nonquixote
New member
I didn't support invading Iraq; I felt there wasn't enough justification for an invasion, but now that we're there, we need to do the job right.
Nonq
Nonq
Do you support the war in Iraq?
- Thread starter TX_RGR
- Start date
Benonymous
New member
Even while the Germans were busily occupying chunks of Europe they acknowledged that partisans would be a major problem. The fact is, nobody likes somebody else's army in thier country. The Iraquis who are fighting consider themselves partisans, not insurgents. As many posters have pointed out, they can't be controlled, they cant be defeated. How can a soldier born in the Mid-West distinguish between a citizen and an insurgent in a foreign country, surrounded by people native to that country? He cant. And so as long as he's there, he'll be scared , with good reason. Mighty as Americas economy is, I don't thing it can bear another two to three more years of occupation in Iraq, much less attack Iran (talk about pie in the sky!). Hitler himself declared that it takes a thousand troops to control one partisan. The kind of resources needed to bring a halt to "insurgency" in Iraq is not available even if the Shrub was willing to commit it. America is digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole over there. If we want the oil, we'd better find a way to ask nicely.
Stop Bush and the insanity
Updated: 12:41 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005
BAGHDAD, Aug. 10 - Iraq's leaders and military will be unable to lead the fight against insurgents until next summer at the earliest, a top U.S. military official said Wednesday, trying to temper any hopes that a full-scale American troop withdrawal was imminent as Iraq moves toward elections scheduled for December. Both Americans and Iraqis need "to start thinking about and talking about what it's really going to be like in Iraq after elections," said the military official, who spoke in an interview on the condition he not be named. "I think the important point is there's not going to be a fundamental change." The official stressed that it was "important to calibrate expectations post-elections. I've been saying to folks: You're still going to have an insurgency, you're still going to have a dilapidated infrastructure, you're still going to have decades of developmental problems both on the economic and the political side."
Updated: 12:41 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005
BAGHDAD, Aug. 10 - Iraq's leaders and military will be unable to lead the fight against insurgents until next summer at the earliest, a top U.S. military official said Wednesday, trying to temper any hopes that a full-scale American troop withdrawal was imminent as Iraq moves toward elections scheduled for December. Both Americans and Iraqis need "to start thinking about and talking about what it's really going to be like in Iraq after elections," said the military official, who spoke in an interview on the condition he not be named. "I think the important point is there's not going to be a fundamental change." The official stressed that it was "important to calibrate expectations post-elections. I've been saying to folks: You're still going to have an insurgency, you're still going to have a dilapidated infrastructure, you're still going to have decades of developmental problems both on the economic and the political side."
CarbineCaleb
New member
+1 on that. Everything that's happened there is our work. It was nothing like that before we got there. I think it is not only our responsibility to the Iraqi people to make something good come out of this, it is very strongly in the American interest to avoid transforming a nasty but stable dictatorship into a chaotic sea of civil war, terrorism and extremism.
Amen.
But I won't kid myself. That is usually how it goes. You won't see any of Bush's children getting shot at either. Or any other "privledged white person." But I digress.
I just wanted to say, in case I hadn't made it clear before, that my heart and prayers go out to the soldiers. They didn't start this mess. They are only there to clean it up.
It's hard to support the soldier, but not the administraton that sent them there. I think the gov. knows that, too. They know that people have a hard time differentiating between supporting the troops and supporting the government, so anyone who is in opposition to the war or the presidency is opposed to, or somehow disrespecting those who are dying for..."whatever." This is of course entirely untrue, but perception is the basis for reality.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the government manufactures, or subsidizes the manufacture of bumper stickers saying, "support our troops." Very clever.
Just curious, call it a follow-up question: Those who are in support of the government's actions, even knowing what we now know, why do you support them? What in your view is the basis or justification (let's assume we need one for a second) for invading this country?
Thanks for responses.
Why
Why do I continue to support our role in Iraq.......
