How to win the War in Iraq.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Kill all the insurgents.

I think it's time we bring back a little shock and awe. I don't know if you recall during the election when Bush and Co. Made fun of Kerry for wanting to fight a 'More Sensative war on Terror' Well holy shit, that's what Bush is doing now.

If you go into a War, you go in it to win. Everyone talks about the power vaccum if we leave, and how the insurgents would take over the country, so we are stuck there. Well here is the solution, Kill all the insurgents, say to the Iraqi government "There you go, you are in change" and get out.

Everytime I hear of our soldiers getting shot at from Mosques and not being allowed to shoot back because they don't want to hurt anyones feelings in the area, I get sick to my stomach. We are in a war, I hope we hurt more then Islams sensative little feelings.

If I were President, the war would be over in one month, I would turn half of Iraq into a mud hole.

[Fryan]

Here's a solution - hand the country over to the U.N. Of course then Bush and Co. wouldn't be able to make sure that Iraq's government keeps conditions favourable for American business interests.

Where are these reports of soldiers not being allowed to fire on mosques coming from? Staff-Sergeant James Massey, a Marine, gave an interview where he said his squad alone (ten or so guys) had killed over thirty civilians in six weeks. He doesn't consider himself a war criminal, and nor does the American military. My point? The U.S military has extremely broad rules of engagement, as such I find it highly unlikely that U.S soldiers are not firing at mosques if that is where the enemy are (or even if it's where they aren't...). In fact I recall an incident where a U.S soldier shot dead a wounded, unarmed insurgent in a mosque. That was even on t.v ;) (because it was filmed, not because it's a rare occurence). Not to mention the fact that as an occupying power the U.S has a responsibility to safe guard civilian lives in Iraq. Whoops, I forgot, the Geneva conventions are irrelevant to Rumsfeld's military.

You know what Cap'n, I've changed my mind. You're right. In fact America should just drop a shitload of munitions loaded with nerve gas on Iraq, and wipe out the whole population. That would sort out those dirty sand-niggers... Afterall, they aren't human or anything. And it wouldn't damage the precious oil reserves. Win win.

[Philboid Studge]

If I were President, the war would be over in one month, I would turn half of Iraq into a mud hole.
Cap'n, most of the time I love you and would like to share a hot tub with you, but other times you really put the jerk in knee-jerk. "Kill all the insurgents." Stop the presses! A way out of the quagmire!

Have you enlisted yet?

[beerbelly]

shoot to kill lad . shoot to kill

[JimVonRamen]

"Kill all the insurgents."

"Turn half of Iraq into a mudhole."

Spoken like someone who knows fuck-all about guerilla warfare.

And people who never really cared about "finding WMD" or "freeing the people of Iraq" in the first place, anyway; in the end, this war was just about killing us some Ay-rabs, wasn't it?

[Cap'n Awesome]

"Kill all the insurgents."

"Turn half of Iraq into a mudhole."

Spoken like someone who knows fuck-all about guerilla warfare.

And people who never really cared about "finding WMD" or "freeing the people of Iraq" in the first place, anyway; in the end, this war was just about killing us some Ay-rabs, wasn't it?
We could do it, we have the most powerful military machine ever seen. We know what towns and areas the vast majority of the insurgents are in. We could bomb the hell out of it and then send in our soldiers to go clean up the rest.

Ask yourself why we don't? Two obvious reasons spring to mind.

A. International outrage. The reaction from your beloved (Yet impotent) U.N. would make a few people queasy. But heaven forbid we don't want to make a few French Liberals cry do we? That's a good reason to extend a war.

B. Alot of American soldiers would die all at once. Lets face it, 10 people dying a week isn't going to spark Vietnam-like protests at home. But if suddenly 500 soldiers died in a week, there reaction at home would be massive. But by the end of this war, far far more people are going to die then if we brought it to a quick end.

