retrained" Iraqi police with personnel who never served in the Baathist security forces. Start the first steps in a Peace and Reconciliation process. Throw out Halliburton, and other war-profiteers, immediately. Fast track the elections. Remember that the attacks on the UN compound and the Red Cross were designed to show that NO-ONE is safe. Give the Iraqi people a legitimate voice and they'll be more apt to withdraw support from "the resistance" when it starts hitting their own elected representatives and institutions. They'll recognise that it's not a "resistance" then but a bunch of criminals out for blood, mayhem, and what little profit they can scrounge.

"Should we completely withdraw from Iraq or should we stay there until the Iraqis can govern themself?"

The current US administration is never going to withdraw from the region now that they have a presence there. A large US military presence might be withdrawn, but the influence of the US administrations will be massive from now on. The Iraqis are never going to "govern themselves"... they'll have a puppet regime installed and they'll learn to live with it. The stakes are too high (oil) to let the poor Iraqis govern themselves. After all they might do something irresponsible with the oil revenues... like build a healthcare system or a first class eductation system... why they might even start a social security system! Can't let the peasants do that...

"Your constant bitching and moaning doesn't solve anything."

No-one here is "bitching and moaning"... don't insult us if you expect some sort of answer. What you consider "bitching and moaning" is a different view of the situation. I'm sick and tired of the constant hypocrisy shown by the last two administrations concerning Iraq. "Saddams a threat to the US." Give us a break. He was'nt even a threat to his neighbours after 10 years of sanctions. He was more of a threat in the 1980s when he was actively using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians and he had near on the largest standing army in the world. Back then he was Americas loyal attack dog. Then he got rabid.

So a solution? Solution for whom? America? A satisfactory solution for the US administration is not going to be one that benefits the Iraqi people and vice versa.

cheers

front

[Claymore]

Good text, front.

[Erik]

Good text, front.
Yep. Excellent post.

[Russian Texan]

Hard to argue

[Trigger]

Some good points there front.

[spier]

To anti war people,

What is your suggestion that America should do now after Saddam gone? Should we completely withdraw from Iraq or should we stay there until the Iraqis can govern themself? Your constant bitching and moaning doesn't solve anything.I am not one of the anti-war people, but I'll give you my opinion anyway: Stay. Period.

[Claymore]

To anti war people

And who are the people who are not anti-war people? War loving people?Is war a good and beautiful thing?
Or is it a great oppoturity to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture, and kill them? =O

[Jack Mehoff]

To anti war people

And who are the people who are not anti-war people? War loving people?Is war a good and beautiful thing?
Or is it a great oppoturity to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture, and kill them? =O

I prefer to use anti-war, pro-war and neutral. If you want to be specific, how about anti-Iraq War or anti-GW2?

[StarvingStudent47]

To me, saying "we shouldn't have taken out Saddam because Assad is just as bad" is like saying "we shouldn't have taken out Hitler because Stalin was just as bad."

We can't get 'em all. But that's no reason to not start somewhere. And no matter where we started, people would say "but there were other places that are bad too."

And the Iraqi people DO want liberation. The vast majority of them do. There are a few Saddam loyalists who are trying to make life unbearable for not just the Coalition forces, but also the Iraqi people (by bombing the water lines to Baghdad, etc). And many of the guerillas we're fighting are foreign fighters from as far away as Pakistan. They do not represent the views of the Iraqi people. They actually WANT the Iraqis to suffer, so that they have camera-friendly "oppressed victims" to use as a recruiting device for their jihads.

[SOG]

Then at forums I see kids writing "how cool M4 SOPMOD looks on that SF guys fighting in Iraq", "Kill em all" etc. and clearly these poor kids (or adults) have no idea what's it all like when it's happening in reality. Computer games, movies and the media just paint this 'cool' image on soldier's life and duties. I've said it before and I'm saying it once more; I hope all the pro-war military enthusiasts should at least go through military service to see things in quite different perspective. Not to mention how actual combat would affect the minds on counterstrike/americanarmy generation.

thier kids, who cares. they probably think SUV's, trophy wifes, spawling suburban areas are cool too, and when reality hits thier post high school ass theyll grow up or get swallowed. what kid wasnt high on gi joe and toy gunnin? video games is just a evolution in boys with toys. saying all pro war enthusiasts need to see war 1st hand is like saying all anti war hoors should see war 1st hand to see true freedom and democracy at work and at its tear jerking infancy. complacency and the will to not raise your hand when its needed is prime sloth. your simply pointing out war is horrible, which it is, but EVERYONE needs a dose of reality, not just those on the other side of your fence IMO.