Good or bad as it may be, I was brought up to finish a project that I start. That could likely trace back many generations on both sides of my family tree. I don't know or would want to try to change at almost 39 years of age. I think it's wrong in many ways to start something and not do your best at it and do all you can to make it something to be proud of. I also don't like to make myself think that time and stop-watch holders can dictate a start and finish on just about anything these days. In my book time is a measure device and a guide. We are trying to finish up a war and hand a country 100% back to it's rightful owners and operators. Maybe a lot of us American's are thinking this can be run like a 4 quarter football game.... I Don't think it's at all that simple?
I feel that walking away from Iraq in it's state of need at this time would disrespect and show little honor to the brave men and women who have fought and died there. Anyone that has served in the military might follow me a little more on this view. I know a few veterans that don't- but they are rare in numbers.
I too, want the troops to come home. I pray and honestly think they will. I also think we will always have some bases in that country unless a real different person in the Executive Office has little regard for what has, will and continues to be done in that country. We sure know that, we as a people of freedom can't change the minds of those here and there that set to a one way path. It isn't easy or clean and perfect. I don't know anything in this life that is so right and clean cut and just starts and stops on command. It doesn't work that way.
One very positive thing I saw today was the report that some +30 schools are being either rebuilt, remodeled or upgraded. That is one very good slice of news from Iraq. I like to hear of the good that these troops gave all for... I can't imagine what a sacrafice of this nature could be. I haven't went to Iraq yet. Maybe I will get sent there? If I do, I expect to find things both good and bad.........but I bet it is better than before. AND........ I don't eat all the media is dishing up and out........ They are working for ratings and seem to have a little different agenda than I.......
Why do I continue to support our role in Iraq.......
Good or bad as it may be, I was brought up to finish a project that I start. That could likely trace back many generations on both sides of my family tree. I don't know or would want to try to change at almost 39 years of age. I think it's wrong in many ways to start something and not do your best at it and do all you can to make it something to be proud of. I also don't like to make myself think that time and stop-watch holders can dictate a start and finish on just about anything these days. In my book time is a measure device and a guide. We are trying to finish up a war and hand a country 100% back to it's rightful owners and operators. Maybe a lot of us American's are thinking this can be run like a 4 quarter football game.... I Don't think it's at all that simple?
I feel that walking away from Iraq in it's state of need at this time would disrespect and show little honor to the brave men and women who have fought and died there. Anyone that has served in the military might follow me a little more on this view. I know a few veterans that don't- but they are rare in numbers.
I too, want the troops to come home. I pray and honestly think they will. I also think we will always have some bases in that country unless a real different person in the Executive Office has little regard for what has, will and continues to be done in that country. We sure know that, we as a people of freedom can't change the minds of those here and there that set to a one way path. It isn't easy or clean and perfect. I don't know anything in this life that is so right and clean cut and just starts and stops on command. It doesn't work that way.
One very positive thing I saw today was the report that some +30 schools are being either rebuilt, remodeled or upgraded. That is one very good slice of news from Iraq. I like to hear of the good that these troops gave all for... I can't imagine what a sacrafice of this nature could be. I haven't went to Iraq yet. Maybe I will get sent there? If I do, I expect to find things both good and bad.........but I bet it is better than before. AND........ I don't eat all the media is dishing up and out........ They are working for ratings and seem to have a little different agenda than I.......
Rojo; I understand what you are saying. But....
I was against us going in, and I am against us staying even one more day. My reasoning is this:
Eventually we will leave, and when we do Iraq will fall apart. I may be wrong on that, but it is what I believe will happen. So if it is going to fall apart when we leave, why stay any longer and lose any more of our children?
What is wrong with acknowledging an error and correcting that error? It is far worse to make an error and refuse to acknowledge it as an error, and then to compound that error by refusing to acknowledge and adjust.
I was against us going in, and I am against us staying even one more day. My reasoning is this:
Eventually we will leave, and when we do Iraq will fall apart. I may be wrong on that, but it is what I believe will happen. So if it is going to fall apart when we leave, why stay any longer and lose any more of our children?
What is wrong with acknowledging an error and correcting that error? It is far worse to make an error and refuse to acknowledge it as an error, and then to compound that error by refusing to acknowledge and adjust.
migrantmigraine
New member
In the case of Iraq, you have a large populace - most armed, I believe (guessing, from the huge numbers of AKs and RPGs they always mention in the news from people stupid enough to turn in their arms). Many, many RPGs in that country. In spite of that, people were stuck in wood chippers and whatnot. The people had the ability to resist en masse. Why didn't they?
Afghanistan - that's a much better example. You have a pack of people in silly hats fighting another pack of people that happen to be the powers that be - also with silly hats. Silly hat 1 is resisting a gov't that harbors and helps a noted criminal. Goody. Send in the paratroopers.
If the WMDs did not exist - they still may, just haven't found any - but it's a big country. But if they ain't there, what was Bush talking about when he said that we had to invade Iraq? Democracy and that Iraq was harboring/helping terrorists. There's a powerful lot of terrorists there now - many of 'em under the sand. But democracy?
In a perfect world, the best government would be absolute monarchy. The man in charge is infallible, invincible, incorruptible, immortal, and a couple of other things, too. He know what to do, when to do it.
Why is democracy for another country worth dying for? Well, the French sent troops and ships during the American revolution. They helped us in our fight for democracy - not because they liked us, but because they hated the Brits.
Is democracy a natural right of man? I don't believe so. Democracy is a form of government that can be just as tyrannical and unjust as a dictatorship, maybe even more so, if the populace is dumb enough to let the leadership get by with it.
What English king would've dared to take all weapons from his nation, keeping them in the hands of his lackeys and guards? None, but the Parliament's okay with that.
What would've been better? Saddam's a pretty evil guy - if his actions are to be the judge. He's been cruel to his own people. So...
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Well, that pretty much says that there is good reason to ditch a thug dictator. Now, is that a job for a couple of thousand marines, or a rooftop sniper or two? Once Saddam was cold and stiff, what would happen? Another sorry guy take his place? How many do you shoot before you get somebody good?
Personally, I like the idea of killing leaders rather than troops. They're the ones who start the trouble. It's not the low-paid enlisted men. It's the leaders who plan it, who vote for it, who allow it to happen.
Killing a leader without warning is not too fair, but much more humane than all-out wars. Wars are never fair. Ambushes, dirty tricks, land mines, and all kinds of stuff come in. Wars are affairs where two or more parties get a bunch of men together to kill the other until one side gets tired of it. Sniping Sgt Muhammed of the 5th Mother of All Wars Rifle Regiment is no more fair than sniping Saddam. In a war, two armies or more composed of people who, for the most part, have no personal dislike of anyone on the opposing side, kill each other whenever possible.
Killing off sorry (bad/evil/wicked/depraved/muderous) leaders may just let more get in charge. If so, shoot them, too. You can put a dozen snipers in every country on the globe, with a thousand rounds apiece, with .50BMG rifles of the finest quality for much less than the current Pentagon budget. You get less innocent people (those who had nothing to do with causing the disagreement twixt nations to come about) getting killed, less of our people getting killed, and the really bad guys getting killed. You have a lot more money remaining in American pockets. And if somebody gets fed-up and wants to invade us, we've got 200 million folks or more. Say we have enough infantry rifles for 1 million of our people - and a million that are competent enough to use the things. A one million gun volley will deter most threats.
Edited for incomplete sentence.
Afghanistan - that's a much better example. You have a pack of people in silly hats fighting another pack of people that happen to be the powers that be - also with silly hats. Silly hat 1 is resisting a gov't that harbors and helps a noted criminal. Goody. Send in the paratroopers.
If the WMDs did not exist - they still may, just haven't found any - but it's a big country. But if they ain't there, what was Bush talking about when he said that we had to invade Iraq? Democracy and that Iraq was harboring/helping terrorists. There's a powerful lot of terrorists there now - many of 'em under the sand. But democracy?
In a perfect world, the best government would be absolute monarchy. The man in charge is infallible, invincible, incorruptible, immortal, and a couple of other things, too. He know what to do, when to do it.
Why is democracy for another country worth dying for? Well, the French sent troops and ships during the American revolution. They helped us in our fight for democracy - not because they liked us, but because they hated the Brits.
Is democracy a natural right of man? I don't believe so. Democracy is a form of government that can be just as tyrannical and unjust as a dictatorship, maybe even more so, if the populace is dumb enough to let the leadership get by with it.
What English king would've dared to take all weapons from his nation, keeping them in the hands of his lackeys and guards? None, but the Parliament's okay with that.
What would've been better? Saddam's a pretty evil guy - if his actions are to be the judge. He's been cruel to his own people. So...
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Well, that pretty much says that there is good reason to ditch a thug dictator. Now, is that a job for a couple of thousand marines, or a rooftop sniper or two? Once Saddam was cold and stiff, what would happen? Another sorry guy take his place? How many do you shoot before you get somebody good?
Personally, I like the idea of killing leaders rather than troops. They're the ones who start the trouble. It's not the low-paid enlisted men. It's the leaders who plan it, who vote for it, who allow it to happen.
Killing a leader without warning is not too fair, but much more humane than all-out wars. Wars are never fair. Ambushes, dirty tricks, land mines, and all kinds of stuff come in. Wars are affairs where two or more parties get a bunch of men together to kill the other until one side gets tired of it. Sniping Sgt Muhammed of the 5th Mother of All Wars Rifle Regiment is no more fair than sniping Saddam. In a war, two armies or more composed of people who, for the most part, have no personal dislike of anyone on the opposing side, kill each other whenever possible.
Killing off sorry (bad/evil/wicked/depraved/muderous) leaders may just let more get in charge. If so, shoot them, too. You can put a dozen snipers in every country on the globe, with a thousand rounds apiece, with .50BMG rifles of the finest quality for much less than the current Pentagon budget. You get less innocent people (those who had nothing to do with causing the disagreement twixt nations to come about) getting killed, less of our people getting killed, and the really bad guys getting killed. You have a lot more money remaining in American pockets. And if somebody gets fed-up and wants to invade us, we've got 200 million folks or more. Say we have enough infantry rifles for 1 million of our people - and a million that are competent enough to use the things. A one million gun volley will deter most threats.
Edited for incomplete sentence.
Marko Kloos Wrote:
Its not that I am one bit worried about SEEMING WEAK to these scum. It is that what these scum will do if we show weakness. They thrive on destruction of the weak, helpless, ect. It will just lead to even more violence if we back down. And for the record, I never said that ANY AMERICAN LIFE was "WORTH" losing in this, but lives WILL be lost, and those that lose them serving their country are HEROES. They give theirs so that the COUNTRY they loved might be secured.
And secondly, for your information, I have served and bled for my country, and gave more than a few years of service to good old uncle sam. And would be serving RIGHT NOW, if not for the fact that disabling injuries suffered while doing my duty, will prevent me from ever serving again. And never mind that I have a younger brother, and 4 cousins, walking those streets right now.....and I believe as THEY DO. STAY THE COURSE.
So before you judge a man, maybe you should know a bit about his history first? Walk a mile, ya know? Have you walked YOUR mile Marko?
Its not that I am one bit worried about SEEMING WEAK to these scum. It is that what these scum will do if we show weakness. They thrive on destruction of the weak, helpless, ect. It will just lead to even more violence if we back down. And for the record, I never said that ANY AMERICAN LIFE was "WORTH" losing in this, but lives WILL be lost, and those that lose them serving their country are HEROES. They give theirs so that the COUNTRY they loved might be secured.
And secondly, for your information, I have served and bled for my country, and gave more than a few years of service to good old uncle sam. And would be serving RIGHT NOW, if not for the fact that disabling injuries suffered while doing my duty, will prevent me from ever serving again. And never mind that I have a younger brother, and 4 cousins, walking those streets right now.....and I believe as THEY DO. STAY THE COURSE.
So before you judge a man, maybe you should know a bit about his history first? Walk a mile, ya know? Have you walked YOUR mile Marko?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You only stay the course if you think it will benefit the USA. You don't stay the course because you don't have the guts or brains to admit a mistaken strategy.
I no longer support the current war in Iraq as I do not see how it will make the USA safer from our enemies. Again, I feel that Bush and his advisers or handlers or puppeteers have a mistake world view, knowledge base of the situation and an ideologica/religious fixation which makes them immune to an logical analyses or change in strategy. They are incapable of winning this war, they are only capable of losing it.
If there was a way to make Iraq a decent country and perhaps induce cultural change in the Middle East, the war might be worth it. I've read quite a few scholarly pieces by experts. Very few, if any, think this war will accomplish anything. Nor are they peace-nuts like Jane 'Vegetble Oil Bus' Fonda. They emphasis that Bush has been a weakling when it comes to the use of appropriate force.
Thus, I I doubt the Bush team is competent to conduct our defense against Islamic enemies or competent to conduct the war in Iraq - I don't support it.
Sadly, I see no other politician on either side of the aisle with the competence to get us out of this mess.
Soon, Afghanistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state. So will Iraq if it doesn't descend into civil war and fall apart. Bush has NO idea what to do.
I no longer support the current war in Iraq as I do not see how it will make the USA safer from our enemies. Again, I feel that Bush and his advisers or handlers or puppeteers have a mistake world view, knowledge base of the situation and an ideologica/religious fixation which makes them immune to an logical analyses or change in strategy. They are incapable of winning this war, they are only capable of losing it.
If there was a way to make Iraq a decent country and perhaps induce cultural change in the Middle East, the war might be worth it. I've read quite a few scholarly pieces by experts. Very few, if any, think this war will accomplish anything. Nor are they peace-nuts like Jane 'Vegetble Oil Bus' Fonda. They emphasis that Bush has been a weakling when it comes to the use of appropriate force.
Thus, I I doubt the Bush team is competent to conduct our defense against Islamic enemies or competent to conduct the war in Iraq - I don't support it.
Sadly, I see no other politician on either side of the aisle with the competence to get us out of this mess.
Soon, Afghanistan will become an Islamic fundamentalist state. So will Iraq if it doesn't descend into civil war and fall apart. Bush has NO idea what to do.
While I maintain that Iraq and Vietnam are not comparable, let me use Vietnam to make a point about Iraq.
If you had a time machine and the power to make the change, would you be willing to go back in time and end our involvement in Vietnam when the casualty count was only 2,000? You could save over 48,000 American lives and the end result in Vietnam would still be the same, would it not?
That is why I don't support our continued involvement in Iraq. We can stop the loss of American lives over there right now, and I think the end result is going to be the same as it will be if we stay long enough to lose another 48,000 soldier's lives there. I think we are not changing anything from this point on by remaining there, we are just losing more soldiers.
If you had a time machine and the power to make the change, would you be willing to go back in time and end our involvement in Vietnam when the casualty count was only 2,000? You could save over 48,000 American lives and the end result in Vietnam would still be the same, would it not?
That is why I don't support our continued involvement in Iraq. We can stop the loss of American lives over there right now, and I think the end result is going to be the same as it will be if we stay long enough to lose another 48,000 soldier's lives there. I think we are not changing anything from this point on by remaining there, we are just losing more soldiers.
Butch,
The lack of directly comparable political motivation of our enemies does not discount a comparison of the tactics of war we must use.
The VC in Vietnam and the rebels in Iraq share the problem of having to fight irregulars that are hidden within the regular population. Both lack a front. Both are supplied through irregular means. Both want the US removed as the first step in whatever their goals are. (Note that Saigon fell because we left, not the other way around.)
The tactics of both enemies was that of insurgency. Neither use tanks or planes. Both are fought in the same strained house to house manner. Both are subject to the general populace's good will, or lack thereof. Both have American public opinion as a potential ally.
In every important way, TO US, the wars are increasingly identical.
The lack of directly comparable political motivation of our enemies does not discount a comparison of the tactics of war we must use.
The VC in Vietnam and the rebels in Iraq share the problem of having to fight irregulars that are hidden within the regular population. Both lack a front. Both are supplied through irregular means. Both want the US removed as the first step in whatever their goals are. (Note that Saigon fell because we left, not the other way around.)
The tactics of both enemies was that of insurgency. Neither use tanks or planes. Both are fought in the same strained house to house manner. Both are subject to the general populace's good will, or lack thereof. Both have American public opinion as a potential ally.
In every important way, TO US, the wars are increasingly identical.
Handy: There are similarities, I grant you that.
But, there are vast differences. The North Vietnamese came from an identifiable nation, or a part of a nation, however you want to look at it. They fielded an Army that was organized, centralized and that could and often did attack in massive miltary attacks. They did have tanks and aircraft, although not in abundance and not routinely utilized. They used a combination of gurilla (VC) and conventional tactics. They had regular supply lines that we continually tried to disrupt, to no avail, for instance the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They met with us at peace talks, there was diplomatic discourse. In short, we fought against the North Vietnamese Army, albeit a poor mans army, which was from a known nation, and also the VC.
The Viet Cong were the gurilla army, and while they were somewhat independent of the NVA, they were linked and worked together. They had a unified purpose. To take territory and to rule. The NVA and VC were politically motivated, that war did not have anything to do with religion.
I just do not see the Violent Islamic Extremists (VIE) as being from a recognizable nation, of being militarily organized, as being cohesive, or as having the goal of taking territory and ruling. It seems that the one thing that is a common link between the VIEs, it is that they are involved in this sporadic mayhem, based entirely on religion and not at all on politics.
But, there are vast differences. The North Vietnamese came from an identifiable nation, or a part of a nation, however you want to look at it. They fielded an Army that was organized, centralized and that could and often did attack in massive miltary attacks. They did have tanks and aircraft, although not in abundance and not routinely utilized. They used a combination of gurilla (VC) and conventional tactics. They had regular supply lines that we continually tried to disrupt, to no avail, for instance the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They met with us at peace talks, there was diplomatic discourse. In short, we fought against the North Vietnamese Army, albeit a poor mans army, which was from a known nation, and also the VC.
The Viet Cong were the gurilla army, and while they were somewhat independent of the NVA, they were linked and worked together. They had a unified purpose. To take territory and to rule. The NVA and VC were politically motivated, that war did not have anything to do with religion.
I just do not see the Violent Islamic Extremists (VIE) as being from a recognizable nation, of being militarily organized, as being cohesive, or as having the goal of taking territory and ruling. It seems that the one thing that is a common link between the VIEs, it is that they are involved in this sporadic mayhem, based entirely on religion and not at all on politics.
Butch,
We mostly fought the VC until close to the end of the war. The VC were locals living in S. Vietnam, and were supplied in an irregular fashion. The Ho Chi Mihn trail was not a specific roadway or path, no more than the Underground Railroad had a location.
S. Vietnam was experiencing an insurgency from its own people, supplied by and supported by several nations. If that isn't a good description of what's going on in Iraq, I don't know what is.
In any case, the parallels made are to speak of the lessons from fighting that war. Like "Hearts and minds", the lack of an identified enemy force, the unseen supply lines.
But mainly, the point in comparing the two is that we have to succeed in Iraq by avoiding the mistakes of Vietnam. Simply pulling out is identical to what we did in Vietnam, and is so pointless it makes all the previous expense in lives and money an insane waste.
We either stay and figure out how to deal with what we couldn't 35 years ago, or we go back to our world famous schizophrenia and walk out on a job unfinished, again.
I think our only honorable and profitable way out of this is to use the only methodology that ever really worked in Vietnam, and find the "hearts and minds" of Iraq. Escalation will only make more insurgents, sympathizers and Jihadists. Pulling out will just hand the country over to the best armed, or let it be chopped up by Iran and the rest of the region. And since both of those choices are worse than having just left Saddam in power, we had better pick up our mess.
We mostly fought the VC until close to the end of the war. The VC were locals living in S. Vietnam, and were supplied in an irregular fashion. The Ho Chi Mihn trail was not a specific roadway or path, no more than the Underground Railroad had a location.
S. Vietnam was experiencing an insurgency from its own people, supplied by and supported by several nations. If that isn't a good description of what's going on in Iraq, I don't know what is.
In any case, the parallels made are to speak of the lessons from fighting that war. Like "Hearts and minds", the lack of an identified enemy force, the unseen supply lines.
But mainly, the point in comparing the two is that we have to succeed in Iraq by avoiding the mistakes of Vietnam. Simply pulling out is identical to what we did in Vietnam, and is so pointless it makes all the previous expense in lives and money an insane waste.