Listen, I was never in favor of going to this war in the first place. I think if people want democracy, or a change of government, it's thier own responsibility to do it. But now that we're there, we might as well try to win the damn thing.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Here's a solution - hand the country over to the U.N. Of course then Bush and Co. wouldn't be able to make sure that Iraq's government keeps conditions favourable for American business interests.
That's a great idea Fryan, oh wait, I just remembered who is the military power that backs the U.N. That's right, it's the U.S. Military. The U.N. is impotent without us. Do you think just because the French and Germans are in there that roadside bombs are going to stop? Beyond that do you really think that they want to take over Iraq? No, it's our mess, we started it, we might as well finish it.

[WITHTEETH]

Cap'n Awesome, do you think about anyone but yourself?

[Tenspace]

May I point out at least one redeeming value of Capn's?

"Listen, I was never in favor of going to this war in the first place. I think if people want democracy, or a change of government, it's thier own responsibility to do it."

[Cap'n Awesome]

Cap'n Awesome, do you think about anyone but yourself?
I think about myself first.

Lets put it this way, if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I shoot him. I don't stop to think 'Gee, maybe he has kids and a wife, maybe he's just hit hard times and is being forced to do this by bad circumstance. Maybe it's just some junkie who I can wrestle to the ground, or take the gun from him, what did I do to make this person angry in the first place' I think "How do I kill this person?" I'm not going to fire a warning shot, and give him a chance to plug me in the chest. I'm going to shoot him and be done with it.

The First quote is what our Military is like now, the second is what we should be like. We defeated the Iraqi army in what, a week? Declare victory and now mill around while we get blown up? It's time to get back to a little shock and awe, to remind the insurgents who has the bigger gun.

[EnyaAthleas]

Personally, I'd have to say my guess is that when Cap'n Awesome wrote this, this was a slightly anger-motivated idea, most likely roused from watching the News that more people died, or something similar.

From a military perspective.
He's right.

"If you want to win a war, WIN A WAR, dammit." -Some general talking to the King.

Though when you put in politics, it'll never work as envisioned.
Since it's a DEMOCRACY, there will always be haters of any idea, no matter how good.
Just like how I pointed out that if I wanted to say something like... "Racism is Good" or something idiotic like that, I'd be able to find some Doctor who wrote an article supporting that, because there are simply so much... ideas? people? That there will always be disagreements with even the best of ideas.

And most people think of Iraq/Iran people as living beings, just like them. So they wouldn't want someone to nuke THEM, so they won't nuke the other people.

From some History Book I studied sometime ago, it was generally agreed on that dictatorship WAS a great idea, much better than democracy. Because with a dictator, he could do what you are proposing, etc, etc. But the problem is that no one likes a dictator, sooner or later everyone's going to disagree with SOMETHING he did wrong, and blah blah blah.

Since this is my first post, I hope it was helpful to this topic.

[WITHTEETH]

Cap'n Awesome, do you think about anyone but yourself?
I think about myself first.

Lets put it this way, if someone breaks into my house with a gun, I shoot him. I don't stop to think 'Gee, maybe he has kids and a wife, maybe he's just hit hard times and is being forced to do this by bad circumstance. Maybe it's just some junkie who I can wrestle to the ground, or take the gun from him, what did I do to make this person angry in the first place' I think "How do I kill this person?" I'm not going to fire a warning shot, and give him a chance to plug me in the chest. I'm going to shoot him and be done with it.

The First quote is what our Military is like now, the second is what we should be like. We defeated the Iraqi army in what, a week? Declare victory and now mill around while we get blown up? It's time to get back to a little shock and awe, to remind the insurgents who has the bigger gun.
Good analogy, except for the fact that WE ARE THE ONES WITH THE GUN INVADING HOUSES! We're the assholes. What do we possibly have to win? its either a failure or a loss to us, in any case its not a win.

Heres a definition of Empathy:
em·pa·thy [émpəthee]
noun
1. understanding of another’s feelings: the ability to identify with and understand another person’s feelings or difficulties
2. attribution of feelings to an object: the transfer of your own feelings and emotions to an object such as a painting

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

When we invade Their country on a false premise, cause terror, destroy cities, kill power, kill civilians, houses and a few insurgents, throw a few pewople off a bridge we CAUSE terror, and that causes TERRORISTS. You will only caise more hatred towards the US and thus more attacks. That mentality is irresposible. If you put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes, see through their eyes, you might see why your statement would cause such a great uproar.

[whoneedscience]

I'll admit my own opinion on the war is somewhat muddled, but going around killing people in Iraq is exactly the wrong thing to to. Look, we tried it in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you kill one innocent civilian in an area like Iraq today, you'll have his brothers, sons, cousins and neighbors strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up your checkpoint tomorrow, and just as many signing up to crash planes into your home the day after that. That's the way life is when you don't have running water and your only education is the Koran.

If you want to win the war, you have to defend the Iraqi people, not attack them. We need to set up infrastructure: roads, water, police, and especially schools. Then they will see that it is the insurgency that is hurting them, not the infidel Americans, and in a generation, they stand a chance of being a functioning, developed country.

[JimVonRamen]

Anyone who thinks that using "shock and awe" and "killing lots of people" will "scare off the insurgents" knows nothing about the history of counter-insurgency operations. All you do is simply create more people willing to fight and die to throw you out of their country.

"Shock and awe" worked against the Iraqi regular army because they weren't that thrilled with Saddam to begin with, because our Army was kicking their asses, and they had hope we were really going to turn things around there.

Similar tactics have never worked against an insurgent movement in history. The only way they *can* work is if you commit absolute genocide, which I don't think anyone here is insane enough to actually be suggesting. Are they?

[Choobus]

The key to beating the insurgents is to make more human pyramids, and taller ones too.

[Fryan]

I'll admit my own opinion on the war is somewhat muddled, but going around killing people in Iraq is exactly the wrong thing to to. Look, we tried it in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you kill one innocent civilian in an area like Iraq today, you'll have his brothers, sons, cousins and neighbors strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up your checkpoint tomorrow, and just as many signing up to crash planes into your home the day after that. That's the way life is when you don't have running water and your only education is the Koran.

If you want to win the war, you have to defend the Iraqi people, not attack them. We need to set up infrastructure: roads, water, police, and especially schools. Then they will see that it is the insurgency that is hurting them, not the infidel Americans, and in a generation, they stand a chance of being a functioning, developed country.
A good point, on the whole. However, after killing 100,000 or more civilians (the Lancet report), I think it is too late for the U.S to start playing nice in Iraq to win people over. At this point, it doesn't don't seem like there are any good options. Regardless of what happens, the people of Iraq are fucked.

[Fryan]

Here's a solution - hand the country over to the U.N. Of course then Bush and Co. wouldn't be able to make sure that Iraq's government keeps conditions favourable for American business interests.
That's a great idea Fryan, oh wait, I just remembered who is the military power that backs the U.N. That's right, it's the U.S. Military. The U.N. is impotent without us. Do you think just because the French and Germans are in there that roadside bombs are going to stop? Beyond that do you really think that they want to take over Iraq? No, it's our mess, we started it, we might as well finish it.
Actually, many nations contribute troops to the U.N. The only time when U.S military power is essential is when the U.S has used a U.N figleaf while invading/bombing some country or other. And I wouldn't suggest using European peacekeepers anyway. Most likely they wouldn't be viewed that differently to U.S troops. The E.U nations could provide funding, while Arab and North African nations provide peacekeepers. What's standing in the way of this? The neocons don't want to let go of something they view as having strategic importance - oil, naturally. And, short of genocide, I would like to know how the U.S could "finish it".