[jdbjdb]

If we are a success we gain a solid oil interest for the future
It is so not about oil, it was about removing a tyrant, freeing the Iraqi's and it was also about disarming Saddam of his wmd's, he had them in the past, and its better safe then sorry thats why we went in, he used wmd on the Kurds, several thousand dead,

[SOG]

The stakes are too high (oil) to let the poor Iraqis govern themselves. After all they might do something irresponsible with the oil revenues... like build a healthcare system or a first class eductation system... why they might even start a social security system! Can't let the peasants do that...front

i agree with what you said about rebuilding although letting the UN in on anything will be half assed and watered down. about the iraquis governing themselves, leaving them be to rebuild and regovern themelves would end in the same thing over and over again. you suggest a pipeline dream of them building certain aspects of culture similar to ours yet what makes you think they could? all thier surrounding neighbors have these wonderfull things? how about losing the dictators and princes and other regimes across the middle east to even nearly achieve anything remotely comparable to a 1st world nation?

even nations who overthrow governments themsleves (many in south america) have not made things better, simply more tolerable, witht he same old crime and corruption to build to a head. at the LEAST i would let the masters of crime and corruption (US) help them rebuild and instate more tolerable living conditions then what they had before. people will bitch about anything, but at least it can be done in public now, without fear of being dragged off. at least the iraquis can go in the streets and cry foul. before they couldnt!



Back then he was Americas loyal attack dog. Then he got rabid.

he was hardly loyal, we were using one kind of cancer to fight another more dangerous, he was a nearby tool used against a threat by the CIA. to think or entertain he was a allie or in bed witht he US is exageration at its best. we knew full well what he had, who he was and what he was doing to his own people back then. playing two of your enemies against eachother is the ultimate game of chess. play one dictatorship against another totaling one and seriously damaging another so we dont have to turn attention on him for how many years?


So a solution? Solution for whom? America? A satisfactory solution for the US administration is not going to be one that benefits the Iraqi people and vice versa.

actually a satisfactory solution for america is one that will procure a level of hapiness the iraqi people never had before so we can qualm the country and rob its oil. it is very important we stabilize and westernize iraq so we can score what we came for and not have any turmoil and return thousands of troops. oops, guess you missed that.

hell if you want to talk about a government benifiting people, whens the last time that happened? whens the last time the US government was a over achiever on making its inhabitants happy? again you suggest a pipeline dream we ourselves dont have. wonderfull insight mate.


I'm having kinda mixed feelings about this conflict.

then whyd you post wholly non mixed left sided feelings? if your searching for a handout ill bite. please point out in your post these mixed feelings you speak of? i dont see any, i just see you speaking whats clearly on your mind, nothing wrong with that, but it hardly shows mixed feelings.

[front]

"It is so not about oil, it was about removing a tyrant, freeing the Iraqi's and it was also about disarming Saddam of his wmd's, he had them in the past, and its better safe then sorry thats why we went in, he used wmd on the Kurds, several thousand dead,"

My friend... I am glad that you have posted. Take it easy...

(Can I go now?)

cheers

front

[Erik]

Here's one really good analysis about the current situation:

As a former analyst, I can say the following:
The situation is worrying although far from critical. From a military point of view USA can without any problem sustain this trend for several years. There is however a serious political aspect to all this, especially with the presidential elections coming next year.

What can be done? The core problem is lack of progress in the rebuilding of Iraq. This is due to the lousy security situation. While the current trend may not seriously threat the occupational forces, they do pose a serious threat to the various civilian elements that are required to reconstruct Iraq. And as long as the reconstruction is failing, as long as the water, electricity and oil isn't flowing, the insurgents are going to gain in popularity.

The only solution is more troops. Lot more. At least four times the current active force. Then you can start getting some form of security and seriously begin the rebuilding. And when the quality of life of the Iraqis improves then the rebellion will hopefully die out.

The problem is that neiter USA nor the UK have the capacity to bring in as many troops as needed.

The worst possible thing would be to abandon Iraq and to make another Afghanistan out of it. Today Afghanistan is a complete disaster with war-lord ruling the various provinces and the people suffering worse than under the Taliban regime. Bringing such insecurity to the heart of Middle East would be a disaster for both the region and the world. An unstable Iraq means that the so called "war on terror" is lost.

