Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06</blockquote>

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

<blockquote>I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91</blockquote>

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

 

[CSM]

.... Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

Ah, getting your excuses ready early, eh?

 

[no1tovote4]

I notice that you ignored the part where the same guy stated that we cannot leave Iraq at this time without putting the US in danger....

I guess it's all good to pretend he didn't say that rather than be honest, it wouldn't support your assertion that this is "exactly like Vietnam".

It isn't. Vietnam had no way to reach our shores, these people have already proven that they can. Leaving before there is some kind of stability would be more than foolish, it would provide them a stanchion whereon to build future direct attacks.

 

[dmp]

Bully - do you get ALL your info from 'talking points' of various organizations? Have you personally SPOKEN to any Iraqi War Vets?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I notice that you ignored the part where the same guy stated that we cannot leave Iraq at this time without putting the US in danger....

I guess it's all good to pretend he didn't say that rather than be honest, it wouldn't support your assertion that this is "exactly like Vietnam".

It isn't. Vietnam had no way to reach our shores, these people have already proven that they can. Leaving before there is some kind of stability would be more than foolish, it would provide them a stanchion whereon to build future direct attacks.

There was no need to belabor the obvious...You've already done that for me. but think, what a horrible thing to say to our soldiers in Iraq. "There's no way to win militarily, but we're going to leave you in harm's way anyways." What a horrible betrayal of the trust our troops have that their sacrifices won't be in vain.

And, while there are few similarites to Viet Nam militarily, it is in the political arena that the similarities are most striking. Just as Lyndon Johnson advocated a "stay the course" policy, I won't dignify it with the term "strategy", so too does this President advocate staying the course, with no real strategy apparent. Just as in Viet Nam, it is the politicians who are driving the policy, not the generals on the ground. Just as in Viet Nam, our troops will be left in harm's way until the politicians have decided that they have saved enough face. How can Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in this failed administration, ask any of our soldiers to be the last one to die for a mistake?

 

[Gunny]

<blockquote>"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06</blockquote>

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

<blockquote>I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91</blockquote>

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

Hate to pull the rug out from under one of your rants, but we ALREADY won our military victory, and quite convincingly.

While you attempt to lay all blame at the feet of President Bush, as usual, it is bureaucracy, political correctness, and/or appeasement that is making the democratization of Iraq such a chore. Maybe if you libs would lay off the rhetoric and insisting on fighting by some arbitrary set of rules/morals -- y'all always seem to have a lot of compassion for the enemies of the US but NONE for unborn babies here at home -- we might be able to get somewhere.

You're dreaming if you think some politician -- regardless the party -- is going to come in after this administration and suddenly have a clue. Anyone with a brain ALREADY knows the answers, and NONE are conducive to geopolitics.

 

[1549]

Hate to pull the rug out from under one of your rants, but we ALREADY won our military victory, and quite convincingly.

Hahahaha...oh wait, you are serious?

While you attempt to lay all blame at the feet of President Bush, as usual, it is bureaucracy, political correctness, and/or appeasement that is making the democratization of Iraq such a chore. Maybe if you libs would lay off the rhetoric and insisting on fighting by some arbitrary set of rules/morals -- y'all always seem to have a lot of compassion for the enemies of the US but NONE for unborn babies here at home -- we might be able to get somewhere.

You're dreaming if you think some politician -- regardless the party -- is going to come in after this administration and suddenly have a clue. Anyone with a brain ALREADY knows the answers, and NONE are conducive to geopolitics.

Lets do it the old way!!! Lets blow 'em away and install a brutal pro-American dictator!!!! Then, 50 years from now Iraqis can take over our embassy and hold U.S. citizens hostage. Of course Americans are rather clueless when it comes to historical cause and effect, so we can all ask: "why would they do such a thing?"

Great idea Gunny...where can I sign up?

 

[Gunny]

Hahahaha...oh wait, you are serious?

As serious as you are stupid. The military invasion of Iraq and deposition of Saddam Hussein and his government was carried out flawlessly. That is the ONLY military operation using military personnel commanded by military leaders to achieve a military goal I am aware of in Iraq.


Lets do it the old way!!! Lets blow 'em away and install a brutal pro-American dictator!!!! Then, 50 years from now Iraqis can take over our embassy and hold U.S. citizens hostage. Of course Americans are rather clueless when it comes to historical cause and effect, so we can all ask: "why would they do such a thing?"

Great idea Gunny...where can I sign up?

What would you know about "the old way" other than what you've read in a book, punk?

I'm sure you're naive enough to believe that if we leave Islamic extremists alone they will leave us alone because you've proven yourself just dumb enough to, but you're wrong.

I guarantee you that if US forces start aggressively hunting these idiots down and blowing them away, sooner or later they're going to wake up to the fact they're outmatched and the mortality rate isn't worth the occupation.

But as long as pussies like you permeate our society, standing and fighting long enough to outlast an enemy won't happen. Thank God people like you either didn't exist or hid under your beds quivering during WW II.