[whoneedscience]

A good point, on the whole. However, after killing 100,000 or more civilians (the Lancet report), I think it is too late for the U.S to start playing nice in Iraq to win people over. At this point, it doesn't don't seem like there are any good options. Regardless of what happens, the people of Iraq are fucked.
Yeah, it's gotten pretty bad. Perhaps if we can show a significant change in government and military leadership we could stand a chance at changing some minds, though.

Does anyone know if there is an international effort to do this? It seems to me like a European leader could gain a lot of support with a campaign based on stopping Bush and setting the US straight, and they would probably gain the support of a decent 50 percent of the US, too, especially with Bush's approval ratings crashing and burning. Boy, would that piss off some fundies over here :) .

[Cap'n Awesome]

Good analogy, except for the fact that WE ARE THE ONES WITH THE GUN INVADING HOUSES! We're the assholes. What do we possibly have to win? its either a failure or a loss to us, in any case its not a win.
Fine, were the ones invading the houses. I agree, I don't like the war, it was stupid of us to do and it's none of our bussiness to be mucking around, trying to force democracy on a people that then turn around and vote away thier own freedom by installing an Iranian Mullah type government.

But regardless the analogy still stands. If I'm robbing a house, and someone pulls a gun on me. I shoot him. I don't stop to think 'gee, this guy's probably a decent fellow, with a family and kids" No, I think, "He's trying to kill me, I'll kill him first"

There are three options to the war, as far as I see.
Option A. Immediate withdrawl, (Al Queda laughs thier asses off, we look weak, Iraq sinks into chaos, Iran and North Korea realize they can do whatever they want and the U.S. isn't going to do shit back)
Option B. Kill a whole lot of people in a short length of time. Sure it isn't the pretty option, it's never going to be the popular option. But the war will be over real quick. Our soldiers will be home, and Iraqi policemen will be able to patrol the streets, having the power to protect thier own country.
Option C. Keep doing what were doing.......forever. Sure, we'll only kill a dozen people a week, for 10 or 12 years. It'll add up to more total deaths then a quick decisive end to the war, but because they are spaced out, hippies like you won't feel quite as outraged. Some politician gains 2 extra precentage points of approval rating, and the bodies pile up slowly.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Actually, many nations contribute troops to the U.N. The only time when U.S military power is essential is when the U.S has used a U.N figleaf while invading/bombing some country or other. And I wouldn't suggest using European peacekeepers anyway. Most likely they wouldn't be viewed that differently to U.S troops. The E.U nations could provide funding, while Arab and North African nations provide peacekeepers. What's standing in the way of this? The neocons don't want to let go of something they view as having strategic importance - oil, naturally. And, short of genocide, I would like to know how the U.S could "finish it".
If you don't recall Fryan, we tried to get as many countries as we could to come on board with us. Do you honestly think that France wants to come in and help clean up our mess? The world (which the vast majority opposes the war) isn't going to be like "Yeah, lets put our soldiers on the line for a war we don't believe in" What Arab and North African countries are you talking about specifically? Which are the ones that want to come in and help with the War in Iraq?

Addressing the 'short of Genocide' comment. That seems pretty inconsistent with every war that has ever been fought in the history of human kind. We didn't have to kill all the Germans and Japanese to win World War Two. And my guess is that they were just as dedicated to the cause, (if not more) as your average Iraqi insurgent is. The way we could 'finish it' would be to go in and start killing until they surrender, the same way every war has ever been fought. The reason we don't is because politicians don't want to lose those five or ten popularity points that comes from bleeding hearts who blind themselves to the fact that a short war with alot of casualities in a small length of time, is going to have less deaths overall then a prolonged war where we hold back constantly.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Anyone who thinks that using "shock and awe" and "killing lots of people" will "scare off the insurgents" knows nothing about the history of counter-insurgency operations. All you do is simply create more people willing to fight and die to throw you out of their country.

"Shock and awe" worked against the Iraqi regular army because they weren't that thrilled with Saddam to begin with, because our Army was kicking their asses, and they had hope we were really going to turn things around there.