[WARPIG]

Not all that good of an analysis really. Putting more troops in Iraq is a bad idea. First it is a hard thing to do. Secondly, it would put the US troops in the "opressor" seat. Finding a quick solution to the security issues in Iraq is necessary but not by using US troops. Having more international support would have been very helpful but that doesn't look like it is happening. So, it looks like more concentration will be focused on getting the Iraqi's more involved in governing themselves and taking the "recruiting potential" away from future guerillas and terrorists.
I think that saying the US interest in Iraq was oil all a long is pretty unrealistic too. It was obviously a major factor. But, if you had a choice of countries that you could liberate, which would you choose? One with natural resources that could finance rebuilding itself as well as pay back the cost of going to war in the first place? Or, liberate a country that you would have to fund completely on your own and wouldn't see a potential for return until long after you have rebuilt it?
Saying Saddam wasn't a threat to the middle east is like saying a bear in a cage isn't dangerous. Just because he was being controlled by sanctions doesn't make him less dangerous.
The US has a long road ahead. No doubt. The damage to US foreign relations from this war is historical. I sincerely hope that the situation in Iraq meets with no new surprises. The biggest threat I see to hurt the ability to rebuild Iraq is if the US pulls out. With the anti-Bush vibe going on world wide, and elections around the corner, that may be a strong possibility. If you think putting up with anti-US rhetoric, or "anti-war" sentiments are bad now... just think of the hatred that would emerge if the US gave up! The world may not like the US in Iraq, but they definately don't want US out!

[Erik]

Not all that good of an analysis really. Putting more troops in Iraq is a bad idea. First it is a hard thing to do. Secondly, it would put the US troops in the "opressor" seat. Finding a quick solution to the security issues in Iraq is necessary but not by using US troops. Having more international support would have been very helpful but that doesn't look like it is happening. So, it looks like more concentration will be focused on getting the Iraqi's more involved in governing themselves and taking the "recruiting potential" away from future guerillas and terrorists.
I think that saying the US interest in Iraq was oil all a long is pretty unrealistic too. It was obviously a major factor. But, if you had a choice of countries that you could liberate, which would you choose? One with natural resources that could finance rebuilding itself as well as pay back the cost of going to war in the first place? Or, liberate a country that you would have to fund completely on your own and wouldn't see a potential for return until long after you have rebuilt it?
Saying Saddam wasn't a threat to the middle east is like saying a bear in a cage isn't dangerous. Just because he was being controlled by sanctions doesn't make him less dangerous.
The US has a long road ahead. No doubt. The damage to US foreign relations from this war is historical. I sincerely hope that the situation in Iraq meets with no new surprises. The biggest threat I see to hurt the ability to rebuild Iraq is if the US pulls out. With the anti-Bush vibe going on world wide, and elections around the corner, that may be a strong possibility. If you think putting up with anti-US rhetoric, or "anti-war" sentiments are bad now... just think of the hatred that would emerge if the US gave up! The world may not like the US in Iraq, but they definately don't want US out!

I'm not saying anything. Just wanted to post this analysis made by former military analyst.

Edit: I'm starting to see this conflict in such a different light now that it has almost turned into a disaster. This will be a valuable lesson for the future.

[The Walrus]

It is so not about oil, it was about removing a tyrant, freeing the Iraqi's and it was also about disarming Saddam of his wmd's, he had them in the past, and its better safe then sorry thats why we went in, he used wmd on the Kurds, several thousand dead,

But when he did use them in the past against Iran and the Kurds, the US still supported him and deliberately turned a blind eye to this, but when Saddam had his eye on the biggest oil source in the world (Kuwait+Saudi Arabia) the US suddenly made a U-turn and turned him into a baddie, that's why people are suspicious of Americas motives.

[WARPIG]

US made a U turn? Maybe our policy changed on him but that doesn't mean we just flip flopped on Saddam. We stopped tolerating Saddam. Of course we are going to protect oil interests. Our economy is dependant on it. We never just turned on him for oil though. It is easy to complain that the US didn't police one tyrant and then claim the US thinks it is the world's police when we go after Iraq without everyone's consensus. I think US motives are just open to criticism out of the need for rhetoric. I honestly think the US attitude, and the way we do things are questioned internationally more than US motives.
Really, if all the claims of US "motives" were even remotely true.. do you really think that some little friggin guerillas would get in our way? If our alterior motives are "oil and power" like many in this forum think.. what force on earth could really stop us? We advertised "shock and awe," tactics for the war but switched gears and used more tactical means on the ground. Our incredible armor force never even got out of the gate.
So what is the reason we endure the almost daily loss of American boys at the hands of common thugs? Oil? Please! What kind of idiots do you take Americans for. "Send my loved ones to go fight and die so I can save a few bucks on a tank of gas!" Bull****.
I won't say the American people want to free Iraq for the sake of being conciencious about the struggle of opressed people. I know better. But most Americans know the benefit of a more stable middle eastern world. Is it a pipe dream? In my opinion, yes. But is it worth the risk? Definately.

