Iraq, Are Things Even Worse Than We Think?

M

madmag

New member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

I hate to read this kind of news. Mainly because of the American troops in harms way. When you have a commanding General give these kinds of assessments, then in reality things are probably much worse. This kind of in fighting can only be done door to door. The cost in lives to re-take 60% of Baghdad is going to be very high. I thought things would reach a crisis just about the time Bush leaves office so he could turn over his mess to someone to clean-up. But things may just come to a head so he (Bush) has to make a decision. Or, option "B" he gets removed from office.

I don't see how our troops keep their morale up. Just by taking care of each other I think.

So, how do we get back 60% of Baghdad, or is it just not worth the risk?

Or, (my favorite) ask the Iraq's to actually go in and fight for their own country?
 
Gotta see the definitions. I assume the AP writer sees about 25% of what he writes about and understands maybe 10% of what he sees. I also assume the writer spends a lot of time talking in the bar with other reporters about what they report on. I have to put considerable windage on what passes for reporting coming out of Iraq because the political agendae is what is reported, not ground facts.
Odierno said there was a long way to go in retaking the city from Shiite Muslim militias, Sunni Arab insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists. He said only about "40 percent is really very safe on a routine basis" — with about 30 percent lacking control and a further 30 percent suffering "a high level of violence."
Click to expand...
Don't know what he means because I have no definitions. Now if he took the terms and offered specific examples based on my experience I'd be able to root out his meaning. For example, "really very safe" can be seen in Peoria, IL on a typical day. "lacking control" can be compared to Detroit downtown while "high level of violence" can refer to east LA. In the absence of any go-by comparison I have no way to interpret the report.
 
While I do not have any first-hand info (I have not been in Iraq), I have been surprised again and again by both returning soldiers and families of soldiers in Iraq saying repeatedly and consistently and positively that things are far better in Iraq than the American media paints it, both as to the results being obtained and the happiness of the Iraq people with the action. The media desperately wants bad news because only bad news is news in the American media so they look for it as hard as they can, and of course, they find some of it. Then they pound on it non-stop. I drive past the Minnesota Public Radio station downtown on the way to work where they have a huge flashing sign with about 3 "headlines" and every day one of those headlines is how many Americans were killed the day before, or, if no Americans killed, how many Iraqis were killed. Every single day that is one of the headlines flashed across St. Paul non-stop, all day long. After awhile people just assume that is the only news, and that it is all bad. But first-hand participants always say differently, at least in my own experience. It is odd....
 
Or at least things are certainly worse than some people around here think ;)
Iraq will go the way of Vietnam. Even after the government over there falls and we've evacuated from the rooftop of our super-embassy, there will still be people on this forum talkin' about how we really 'won' the war.
 
I agree that the media usually paints a dark picture, I have come to expect this. But when I read a commanding General saying similar things then I worry more. I hope I am wrong. I don't like bush or his reasons for war, but I certainly don't want our troops to lose in any way.
 
Personally, I think that our society, as a whole, has become all too NEGATIVE about almost everything! There seems to be NO optimism, and everything is "doom and gloom"! We have ALLOWED the news media to give their "slant", and all too often it is covertly/politically slanted toward the "left" of center!

"Bush lied, people died!". Oh, my! Well, if our president lied, then....let's blame BOTH the Senate and Congress for having LIED as well! Those "critters" saw the SAME intel reports as our president, and they voted FOR the war in Iraq (Yep, even Senator John Kerry, who voted "for" the war before he voted "against" it! Give me a break, Mister Heinz-Kerry!)

"The U.S. went into this war 'unilaterally'!" What a slap in the face that statement was, considering that there were 34 other nations that formed the "coalition" of forces prior to the invasion of Iraq! Heck, even Japan sent "support" personnel....something that Japan hadn't done before! (I wish to thank the Australians, who have been our allies since WW-I. The Aussies were at our side in WW-II, Korea, Viet Nam and the first Gulf War. The Brits were NOT in Korea or Viet Nam....but they have been one of our most staunch allies!)

"This war cannot be won!". Thanks, Senator Harry Reid!
Did you come up with that thought while sitting in the "Green Zone" of Washington, D.C.? What kind of impact did your words have on our troops? They DO watch CNN and FOX news over there, you dweeb!

NOTHING but NEGATIVES! Not word one about the MAJORITY of the Iraqi provinces having been restored to relative "normalcy"! Very little mention of the "humanitarian" deeds that our troops have carried out....other than to point out how much money is being spent! Were we not "humanitarian" upon the end of WW-II, with the rebuilding of both Germany AND Japan? Yeah, and back then it cost us a LOT of money, too! Personally, I think that those U.S. dollars were WORTH being spent on our former enemies....even after they had killed hundreds of thousands of our troops! Somehow, we have been able to stand up to the strains of war in the past!

Perhaps this thread should have been titled: "Are things BETTER than what we're being told?" Maybe it's TIME for more positives and some optimism! Maybe it's TIME for all of us to REALIZE that we are, in fact, in a WAR that may take a very long time to fight! It's an entirely different kind of war, but we sure can't afford to LOSE! Perhaps we all need to "suffer" a bit, as did our parents and grandparents did during WW-II...having to go without certain "luxury" items, and having to put all of our efforts toward WINNING the war....instead of WHINING!
 
Perhaps this thread should have been titled: "Are things BETTER than what we're being told?" Maybe it's TIME for more positives and some optimism!
Click to expand...

I guess I should answer since I started this thread. I don't disagree with you as much as you might think. I am positive by nature and as ex-military service I always want our guys to win. I am also pragmatic. I don't think every war is like WWII. I agree Congress went along with Bush using the same information, but Bush is still the guy that had to push the button. I blame him for not being smart enough to understand he was getting into a thousands years religious war. I understood that. I blame him for saying "mission accomplished". I cringed when he said that. I knew our military would beat their formal military hands down, but that what would follow would be guerrilla warfare, and tanks and planes don't count. I blame him for not listening to someone as smart as Colin Powell when he said "if you break it you own it".

I have absolutely no problem going after the bad guys. I just don't think Bush did it the smart way.

If there are positive stories about progress in Iraq then I want to hear them. In fact, I hope you are right.

I have talked with some Army guys that have been there and are returning. I have asked why they would want to return. Most don't say because they think there is some big success in Iraq, they mainly seem not to want to let down guys in their units by not being there to protect them. Nothing wrong with that attitude, but it is different than we are really winning. Whatever happens, our military deserves huge credit for the job they have done.

P.S. my air conditioner service guy is a reserve Navy Corpsman, (medic for us Army guys). He returned for a second tour. He told me he could not stand the thought of his guys wounded without him there to help. We are lucky to have people like this in our service. Let's just make sure we don't waste their lives.
 
One more point and I will give it a rest for a while....yes I promise.:rolleyes:

We have to face the fact that unlike WWII this war will almost for sure end with the next President. In fact, most will run saying they will somehow end the war. This is just reality. In WWII we all knew Truman would carry on with no break in stride. Well history says Hitler had a celebration thinking Truman would be begging to get to the negotiation table after FDR died. Harry negotiation with the Nazis....Hitler was living in a dream world for sure.

Anyway, this is not negative thinking...just what probably will happen. Notice all Republicans distance themselves from Bush on the war. Ok, not McCain...but he doesn't count in my book. Democrats have already distanced themselves. So, I guess I am saying we are going to have to end this as best advantage for us as possible. Bush made the mess but will not be around for the clean-up.
 
No such thing as a win in this situation, we did win the war but not the aftermath. I believe a good policy is never send in troops to act as police. I served in Vietnam and the idea you can win the hearts and minds of people with troops is wrong.

Strong military, strong defense, strike hard when attacked. it seems we have forgotten.
 
"No such thing as a win in this situation"

exactly. All we have to do is train enough Iraqi's to our standard, to take over but with corruption, dominating religous sects and what tribe you belonging to, that trumps everything else it's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
 
I was just a kid back when the Vietnam War was being fought, but from what I've read it sounds like we left the South in pretty decent shape initially. But then the North (backed by the usual suspects) redoubled their efforts and the South wasn't able to hold on without American help. At the same time, the Democrats were able to prevent America from assisting the South, so their collapse came quickly.


Had Nixon been politically stronger (no Watergate) and had America been able to fly a few sorties to help out the South Vietnamese, would South Vietnam still be an independent country today (and would millions of refugees still be alive and in their home country)?


I strongly suspect America will maintain a military presence in Iraq for decades (for a variety of reasons), but if we do exit, will the Democrats be able to seal Iraq's fate the way they did Vietnam's?
 
was just a kid back when the Vietnam War was being fought, but from what I've read it sounds like we left the South in pretty decent shape initially.
Click to expand...

Maybe not important now but I was not young, and that's not how I remember. As I remember there was no initially....the South collapsed about five minutes after we left.

had America been able to fly a few sorties to help out the South Vietnamese,
Click to expand...

100 times as many sorties would not have helped. You can't win a jungle guerrilla war from the air. Think of it as trying to use B52's to stop IED's in Iraq. (Ok, maybe that's not a bad idea:cool:)

At the same time, the Democrats were able to prevent America from assisting the South, so their collapse came quickly.
Click to expand...

Wait, hold on. Where are you getting your history? The war started with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution under Democrat LBJ. They gave Johnson more troops every time he asked. The war ended under Republican Nixon. Not trying to credit Nixon. Nixon did not win the peace, Johnson just lost the war. Also, Watergate came much later, so not an issue.
 
Are Things Even Worse Than We Think?
Click to expand...
Depends on what we're thinking, doesn't it? I tend to spend too much time reading blogs over at www.milblogging.com and for some strange reason the boys and girls over there paint a somewhat different picture than AP reporters. Of course one could say that US Troops over there have been indoctrinated to see and believe things in a certain light, just as AP, CNN etc would have those of us indoctrinated by their output to believe every word they write or speak to be cast in a certain light of varying hues. Each speaking the true gospel.

Somewhere in between lies the reality, which is yet another perception.

Saddam's out. W'sMD secured (hah!)... so we're dafe from those for awhile. Iran is aroused as is Syria, Sunni's killling Shia, Shia's killing Sunni's, Turks P.O.d at the Kurds up north, Palestinians killing other palestinians, price of oil is... well, let's not go there. Elections coming up here, with people talking faster than a preacher at collection time. China and Russia are... what ARE they up to?

Pretty much, the same old same old. Mankind, politics, oil, religion, warfare... just change the dates, the names of the politicians and maybe the geographical position on the globe now and then.

At any rate, some of the blogs at Milblogging are pretty interesting and do paint a different perspective than our mainstream media. Imagine that?

The aftermath should be quite interesting as well since I'm sure there are several up and coming new insurgent leaders being readied to foment future unrest, disharmony and dischord, but we'll just have to wait for the 2008 elections to see who emerges from that dustup to lead our nation. Not to mention the mideast.
 
Thanks. Wait until I tell my wife someone said I know what I am talking about...she will never believe this!:D
 
madmag said:
Maybe not important now but I was not young, and that's not how I remember. As I remember there was no initially....the South collapsed about five minutes after we left.
Click to expand...

The RVN lasted approximately two years from the US pullout to the final offensive by the NVA.

madmag said:
100 times as many sorties would not have helped. You can't win a jungle guerrilla war from the air.
Click to expand...

Jungle guerrilla war? The final NVA offensive in '75 involved 100,000 troops and more tanks than the Red Army used at the battle of Kursk. It was a purely conventional, stand-up blitzkrieg by a modern mechanized army against an ARVN that was all but out of bullets and bombs because Congress wouldn't send them any more.
 
This is a good link to read about the Easter Offensive. Not much to do about Congress not suppling arms. No relation at all to tank battles in Russia...not even close.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1998-1/BAKERfnl.htm

This is the conclusion from the article.

"Conclusion

The Easter Offensive caught the Allies by complete surprise needlessly so. While the indicators of attack were numerous, U.S. and South Vietnamese commanders ignored them in favor of a more reassuring position: that the NVA could not and would not attack before the end of March. Their failure to use HUMINT to the fullest extent possible also contributed to the Allied forces being caught off guard. The "intelligence failure" during the Easter Offensive was less a failure to collect intelligence than it was a failure to exploit obvious indicators."
Click to expand...


I stand by my statement that the South basically collapsed after our final pullout. They were dead...they just didn't know it yet.
 
The Easter Offensive failed.

The Ho Chi Minh offensive, which was launched on 1/24/75, resulted in the fall of Saigon at the end of April. It involved multiple NVA armored regiments. That wasn't a guy in tire tread sandals who knocked down the embassy gates.

If you want to argue military history, we should go elsewhere to do it.
 
The Tet Offensive of 1968 was, according to the MSM, a huge success for the NVA and VC. The truth of the matter was that the Tet resulted in the destruction of the VC as a functioning military force. The war after 1968 became more and more a stand-up battle against the NVA forces. The United States military never lost a battle in Vietnam, yet we lost the propaganda War at home.

Tamara is correct, the final offensive was a straight-out land-battle by regular NVA units, against a much weaker opponent. This occurred TWO YEARS after the final pull-out of U.S. troops.

Before you ask, 5/66-4/69, Rung Sat Special Zone, RVN.

I especially find remarks like
Iraq will go the way of Vietnam. Even after the government over there falls and we've evacuated from the rooftop of our super-embassy, there will still be people on this forum talkin' about how we really 'won'
Click to expand...
offensive. Unless you were actually in the War, and lived through the same terror that those people did, you have no right to anything more than an opinion. State it as such. It was second and third-raters like that, who never served, but "knew" what was going on, that cost America so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top