Similar tactics have never worked against an insurgent movement in history. The only way they *can* work is if you commit absolute genocide, which I don't think anyone here is insane enough to actually be suggesting. Are they?
Where exactly are you getting your history books? Most insurgencies are beaten without genocides. You just kill enough people until they give up. The south in the Civil War wasn't an insurgency? (They lost around 7% of thier population) The French during WWII weren't an insurgency? Where is this absolute genocide that you are talking about? The biggest blow a country took during the 21st century in terms of population was Poland in WWII, which lost a little less then 25%. So even that, as horrific as it is, isn't 'whole sale genocide' I'm just curious as to where you got this concept. It's fairly standard in any war, kill enough of the other people, and then they give up. (P.S. before someone says it, I'm in no way suggesting that we kill 25% of Iraq or behave like Nazi Germany.)

[Cap'n Awesome]

I'll admit my own opinion on the war is somewhat muddled, but going around killing people in Iraq is exactly the wrong thing to to. Look, we tried it in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you kill one innocent civilian in an area like Iraq today, you'll have his brothers, sons, cousins and neighbors strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up your checkpoint tomorrow, and just as many signing up to crash planes into your home the day after that. That's the way life is when you don't have running water and your only education is the Koran.

If you want to win the war, you have to defend the Iraqi people, not attack them. We need to set up infrastructure: roads, water, police, and especially schools. Then they will see that it is the insurgency that is hurting them, not the infidel Americans, and in a generation, they stand a chance of being a functioning, developed country.
About the Vietnam comment. I assume you are kidding? We practically forced our soldiers to tie thier hands behind thier backs in Vietnam. Hey, today you have Air Support, no Today Air Support is going to offend a few hippies back home. We'll bomb some jungle today, no no, no bombing cities today, that would make me lose a few popularity points back home. We could have leveled all of North Vietnam in a month. But we didn't, we held back, the same thing we are doing now. Wars in which you don't try to kill the other guy, never end. That's why Iraq seems so similar to Vietnam, and why there doesn't seem to be a way out. If you take a look at every other war besides those two, you know when it's going to end, when either you kill enough of them, or they kill enough of you. With the situation we are in, we'll just slowly peck at each other, not realizing as the years pass that if we ended the war quickly (Like we could) alot less people would get killed.

[Fryan]

I'll admit my own opinion on the war is somewhat muddled, but going around killing people in Iraq is exactly the wrong thing to to. Look, we tried it in Vietnam. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you kill one innocent civilian in an area like Iraq today, you'll have his brothers, sons, cousins and neighbors strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up your checkpoint tomorrow, and just as many signing up to crash planes into your home the day after that. That's the way life is when you don't have running water and your only education is the Koran.

If you want to win the war, you have to defend the Iraqi people, not attack them. We need to set up infrastructure: roads, water, police, and especially schools. Then they will see that it is the insurgency that is hurting them, not the infidel Americans, and in a generation, they stand a chance of being a functioning, developed country.
About the Vietnam comment. I assume you are kidding? We practically forced our soldiers to tie thier hands behind thier backs in Vietnam. Hey, today you have Air Support, no Today Air Support is going to offend a few hippies back home. We'll bomb some jungle today, no no, no bombing cities today, that would make me lose a few popularity points back home. We could have leveled all of North Vietnam in a month. But we didn't, we held back, the same thing we are doing now. Wars in which you don't try to kill the other guy, never end. That's why Iraq seems so similar to Vietnam, and why there doesn't seem to be a way out. If you take a look at every other war besides those two, you know when it's going to end, when either you kill enough of them, or they kill enough of you. With the situation we are in, we'll just slowly peck at each other, not realizing as the years pass that if we ended the war quickly (Like we could) alot less people would get killed.
Are you completely delusional? In Vietnam American soldiers routinely and systematically killed entire villages. Ever heard of My Lai? Operation Phoenix? And in the bombing campaign orchestrated by Robert McNamara two million civilians were killed in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Jesus Christ, welcome to the 'America the Victim' view of history.

And in world war two Germany and Japan were the aggressors, so total war was justified. The invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked war. As such, the U.S has no justification for 'winning', by killing Iraqis until they are so crushed and desperate that they just capitulate.
Not to mention, that might be the kind of thing that would cause major civil strife in America. I believe concerns about the possibility of major popular mobilization was one of the reasons that the U.S finally pulled out of Vietnam.

You need to stop watching Fox News, and reading Thomas Friedman so uncritically Cap'n.

[Cap'n Awesome]

And in world war two Germany and Japan were the aggressors, so total war was justified. The invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked war. As such, the U.S has no justification for 'winning', by killing Iraqis until they are so crushed and desperate that they just capitulate.
Not to mention, that might be the kind of thing that would cause major civil strife in America. I believe concerns about the possibility of major popular mobilization was one of the reasons that the U.S finally pulled out of Vietnam.

You need to stop watching Fox News, and reading Thomas Friedman so uncritically Cap'n.
I agree that we shouldn't have gone in, maybe you missed the part where I've typed that over and over and over and over and over again. You people have to stop arguing motive with me. I don't care about the motive at this point, I care about the best way to win a war and come out of it without encouraging the North Koreans and Iranians.

If we pull out at this point, we look weak, the U.N loses it's only enforcement card (The U.S. military), the North Koreans and Iranians go "Well fuck it, if a few Iraqis can scare them off, they can't do shit to my country" China laughs as they become the only superpower.

If we stay doing what we are doing, we slowly get killed, and slowly kill Iraqis, over a long length of time to make it seem more acceptable. Overall, more people die.

Or we can unleash our military, kill alot of people in a short length of time, and end the war. Less people die overall, and were out of the quagmire. The reason we don't do this (which, dispite the many times you can all chant that I'm irrational, is the most rational solution) is exactly what you said. It would cause civil strife. So to boil it down, the most rational solution, the ends up with the least people killed over all, and a more stable world afterwards, causes the most civil strife.

By the by, what is your solution to ending the war?

[Fryan]

I'm still yet to be convinced that killing shitloads of civilians would crush the insurgency. The Japanese and German military were under the control of their respective governments. When their governments' realised the war was over, they capitulated. This is a guerrilla war, and not against a nationalist insurgency, but against a crazy religious insurgency.

And as for looking weak, America has a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. North Korea and Iran are not going to suddenly think that they can go toe-to-toe with the U.S in a conventional war, because America decides to exit Iraq sooner rather than later. And the crazy-ass leaders of those nations, and others, will be more concerned with the fate of the Iraqi Ba'athist government than with the result of an insurgency. You know, the fact that they are dead or imprisoned.

When I said civil strife, I was perhaps understating things a bit. Declaring total war on a civilian population at this point, when the Iraq occupation is already so unpopular, would likely lead to the fall of the Bush Government, and damage the Republican Party beyond repair. On top of that, America would likely become an international pariah, doing huge damage to America's economy. Doesn't sound too rational to me.

[Fryan]

Oh, and for your final question, I've already typed that I don't think there are any good options at this point. However the U.N is the only organisation with the international legitimacy to deal with Iraq at this point. And many African and Middle-Eastern nations, and Asian nations for that matter have peacekeepers in other nations. You know, like the Malaysian peacekeepers who saved the asses of the incompetent Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Here is a link to the U.N peacekeeping website.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

Here are a few random figures from nations that contribute to U.N peace keeping. From August 2005, the number of peacekeepers provided by each nation.


Bangladesh 8,812
Ethiopia 3,424
Ghana 3,320
India 6,321
Jordan 2,791
Kenya 1,484
Morocco 1,707
Nigeria 3,175
Pakistan 9,881
U.S.A 344 (Yes that's right, the military muscle behind the U.N. What a fucking joke.)