[front]

Warpig wrote:

"Of course we are going to protect oil interests. Our economy is dependant on it. We never just turned on him for oil though."

You did not... the current US administration did. This administration, in the tradition, is continuing a long term goal of establishing a severe influence in the region (1). Certain administration's 'attitudes' were checked during the Cold War but the aims were always the same.

It came to a head when the Cheney-Rumsfield coalition gained power... and co-incidentally when world oil production peaked (2). Which is why the armoured divisions are rolling about on Iraqi sands.

Iraqs oil is paramount. To even suggest that this is not the reason why Iraq was illegally invaded and occupied is naive. Posit that Iraq was a resource-poor country in Africa,... do you even think that an off-the-leash dictator, albeit US installed yet rabid, would be a threat? Hardly. It may be held up as a threat but in reality it would not be... and neither was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The hypocrisy is almost crystal clear.

These are Third World countries.

They use donkeys to pull carts full of rockets to sneak past the US military and attack anything they want. (3)

They are no military threat to the US mainland... they are only a threat to the US military when they are fighting on their own lands. Yet you think that the US military can "Iron Hammer" them? They are not going to give up.

And Warpig wrote:

"Really, if all the claims of US "motives" were even remotely true.. do you really think that some little friggin guerillas would get in our way?"

Well your statement is just hubris... because they ARE getting in "your" way. There is no such thing as "little friggin guerillas". They are guerillas... they create a "little war" and no military in the world has a competent doctrine to defeat them. Ever. This is known. The only way to knock them out in the short term is to attempt to drain the ocean they swim in... which is genocide, or ethnic cleansing, as in Vietnam, or as the Turks attempted in the 1990s (4). And... there are many more examples.

So they are getting in your way. With donkeys... pulling carts.

And Warpig wrote:

"So what is the reason we endure the almost daily loss of American boys at the hands of common thugs?"

Well... you may be "enduring" it but the families of the dead are not... nor are their friends. Nor is the US population, according to the latest polls and NOR is Bush as he is ready to pull the "boys" out so he can be elected next year. I'll remind you that a similar argument was pushed during the 1960s until the US people could not "endure" it anymore apparently. I guess enough memorials went up in enough towns to remind people that endurance is relative.

And Warpig wrote:

"What kind of idiots do you take Americans for. "Send my loved ones to go fight and die so I can save a few bucks on a tank of gas!" Bull****. "

You see this is the crux of the matter. I don't take Americans for idiots at all. Yet I am appalled by your simplistic notion that the majority of US citizens thought that they were going to benefit from this war in economic terms. Of course they did not think that! But the owners of the oil corporations will. The savings in oil revenues will NOT show up at the pump my friend. We know that.

The majority of Amercians did not think that they were to send their loved ones off to fight for oil at all!

They were told that Saddam was going to kill them... and they believed it!

Now they don't... and they don't like it. You tried to dodge the issue... nice spin-attempt but it failed.

And Warpig wrote:

"I won't say the American people want to free Iraq for the sake of being conciencious about the struggle of opressed people. I know better. But most Americans know the benefit of a more stable middle eastern world."

Did you also know that a significant minority of Amercians still consider themselves oppressed? (5) They still watch the KKK march around the countryside (6).

The "more stable middle eastern world"...?! Hahahahaha!

US foreign policy is about destabilisation in the Middle East and has alway been. It might not be the US people's idea but it sure as sheeeeeet is the administrations. Keep 'them' at each others throats... manufacture enemies, support one (7) and then the other. It is only when countries become "stabilised" (read: anti-US foreign policy) that they become a threat.

Your reading of the situation is a lot different than mine, eh? :-)

cheers

front

Sources:

(1) The muddle the US Middle East policy is : http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/august/muddle.htm

(2) HAS WORLD CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION PEAKED?, Joseph Dancy, LSGI Advisors Inc. : http://members.aol.com/LSInvestor/smu1/

(3) http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39510000/jpg/_39510010_donkey_ap203body.jpg : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3226890.stm

(4) The Elephant in the Room Being Ignored in the Iraq Debate [p.8 et al.]: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/2-21-2003.1.html

(5) Minorities at Risk : http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/data/ushispan.htm

(6) [imc-tennessee] KKK rally for Saturday 3/29 : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-tennessee/2003-March/000127.html

(7) Iraq and America: a long, strange trip : http://www.msnbc.com/news/812805.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg