When Will Iraq's Tet Offensive Begin? » Forum Post by Artysim

The Tet Offensive was nothing more than when the scummy lying sack of entrails better known as "Walter Chronkite" secured his place as a hero of Ho Chi Minh. His lie was no less destructive than the Gulf of Tonkin lies.

If there is ever an "Iraq Tet Offensive" it will be the same... The moment the press crosses the line from merely reporting against the U.S. to joining the enemy and once again proving their treachery.

Hillary and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha (and any other U.S. leader of either party) should all put their money where their mouths are. If there is honor in quitting, they should all quit and go home now.

Yes, the enemy has had successes, but we do our troops and our nation a disservice when we amplify the enemy successes and downplay U.S. and Iraq successes.

Propaganda is 90% of any war. It is disgusting that so many U.S. leaders are willing to be part of the enemy's "90%".

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

The moment the press crosses the line from merely reporting against the U.S. to joining the enemy and once again proving their treachery.

The media has already done that by publishing enemy propganda stories.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The media already did it's deed by supporting the lies that got us into this war. But back to the topic... The only valid comparison between the situation in Iraq and the Vietnam war is they were/are both quagmires. The Iraq war was over in 2003. What we're doing now is occupying the country.

The surge has worked somewhat with the "clear, hold, and build" strategy," but we don't have enough military personnel for it to lead to success in Iraq. To achieve success would require the strategy to be implemented throughout the entire country. We're also shorthanded in Afghanistan which is why Al Qaeda is gaining a foothold.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, the enemy has had successes, but we do our troops and our nation a disservice when we amplify the enemy successes and downplay U.S. and Iraq successes.

Fair enough. The question is, how much is being amplified and how much is being downplayed? I've always believed that the press should be as critical as possible.... as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Personally, I believe the news from Iraq has been about as pro-U.S as possible. No matter which way you spin it though, 5 years after we "won"

The Green Zone is still being shelled, and various armed groups have the capability and means to lob mortars at it as they please. Five years after WW 2, U.S headquarters in Germany was not being regularly attacked (not comparing this to WW2, apples and oranges I know, just saying is all)

There are still well armed and organized groups capable of fighting the Iraqi government to a standstill, despite the surge and multiple efforts to get rid of these groups.

The media already did it's deed by supporting the lies that got us into this war. But back to the topic... The only valid comparison between the situation in Iraq and the Vietnam war is they were/are both quagmires. The Iraq war was over in 2003. What we're doing now is occupying the country.

I agree, Iraq and Vietnam are completely different. In Vietnam for example 1 in 3 U.S personnel was not a contractor like in Iraq...some estimates now say that 1 in 2 U.S personnel in Iraq are contractors, but this is impossible to verify as the organization put in charge of overseeing all the contractors in Iraq..... is also a contractor! In regards to Tet, there could definitely come a moment when leaders have to publicly admit that the surge is not working and was largely based on the co-operation of multiple armed groups as opposed to the military might of the U.S.

Other similarities are that some countries are very happy the U.S still has 158,000 troops in Iraq five years later, just as many countries were happy that the U.S was tied up in Vietnam for so long. Five years of continuous combat deployments have worn down the U.S military (in men and materiel) that it WILL require a significant re-org once all the troops come home, whenever that may be....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Arty:

Fair enough. The question is, how much is being amplified and how much is being downplayed? I've always believed that the press should be as critical as possible.... as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Personally, I believe the news from Iraq has been about as pro-U.S as possible. No matter which way you spin it though, 5 years after we "won"

Any word from a terrorist leader is still taken as gospel by the press and the left, while Gen. Petraus is still being considered a liar before he even opens his mouth (although I will admit that Congress treated him a lot better this time).

Tell me the one about "pro US" again? ROFL

Successfully updated karma reason!

considering previous occupations and how they ended...

I am from West-Berlin.

I lived most of my life in West-Berlin under American occupation.

Can you tell me, in reasonable detail, how that occupation ended?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leauki, that's getting tricky. If you count occupation as "US troops still stationed there", the "occuption" is still on going. Having said that, the troops were still in West Berlin because of the armistice treaty splitting control of the city. At that point, I wouldn't call it an occupation, because any troops present were there due to a treaty agreement, not because of being victors in a conflict. So... by that second definition, about 1946 ... and it ended by the Soviet Bloc trying to starve everyone one on the free side of Checkpoint Charlie.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A very interesting question that has been answered already. The last few weeks was the Iraqi version of Tet. It succeeded just as well as the Vietnam Tet, and had the same initial results only this time instead of a respected liberal standing on television and declaring that the war was lost, people remembered Tet and waited to see what was true. When all was said and done facts that were not facts were cleared up and people looked at the whole picture rather than a snap shot of the day.

The thousands of Iraqi troops that deserted turned out to be local police not the army in numbers far smaller than in the thousands. The chief difference is that the propagandist could not dispute the fact that the bad guys lost this one and lost badly. The leader Al Sauder (not sure of the spelling I will just call him numb nuts) has already offered his surrender and disbandment of his army. This shocked the liberals of our country that believed we were losing and the attacks were proof of our inability to win. As the last hold out of the unification of the nation numb nuts still living in Iran found he had even less support than when he fled to Iran and could not sustain his offensive.

As far as rescuing the leader of Iraq as a sign of failure what would it say if we allowed him to get killed? We don’t even let the president enter areas that are dangerous why we would let a friend do the same would be hypocritical.

With the fact that there remain tens of thousands of well armed, experienced combatants in Iraq who do not share any love for the U.S, I cannot help but wonder when the Iraqi version of Tet will come.

This is true but you fail to understand the mindset of that region. In that part of the world if you lose you are killed. Your family is killed everyone that supported you is killed. You have to be perceived as the winner before anyone will join you or you are a nonstarter. Numb nuts was thought of as the best chance for winning against the evil invaders. He is leaking troops and even he in his deluded mind sees the truth that he can’t win so now he is switching sides again.

The Green Zone is still being shelled, and various armed groups have the capability and means to lob mortars at it as they please. Five years after WW 2, U.S headquarters in Germany was not being regularly attacked (not comparing this to WW2, apples and oranges I know, just saying is all)

Five years after WWII the Soviet Union was not funding insurgents, the nation surrendered and up to six years after the war troops were still being killed. In Iraq you have Iran funding anyone and everyone that will pick up a gun and that is not enough. So far we have captured three Iranian generals of the Special Forces as well as almost a battalion of Iranian troops. The Iraqis want peace and are not joining the revolution as planned. Remove Iran from the equation and you have a few thousand diehards with no leadership. Iran is the problem at this point and with the problems they are having in their own country they can’t afford to break bad anymore. This was their next to last hurrah, the president of Iran ( I call him puss nuts) never had popular support and the clerics are not supporting him as they once did.

I agree, Iraq and Vietnam are completely different. In Vietnam for example 1 in 3 U.S personnel was not a contractor like in Iraq...some estimates now say that 1 in 2 U.S personnel in Iraq are contractors, but this is impossible to verify as the organization put in charge of overseeing all the contractors in Iraq..... is also a contractor! In regards to Tet, there could definitely come a moment when leaders have to publicly admit that the surge is not working and was largely based on the co-operation of multiple armed groups as opposed to the military might of the U.S.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, the leader of the opposition which is living in Iran for safety reasons has offered to disband the only militia that is fighting in this war and this leads you to believe the surge is not working. AQ in Iraq has been proven to not be made up of Iraqis but people from other countries. AQ dispatches that have been captured prove this and those same dispatches admit two years ago that the war was lost and would have been over long ago had not Iran not gotten involved. This is your proof that the surge is not working?

Other similarities are that some countries are very happy the U.S still has 158,000 troops in Iraq five years later, just as many countries were happy that the U.S was tied up in Vietnam for so long. Five years of continuous combat deployments have worn down the U.S military (in men and materiel) that it WILL require a significant re-org once all the troops come home, whenever that may be....

Okay, I will try to understand this one as well. 158k troops out of a 2 million man (person) military are deployed in the area. 158k troops is just a little more than the war fighters on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, which is the smallest offensive force in the U.S. Military. What I am saying is that if we wanted to we could take all the active duty Marines around the world and put them in the region and send the army, navy and air force home for a year. Instead we are using our second and third line troops (the reservists) to fill in the blanks keeping our best trained people in reserve just in case someone acts stupid. This is not to say that our second and third level people are worse they just don’t have the intensive training as our first line troops. They are getting what we call OJT on the job training. The bad guys are not good enough to warrent sending in our first line of troops.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leauki, that's getting tricky. If you count occupation as "US troops still stationed there", the "occuption" is still on going. Having said that, the troops were still in West Berlin because of the armistice treaty splitting control of the city. At that point, I wouldn't call it an occupation, because any troops present were there due to a treaty agreement, not because of being victors in a conflict.

What is getting tricky?

There might still be US troops stationed in Berlin (I doubt it), but they certainly don't have any privileges or legal power over the population any more.

West-Berlin was officially occupied territory until 1994 (or 1990 if you will).

For the first few years the US army was certainly an enemy army occupying enemy territory.

But using your (valid) definition of a treaty agreement allowing troops to stay, West-Berlin was occupied until 1990 and subject of a treaty from 1990 to 1994, while Iraq was occupied for a year or so and has been subject to a treaty since that time.

If you want to say that a treaty allowing troops to stay ends an occupation, you have seen the end of the occupation of Iraq several years ago. But in the case of West-Berlin there was no such treaty until the end of the cold war and no souvereign representative of the city to sign it.

There was no elected government in West-Berlin except the one acting on behalf of the allied forces.

Iraq has its own army, West-Berlin did not. (The German army had no presence in the city.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

The media already did it's deed by supporting the lies that got us into this war.

Great discussion except for this statement. Yea, Dan Rather is so Pro Bush, he even did a puff piece and lied to do it in September of 04.

Yea right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great discussion except for this statement. Yea, Dan Rather is so Pro Bush, he even did a puff piece and lied to do it in September of 04.

Be nice Doc, not everyone can remember that far back accurately. Some suffer from old timers and others were so busy rooting for their guy that they blinded themselves to the truth and what you see as old news is new to them, it takes a while for it to filter down to everyone. Most of the opposition is still trying to defeat President Bush in the 2000 election and don't know that Mr. Bush is done with politics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The media already did it's deed by supporting the lies that got us into this war.Great discussion except for this statement. Yea, Dan Rather is so Pro Bush, he even did a puff piece and lied to do it in September of 04.Yea right.

I disagree. That is the highlight of the discussion.

We had people like Judith Miller from the NY Times spreading lies to help Bush make his case for going to war.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Paladin

Five years after WWII the Soviet Union was not funding insurgents, the nation surrendered and up to six years after the war troops were still being killed. In Iraq you have Iran funding anyone and everyone that will pick up a gun and that is not enough. So far we have captured three Iranian generals of the Special Forces as well as almost a battalion of Iranian troops. The Iraqis want peace and are not joining the revolution as planned. Remove Iran from the equation and you have a few thousand diehards with no leadership. Iran is the problem at this point and with the problems they are having in their own country they can’t afford to break bad anymore. This was their next to last hurrah, the president of Iran ( I call him puss nuts) never had popular support and the clerics are not supporting him as they once did.

I guesss we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Five years after the end of WW2, the American headquarters in Germany was NOT being regularly shelled. While service personnel overseas have always had to use caution when leaving the base, five years into the American occupation of Germany, service members did not have to worry about being ambushed by squad or platoon sized organized attacks, nor did they require up-armoured jeeps to scoot around due to regular IED attacks.

I also disagree about Al Sadr. His movement is not anywhere near close to disbanding, and the actions in Basra and abroad succeeded in actually strengthening his militia. For the record, Al Sadr has less support from Iran than the militia allied with the government (Badr brigades) so there is quite a lot of confusion as to who is on which side.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, the leader of the opposition which is living in Iran for safety reasons has offered to disband the only militia that is fighting in this war and this leads you to believe the surge is not working.

He has said he would disband his militia if certain conditions were met. He has always said this, since before the failed U.S attempt to kick him out of power back in 2004. If the ayatollahs tell him to stand down, he will. They haven't, so he won't. At the end of the day, time will tell. I don't think his forces are going to disappear anytime soon.

Okay, I will try to understand this one as well. 158k troops out of a 2 million man (person) military are deployed in the area. 158k troops is just a little more than the war fighters on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, which is the smallest offensive force in the U.S. Military

If this were 1989 or 1990, you would be correct. Since the end of GW1 the U.S military has drastically downsized their combat arms and outsourced significant portions to private contractors (although monetary expenditures have skyrocketed on advanced weapons research, big ticket items like new nuclear subs and of course the ever increasing gravy train of cost plus contracts for the new outsourced fighting force) This was tied in with Rumsfelds supposedly great vision of a leaner more agile combat force as opposed to the traditional big army that goes toe to toe with other big armies in massive tank battles. At minimum, 1 in 3 U.S personnel in Iraq are private contractors right now, partly because these private companies LOVE to make profit off of your tax dollars, and partly because the U.S military is having difficulty maintaining regular rotations in country. Most of the 158,000 personnel in Iraq right now are not actual infantry or armour but comprise the much larger support base. If the personnel situation were as rosy as you put it-

you would not have vets that have done as many as 3 or 4 tours in Iraq

you would not have rotations that in some cases have lasted 15 months or longer

you would not have had stop-loss

And, the fact that Collin Powell has publicly stated that he believes the U.S military is effectively broken due to continuous long term deployment, and will require several years to re-org once this whole shebang is over (if it ever is over)

Also keep in mind that the U.S has almost 30,000 additional in Afghanistan, and NATO is requesting more because the Taliban is not anywhere near done having their fun yet.

I may come across as being anti-U.S but I assure you that is not the case- I do think that honest assessments of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the first casualties in this war. I do believe that most of the fighters in Iraq are NOT foreigners, nor are they terrorists. I believe most of the fighters in Iraq are home grown insurgents, that is why five years later they can still succesfully shell the green zone and then melt into the background- because they are on their own turf.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I may come across as being anti-U.S but I assure you that is not the case- I do think that honest assessments of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the first casualties in this war. I do believe that most of the fighters in Iraq are NOT foreigners, nor are they terrorists. I believe most of the fighters in Iraq are home grown insurgents, that is why five years later they can still succesfully shell the green zone and then melt into the background- because they are on their own turf.

You're right. What many people are calling Iraqi terrorists are actually just Iraqi civilians trying to take their country back. Being anti Bush policies is not the same as being anti-US. In fact, being pro Bush policies is anti-US because of the damaging effect those policies have had on our country.

Successfully updated karma reason!

He has said he would disband his militia if certain conditions were met. He has always said this, since before the failed U.S attempt to kick him out of power back in 2004. If the ayatollahs tell him to stand down, he will. They haven't, so he won't. At the end of the day, time will tell. I don't think his forces are going to disappear anytime soon.

Yes, and he came out to say it again while in exile, and after his little surge failed to rally more troops. It was a test that proved he was not being supported at home as he once was.

If we failed to kick him out of power why is he now based in Iran rather than in Iraq? Or is this his version of redeployment as the liberals wish to do with our troops? Sure he is in charge of his little army but that army is dwindling every day.

If this were 1989 or 1990, you would be correct. Since the end of GW1 the U.S military has drastically downsized their combat arms and outsourced significant portions to private contractors (although monetary expenditures have skyrocketed on advanced weapons research, big ticket items like new nuclear subs and of course the ever increasing gravy train of cost plus contracts for the new outsourced fighting force) This was tied in with Rumsfelds supposedly great vision of a leaner more agile combat force as opposed to the traditional big army that goes toe to toe with other big armies in massive tank battles. At minimum, 1 in 3 U.S personnel in Iraq are private contractors right now, partly because these private companies LOVE to make profit off of your tax dollars, and partly because the U.S military is having difficulty maintaining regular rotations in country. Most of the 158,000 personnel in Iraq right now are not actual infantry or armour but comprise the much larger support base. If the personnel situation were as rosy as you put it-

Ok, when I was in the corps we had 190k active duty marines, when I got out Mr. Clinton was president the numbers had dropped to about 150k troops depending on if you include non-combatants such as women in the service. Even if the Corps dropped to 80k it would still be enough to play in Iraq with a little help of the Army. In the real world unlike the one you are in, “The United States Marine Corps, with 186,342 active duty and 40,000 reserve Marines as of November 30, 2007,” this is from the marine corps website. Oh by the way they are expected to ramp up to 202K within the next 5 years. You see there is only one Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq, that is roughly a few thousand marines, its parent unit a Marine Expeditionary Force is comprised of 60K troops and there are three of them on active duty around the world. The MEU’s are rotated from the three MEF’s so no one unit is stuck with servicing Iraq. Yes if you volunteer you can go back as many times as you wish, and if you are a reservist your unit will go back more often than active duty personnel. So when we dropped in numbers GW brought the numbers up and will exceed the numbers of troops from when I was in the service.

you would not have vets that have done as many as 3 or 4 tours in Iraq
you would not have rotations that in some cases have lasted 15 months or longer
you would not have had stop-loss

Yes you would on all of those things. You don’t understand what is happening and with your ignorance you are filling in what you don’t know with guesses. It is not your fault because you are not an American and you are not a member of the military so seeing the way things are done seem strange to you. Hell we have Americans that were in the military and use the funny way things are done to advance their cause because it is so difficult to explain in a 20 second sound bite. This is why people believe we are losing when we are winning. Just like in Vietnam we were winning and told we were losing so we pulled out and lost a war we were winning. You and others are getting the same type of bad information. Remember the mission accomplished sign on the aircraft carrier? It was there for the sailors who were coming home but the political opposition shaped the attack and argument to make it look like the president was saying the war was over. And people believed it, in fact all the president said was offensive actions were at an end. Misinformation has helped prolong the war and get more people killed just to make the president look bad so they could win the last election. It did not work but the troops are still dead, thanks!

I may come across as being anti-U.S but I assure you that is not the case- I do think that honest assessments of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the first casualties in this war. I do believe that most of the fighters in Iraq are NOT foreigners, nor are they terrorists. I believe most of the fighters in Iraq are home grown insurgents, that is why five years later they can still succesfully shell the green zone and then melt into the background- because they are on their own turf.

I understand your points but you fail to realize that you are being fed bad information you say the military is far less than what is actually is in numbers yet if you bothered to look the factual information is all there and in the open. This is not some right wing news organization like CNN or the CBC it is the Marine Corps own site overseen by congress which means if the information is false people can go to jail.

Like I told you before the military has over 2 million troops to play with and we are only moving around 158k a year. If need be then we can call up whole reserve units but that would be bad and very serious instead we are calling up this little unit and that one to give them combat experience.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're right. What many people are calling Iraqi terrorists are actually just Iraqi civilians trying to take their country back. Being anti Bush policies is not the same as being anti-US. In fact, being pro Bush policies is anti-US because of the damaging effect those policies have had on our country.

Funny you should say that, the only governments opposed to what we are doing is Iran, France was against us but they elected a pro American president and that opposition is over, Germany was against us but they elected a pro American chancellor and that opposition is over, Russia was against us but have been quiet since they started having the same type of attacks we were suffering prior to 9/11 and Spain changed its mind and is still being attacked by home terrorist. Keep in mind that the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia were also receiving money from Iraq until the fall of that country then their opposition sort of died with the Iraqi leader.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're right. What many people are calling Iraqi terrorists are actually just Iraqi civilians trying to take their country back.

What makes you say that? Did you talk to the terrorists? Did they tell you that the people who blew up the Golden Mosque were just "civilians" trying to "take their country back"?

How do you know the foreign terrorists are civilians trying to take their country back? Maybe the vast majority of Iraqis who are protesting the terror attacks, who are cooperating with the US, and who are voting for parties that want the US to stay are not the true Iraqis?

Do you even know anything about Iraq except what your stupid assumptions make you believe?

Anyway, this is what is going on in Iraq at the moment:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/04/builders-of-nat.php

"Benmeister", you are an idiot. "Civilians trying to take their country back"... these people are sending kids with bombs into marketplaces, killing Iraqis, NOT evil occupation troops, IRAQIs. Strange way to "take their country back", especially considering that the terrorists are mostly from Jordan and Saudi-Arabia.

Successfully updated karma reason!

these people are sending kids with bombs into marketplaces, killing Iraqis, NOT evil occupation troops, IRAQIs. Strange way to "take their country back

The Lex Luthor approach - kill everyone and then buy up the land cheap.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok, when I was in the corps we had 190k active duty marines, when I got out Mr. Clinton was president the numbers had dropped to about 150k troops depending on if you include non-combatants such as women in the service. Even if the Corps dropped to 80k it would still be enough to play in Iraq with a little help of the Army. In the real world unlike the one you are in, “The United States Marine Corps, with 186,342 active duty and 40,000 reserve Marines as of November 30, 2007,” this is from the marine corps website. Oh by the way they are expected to ramp up to 202K within the next 5 years. You see there is only one Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq, that is roughly a few thousand marines, its parent unit a Marine Expeditionary Force is comprised of 60K troops and there are three of them on active duty around the world. The MEU’s are rotated from the three MEF’s so no one unit is stuck with servicing Iraq. Yes if you volunteer you can go back as many times as you wish, and if you are a reservist your unit will go back more often than active duty personnel. So when we dropped in numbers GW brought the numbers up and will exceed the numbers of troops from when I was in the service.

Ok, well, apparently the Army Vice Chief of Staff and his Marine Counterpart (General Robert Magnus) must both be evil liberal scum, because they're both saying that the Army and Marines are hurting and not capable of sustaining the current tempo of operations without hurting the strategic situation abroad- as per that evil, evil liberal biased news site MSN (Ha!)

"An annual Pentagon report this year found there was a significant risk that the U.S. military could not quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world. The classified risk assessment concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, are to blame"

The whole article can be found here- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24036546

The last general who told it like it is- General Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, warned that this would happen. He also spoke about the fact that the army had been downsized from 12 to 10 divisions but many planners were still making their projections based on the 12 division model. Most pointedly, before the invasion of Iraq, he was asked by senior government officials about troop levels required in Iraq after the war. He openly stated that it would require several hundred thousand troops for several years (including the tens of thousands of "security contractors" aka mercenaries now employed in Iraq, his estimate proved to be right on the money) Rumsfeld and his aides (all civillians) called the commander of the Army's estimates to be "wildly off the mark" and basically fired him (technically, he retired early shortly after his testimony)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Funny you should say that, the only governments opposed to what we are doing is Iran, France was against us but they elected a pro American president and that opposition is over, Germany was against us but they elected a pro American chancellor and that opposition is over, Russia was against us but have been quiet since they started having the same type of attacks we were suffering prior to 9/11 and Spain changed its mind and is still being attacked by home terrorist. Keep in mind that the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia were also receiving money from Iraq until the fall of that country then their opposition sort of died with the Iraqi leader.

Yes, this is why all the other governments have sent their troops to Iraq to help (oh wait, sorry, got that wrong. Even the brits are trying to get out now) As I've said before, many nations are indeed happy that the U.S is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It means they're effectively tied down and unable to invade any other countries.

How do you know the foreign terrorists are civilians trying to take their country back? Maybe the vast majority of Iraqis who are protesting the terror attacks, who are cooperating with the US, and who are voting for parties that want the US to stay are not the true Iraqis?

Well, we'll see when the next elections come about in October. IF all the insurgents really are foreign terrorists, then the U.S has gone the wrong way in defeating them. The only way that guerilla movements can survive against superior firepower (which the U.S forces possess in abundance) is with the support of the people. If the people do not support the insurgency, then they have nowhere to hide- people would be reporting their locations and identities, and the Iraqi army and U.S military would be easily able to hunt them down and take them out.

This is nothing new. The british learned this through many decades of "police" actions in various countries around the globe in which they were fighting various guerrilla groups. The truth is that if you can win the majority of the population to your side, the resistance movement will die. The whole hearts and minds thing, right? Well, if the U.S really had the support of the people there would be no insurgency right now. The fighting in Basra would have been short lived and Al Sadr's movement would be nonexistent.

Well, if the goal was to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we sure are going about it the wrong way- U.S aircraft dropped more than 222,000 pounds of munitions in Iraq in 2007, almost 4 times the amount of aerial munitions dropped in 2006. The argument that all of these air-strikes have been pin-pointed on insurgents is also bunk.

In a raid in May 2007 on Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad, "American forces called in an air strike on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to ambush the American and Iraqi troops on the raid . . . and five people suspected of being 'terrorists' . . . were killed in the attack. But an Interior Ministry official and residents of Sadr City said the cars were parked in a line of vehicles waiting at a gas station"

The counter-argument to this is that this was an unfortunate, but isolated incident. Collateral dammage. Most of the bombs fall on the bad guys, right? Saddly, there is no such thing as a true smart bomb that will only hit the bad guys, especially in a dense urban environment. These "incidents" are anything but isolated, and only contribute to the dissent against the U.S occupation.

Leauki, I respect your input especially because you grew up in West Germany- but please answer me this-

five years after the end of the war, were the U.S troops dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of bombs inside populated West German cities?

How many of your friends had their doors kicked down in the middle of the night by American troops, who then threw a black bag over the fathers head and dragged him out with no explanation, maybe to come home weeks or months later with no charges against him and the only rationale for his arrest that someone had told them he might be a terrorist?

How often did West German civillians lose their lives because they drove too close to an American convoy, who was only practicing their policy of "force protection" and opening fire on cars that got too close?

As long as the U.S has the mistaken belief that terrorism can be defeated from 30,000 feet, America will be stuck in Iraq.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're right. What many people are calling Iraqi terrorists are actually just Iraqi civilians trying to take their country back. Being anti Bush policies is not the same as being anti-US. In fact, being pro Bush policies is anti-US because of the damaging effect those policies have had on our country.

Ok. I'm game. How have bush's policies been so damaging? Be specific.

Also, "take back their country"? You mean, to where it was under Saddam? You think Iraqi's are wishing for those days back?

Yes. I think a lot of liberals are anti-American or at the very least, incredibly dumb.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is nothing new. The british learned this through many decades of "police" actions in various countries around the globe in which they were fighting various guerrilla groups. The truth is that if you can win the majority of the population to your side, the resistance movement will die. The whole hearts and minds thing, right? Well, if the U.S really had the support of the people there would be no insurgency right now. The fighting in Basra would have been short lived and Al Sadr's movement would be nonexistent.

Oh please. This is such simplistic thinking. Iraq has 3 different groups with very divergent goals and that doesn't count Al Qaeda.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh please. This is such simplistic thinking. Iraq has 3 different groups with very divergent goals and that doesn't count Al Qaeda.

You're exactly right. But so many folks seem to equate the situation in Iraq as the even simpler "Good Guys vs Terrorists". When dealing with that kind of mentality you have to speak in generalities. In truth Iraq has many, many different groups and tribal sects right now, so much so that saying "Sunni, Shiite and Kurd" would be innacurate as there are significant disagreements within each of those groups.

BUT at the beginning of the occupation these divisions were not nearly as stark as they are today. This was not caused by the U.S invasion- but what hapenned after. The most destructive thing that happened to Iraq were not the bombs dropped on it, but the first two policies enacted by Paul Bremmer, the first "ruler" of Iraq after the invasion. His orders number 1 and 2-

Abolished the Iraqi army- this turned several hundred thousand young men with military training into several hundred thousand unemployed and disenfranchised men who would prove to be very open to several different resistance groups down the road. Had Bremmer kept the Iraqi army intact and on the payroll there probably wouldn't still be 158,000 U.S troops in Iraq today.

De-baathification- This essentially shattered the core operations of the country. The order specified that anyone who was a member of the Ba'ath party could not be employed by the government. Well, under Saddam if you wanted to be anything you needed to be a member of the Ba'ath party. So this meant that most of the teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, power plant managers, civil servants etc were suddenly out of a job- most of the professional class of the country were suddenly cut out of the loop, so people looked to the American occupation to provide these services. Bremmer, the oh so intelligent fellow that he is, thought that "the free market" would magically swoop in and take over and make everything better.

So, after smashing the country to pieces with a giant hammer, people still needed to live. This was where much of the sectarian division we see today started up- neighbourhoods and tribes banding together to look out for each other because public institutions no longer could.... because the state no longer existed, and the occupier in charge had an ideological dream that free market policies would magically sort everything out regardless of the reality on the street!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok, well, apparently the Army Vice Chief of Staff and his Marine Counterpart (General Robert Magnus) must both be evil liberal scum, because they're both saying that the Army and Marines are hurting and not capable of sustaining the current tempo of operations without hurting the strategic situation abroad- as per that evil, evil liberal biased news site MSN (Ha!)

Ok, so you blindly believe a far left propaganda machine like MSNBC but you don’t believe the president or his staff or other public statements to the contrary. Allow me to clue you in on a few things that are left out of that article. During a war it is customary for the troops to stay in country until the war is over. Only in Afghanistan and Iraq have we rotated our troops. In Vietnam you fought for 13 months and then you were released from active duty. As stated before we have 60 thousand troops in Japan and 120 thousand troops in the states, with 40 thousand troops in reserve that is just the USMC. The army is much larger. To keep to our policy and strategy of fighting two major wars and one bush war like Iraq or Afghanistan we have to end one or the other in order to fight the soviet union and china while still fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan we are not equipped to fight all four at the same time. This means we are hurting if not Russia but a Soviet Union sized nation and China both declares war on us at the same time. At one time our strength was so low that we could only fight one major war and two bush wars. During WWII the Army fought Germany and Italy while the Marines fought Japan. I bring this up because Japan had more troops than the marines did. And Germany and Italy had more troops than the American army. Yes, we had help then as we do now but the point is still valid. That is the concern that you are reading about from the army and marines. So yes, they are crying in their beer about how hurt they are but only if we have to fight a major war not bush wars like Afghanistan. You see it is all in the context and understanding the goals they are trying to achieve.

"An annual Pentagon report this year found there was a significant risk that the U.S. military could not quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world. The classified risk assessment concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, are to blame"

Yup slow as hell by military standards. Do you know what those standards are?

The army once alerted to the fact that they are going to war need a minimum of 60 to 90 days to put the first elements in a foreign country. From there they will build until they are ready to attack.

The Marines has a different idea of rapid deployment. Their game plan calls for the first elements in country within 24 hours with the entire MEF in country within 30 days with the ability to sustain offensive fighting for 90 days at which time they run out of fuel, food, and bullets and need resupply.

Because of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq both Army and Marine Corps can not meet those goals. It will take the Army 75 to 80 days to get in country in force and the Marines will take roughly 48 to 50 hours to be in country. The point is that the army will still be able to support the marines as policy dictates prior to the 90th day but with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq it will take longer to do it. Most of the delay is because the Air Force will have to change gears and stop supporting Afghanistan and Iraq in order to support the next war at least until the initial elements are put in place. The delay is the shortage of aircraft. The navy will still be able to move the bulk of the army and marine gear and the marines have their own aircraft to move their troops around. Yup we are in deep do do. Sure hope the Soviet Union does not reconstitute and then attack Germany and China does not choose at the same time to attack South Korea and or Japan. Did I mention that there are three MEF’s in the world one in Japan and two in the states with the contingency of them to support the marines if the Army can’t? at least on paper that is the unclassified version you don’t need to know the other stuff.

The last general who told it like it is- General Eric Shinseki, the former Chief of Staff of the Army, warned that this would happen. He also spoke about the fact that the army had been downsized from 12 to 10 divisions but many planners were still making their projections based on the 12 division model. Most pointedly, before the invasion of Iraq, he was asked by senior government officials about troop levels required in Iraq after the war. He openly stated that it would require several hundred thousand troops for several years (including the tens of thousands of "security contractors" aka mercenaries now employed in Iraq, his estimate proved to be right on the money) Rumsfeld and his aides (all civillians) called the commander of the Army's estimates to be "wildly off the mark" and basically fired him (technically, he retired early shortly after his testimony)

The congress would not increase troops or funding because there were not threats that warranted the increase. The funny thing was that on September 11 2001 at 0700 Secretary Rumsfeld asked the congressional leaders for more troops and more funds and they said there was no justification for it. A few hours later the Secretary had to come up with a way to fight a war with less than he felt he needed. He did not cry that congress screwed his nation or that the previous administrations messed over the country with shortsightedness. What he did was put together a plan of action to do what was needed while everyone else was saying it could not be done at all. Remember the ten thousand casualties we were supposed to have the first day because we did not have enough troops? Well after five years we have lost less than half that number and those same people are still screaming that we are losing. My point is that Secretary Rumsfeld did the best he could with what he had and rather than failing or giving up he made it work. The military planners took up the job and put people in place to do the job and it worked. The screw-ups happened after we won the war. The troops did their job and did it well, the politicians of the opposition have weakened our nation and our troops for years and then demand perfection.

Yes, this is why all the other governments have sent their troops to Iraq to help (oh wait, sorry, got that wrong. Even the brits are trying to get out now) As I've said before, many nations are indeed happy that the U.S is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It means they're effectively tied down and unable to invade any other countries.

The Brits did a wonderful job and there is little for them to do so they are going home. I thank and wish them well. Lets see, in the last century America had saved Europe three times and did not ask for anything in return, France still owes us billions from WWI, and even more for WWII, Germany owes us bunches of bucks we have yet to ask them to repay it even when we were almost bankrupt in the late 70’s. Only one time in our recent history has the United States asked for military help that was Afghanistan, we got lip service from those grateful nations yet others did help. Even after an article 5 was made by Great Briton to NATO, you know that NATO is supposed to help other NATO nations when attacked. But seeing as it had nothing to do with Europe they are not happy to help us. A trillion dollars was spent to rebuild Europe and protect it from the Soviet Union for 40 years and we ask for help and get the cold shoulder from everyone except the UK. Yup the protected will never know how sweet freedom really is. as it stands right now we can fight and beat any nation in the world but we waste our time, money and treasure on other nations knowing that we will still be hated by those we willingly help. Iraq will do the same once they are on their feet again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

Also, "take back their country"? You mean, to where it was under Saddam? You think Iraqi's are wishing for those days back?

I think the implied ending to that statement was "from the Americans and their puppet Iraqi government", rather than implying some sort of time travel-like 'then is now' adventure.

You see it is all in the context and understanding the goals they are trying to achieve.

That doesn't change the fact that in trying to maintain its strength worldwide the US is forced to scale up the number of deployments. Sure it could drop its Japan base or European forces to go into Iraq, but the policymakers don't consider that a good idea.

So it's perfectly feasible for the US Army and Marine corps to be overstretched while still having enough manpower to significantly outnumber every adult man of fighting age in Iraq.

Successfully updated karma reason!