 

[shepherdboy]

I wish our military was allowed to fight its enemies without the kid gloves on. The enemies of the United State has yet to see the full capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States. What a wake up call that would be to the critic's.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I wish our military was allowed to fight its enemies without the kid gloves on. The enemies of the United State has yet to see the full capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States. What a wake up call that would be to the critic's.

Then get the political hacks in the Bush administration out of the way. If they had actually listened to ANYTHING anyone in the military told them in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't have gone there to begin with.

 

[Redhots]

Vietnam had no way to reach our shores, these people have already proven that they can.

How many of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq again?

 

[Hobbit]

How many of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq again?

I've heard this argument again and again. It's like asking how many of the Pearl Harbor pilots were from Germany. You know what?

Picture courtesy of maddox.xmission.com, The Best Page in the Universe.

 

[jillian]

I've heard this argument again and again. It's like asking how many of the Pearl Harbor pilots were from Germany. You know what?

Nobody? I'd say that isn't quite true.

By the way, in case you weren't aware of it, Germany and Japan were allied so an attack by one brought us into the war against the other.

The question was valid.... attacking Iraq when we were attacked by Saudis trained in Afghanistan was akin to attacking Mexico after we were attacked by Japan. And now we're left to clean up the mess.

 

[no1tovote4]

How many of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq again?

Are we ignoring that there are Al Qaeda in Iraq? Once again, this particular war, unlike Korea, has the possibility of striking our shores if we leave early. Don't be delibertately obtuse.

 

[no1tovote4]

Nobody? I'd say that isn't quite true.

By the way, in case you weren't aware of it, Germany and Japan were allied so an attack by one brought us into the war against the other.

The question was valid.... attacking Iraq when we were attacked by Saudis trained in Afghanistan was akin to attacking Mexico after we were attacked by Japan. And now we're left to clean up the mess.

Once again, we either deal with the current reality or we pretend we can ignore it to argue the entrance to the current reality. There is Al Qaeda in Iraq. On this very board I have read lefties insist we were helping to train Terrorists because we went there. Assuming that they are correct, and I think they likely are, this particular war is still unique from VN because it WILL reach our shore if we are foolish in how we leave Iraq. Pretending otherwise for a quick "escape" will put us in danger.

Now, we can talk about how we didn't want to go to Iraq for our various reasons, but it still will not change this current reality.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I guess you arent aware of it, but, in vietnam, we had finally defeated and driven the viet cong back to N vietnam. They were defeated. It was after we left, with the promise to support S vietnam if they were attacked, when the MILITARY of N vietnam ran through and took over S Vietnam. But the Viet Cong, who are similiar to the "insurgents" were defeated.

Also, interestingly enough, this is the first time in history that an insurgency, or garilla type warfare had the resistence people blowing up and killing, murdering their own people

One thing is for sure, they are so busy killing each other, that the terrorists dont seem to have enough resources to think about the US mainland.

<blockquote>"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06</blockquote>

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

<blockquote>I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91</blockquote>

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Are we ignoring that there are Al Qaeda in Iraq? Once again, this particular war, unlike Korea, has the possibility of striking our shores if we leave early. Don't be delibertately obtuse.

Yes...Yes...Yes...And guess what!?! (I'll write slowly so you understand...) Al Qaeda...wasn't...there...before...the...US...invasion...and...occupation...of...Iraq.

Had we kept our focus on Afghanistan and not allowed Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders to escape, this would all be a moot point. But we didn't, and now we've a mess of colossal and historic proportions to clean up.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I guess you arent aware of it, but, in vietnam, we had finally defeated and driven the viet cong back to N vietnam. They were defeated. It was after we left, with the promise to support S vietnam if they were attacked, when the MILITARY of N vietnam ran through and took over S Vietnam. But the Viet Cong, who are similiar to the "insurgents" were defeated.

Also, interestingly enough, this is the first time in history that an insurgency, or garilla type warfare had the resistence people blowing up and killing, murdering their own people

One thing is for sure, they are so busy killing each other, that the terrorists dont seem to have enough resources to think about the US mainland.

In case you don't remember, after Gulf War I, Poppy Bush promised support to the Arabs in Southern Iraq who were rising up against Saddam's regime. Instead, all they got was to be left swinging in the breeze as Saddam's helicopter gunships and cargo chopers full of troops entered the putative "'No-fly Zone" over southern Iraq. There, they proceeded to slaughter the rebels against Saddam.

And you might want to review your history of the Viet Nam conflict. Sounds like you got most of it from Sean Hannity's talking points.

 

[Gunny]

How many of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq again?

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Arab, Islamic extremists?

 

[Gunny]

Nobody? I'd say that isn't quite true.

By the way, in case you weren't aware of it, Germany and Japan were allied so an attack by one brought us into the war against the other.

The question was valid.... attacking Iraq when we were attacked by Saudis trained in Afghanistan was akin to attacking Mexico after we were attacked by Japan. And now we're left to clean up the mess.

Actually it's more like asking how many US troops involved in Operation Overlord were from Maine. It's irrelevant.