We either stay and figure out how to deal with what we couldn't 35 years ago, or we go back to our world famous schizophrenia and walk out on a job unfinished, again.
I think our only honorable and profitable way out of this is to use the only methodology that ever really worked in Vietnam, and find the "hearts and minds" of Iraq. Escalation will only make more insurgents, sympathizers and Jihadists. Pulling out will just hand the country over to the best armed, or let it be chopped up by Iran and the rest of the region. And since both of those choices are worse than having just left Saddam in power, we had better pick up our mess.
Again I agree with much of what you say, but......
Another major difference is that Vietnam was largely jungle warfare. The jungle afforded cover to the NVA and VC that the VIEs would certainly love to have, but don't. The VIEs are therefore confined to operations within towns and cities - which limits how large they can become.
No not a specific roadway, more like an intertwining series of trails, but it was identifiable enough that we bombed it fairly continuously trying to stop the supply line. So we did have a logistical base to attack, sort of.
From what I have read, the VC and the NVA were definitely Vietnamese. But from what I read the VIEs are mostly imports from other countries, and not Iraqi citizens. Is that not your understanding?
Vietnam was a war that we did not fight well, we did not utilize our military to it's capacity. We have learned from that, the war that we fought in Iraq was a no holds barred all out full frontal military utilized to it's fullets attack. We won the war. The war is over. What we have now is not a war. It is our military being the targets of VIE who are content to kill a handful at a time, but not in any strategic sense of a war. I say again - We did learn from Vietnam and we won the war in Iraq.
Handy, I think we have won the hearts and minds of the majority of the Iraqis - the VIEs are mostly from outside Iraq. Pulling out will cause the Iraqi people to stand up for themselves, something that they seem wont to do while we are there to protect them. After we pull out, whenever that may be, they will have to stand up for themselves.
Another major difference is that Vietnam was largely jungle warfare. The jungle afforded cover to the NVA and VC that the VIEs would certainly love to have, but don't. The VIEs are therefore confined to operations within towns and cities - which limits how large they can become.
MeekAndMild
New member
Wading through 8 pages of replies was interesting.
One semi-neglected point is that Iraq is a ground of our own choosing but if we leave it the next battle will be on ground of the enemy's choosing. Personally I'd rather fight in their backyard than mine.
One recalls that the South lost the entire civil war because Lee didn't send 100 troops to occupy the stony hillside the day before the Battle of Gettysberg. Wellington refused to move from the high ground but Napoleon lost his patience, attacked uphill in the mud and lost. If Mcauliffe had tried to escape and retreat from Bastogne his army would have been cut apart.
One semi-neglected point is that Iraq is a ground of our own choosing but if we leave it the next battle will be on ground of the enemy's choosing. Personally I'd rather fight in their backyard than mine.
One recalls that the South lost the entire civil war because Lee didn't send 100 troops to occupy the stony hillside the day before the Battle of Gettysberg. Wellington refused to move from the high ground but Napoleon lost his patience, attacked uphill in the mud and lost. If Mcauliffe had tried to escape and retreat from Bastogne his army would have been cut apart.
Butch,
I want you to imagine, for a moment, that the French are running around America, fighting our soldiers. They have no supply lines, no base of operations, aren't native to the land and none of the Americans want them there.
How long do you think that would possilbly last?
You're damn right all the insurgents aren't foreign. They'd run out of ammo and starve in a week. They are supported and manned in great number by pissed Iraqis. Any other theory is simply nuts.
I want you to imagine, for a moment, that the French are running around America, fighting our soldiers. They have no supply lines, no base of operations, aren't native to the land and none of the Americans want them there.
How long do you think that would possilbly last?
You're damn right all the insurgents aren't foreign. They'd run out of ammo and starve in a week. They are supported and manned in great number by pissed Iraqis. Any other theory is simply nuts.
Handy, I don't factually know what the mix is, but listening to the reports over time has given me the strong impression that a large percentage of the VIEs are not from Iraq. A very quick google search yielded the above two sources of information. An exhaustive search might find even more evidence.