[Atheistfundamentalist]

I read this very interesting article about why we must leave Iraq.

by
Larry C. Johnson

Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

We may even be past the point of no return .... more http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/why_we_must_lea.html

[Cap'n Awesome]

I'm still yet to be convinced that killing shitloads of civilians would crush the insurgency. The Japanese and German military were under the control of their respective governments. When their governments' realised the war was over, they capitulated. This is a guerrilla war, and not against a nationalist insurgency, but against a crazy religious insurgency.

And as for looking weak, America has a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined. North Korea and Iran are not going to suddenly think that they can go toe-to-toe with the U.S in a conventional war, because America decides to exit Iraq sooner rather than later. And the crazy-ass leaders of those nations, and others, will be more concerned with the fate of the Iraqi Ba'athist government than with the result of an insurgency. You know, the fact that they are dead or imprisoned.

When I said civil strife, I was perhaps understating things a bit. Declaring total war on a civilian population at this point, when the Iraq occupation is already so unpopular, would likely lead to the fall of the Bush Government, and damage the Republican Party beyond repair. On top of that, America would likely become an international pariah, doing huge damage to America's economy. Doesn't sound too rational to me.
Where did I ever say we should just go around killing civilians left and right, or declaring a total war on the civilian population. That is a complete misrepersentation of my opinion. I think we should be (much) more agressive when fighting the insurgents. People act as though you can never win vs a guerrilla war, which isn't true at all. It's pretty much like any other fighting force, if you kill enough of them, they no longer want to fight. We also bombed the crap out of the Japanese and Germans. Something we fail to do now and something we failed to do in Vietnam (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/vietnam/AP40.htm) for the four years when we completely withdrew air support from our soldiers.

The reason so many people died in Vietnam is because we fought the war half ass and thus prolonged it for far longer then it should have gone on. The peace movement didn't help end the war, it helped prolong it by prevented the US from droping the other shoe. I like how all those peace-niks love to take credit for helping to end the longest war in US history Congradulations on being so effective, even though every other war ended quicker with no major peace movement. Anybody see history repeating itself here?

I agree that many people would be seriously politically damamged if we dropped the other shoe in Iraq. Sadly I think that thats what prevents them from doing the right thing and ending this war. That is why there are 'no good options at this point' Because bleeding hearts can't do the math and realize that less people will get killed if we ended it quickly.

By the by, my second option would be declaring victory and leaving the whole mess behind. My last option would be what you apparently support and going "Oh well, there isn't anything we can do" Which just results in the continuation of whats going on now until forever. The U.N. doesn't want this mess. Most of those countries are against the war, why would they want to go over and die in a war we started and they don't believe in?

[Cap'n Awesome]

I read this very interesting article about why we must leave Iraq.

by
Larry C. Johnson

Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

We may even be past the point of no return .... more http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/why_we_must_lea.html
I think the author of that article makes a good point. Those are the three options and all of them are unworkable. We are unwilling to accept the sacrifices that would let us get vicotory, but for some reason we are more willing to accept more people killed as long as it's spaced out over a longer length of time.

[Rat Bastard]

I read this very interesting article about why we must leave Iraq.

by
Larry C. Johnson

Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

We may even be past the point of no return .... more http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/why_we_must_lea.html
If I go there will be trouble, if I stay it wil be double (yeah, Clash!). We need to get TF out. We never should have gone there. I doubt much good will come out of it, but at least everybody is rid of the bully, Saddam. My concern is that, the minute we leave, the Sunnis will come back in force. Here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sunni.htm is an interesting read on the problem.

[Fryan]

Where did I ever say we should just go around killing civilians left and right, or declaring a total war on the civilian population. That is a complete misrepersentation of my opinion. I think we should be (much) more agressive when fighting the insurgents. People act as though you can never win vs a guerrilla war, which isn't true at all. It's pretty much like any other fighting force, if you kill enough of them, they no longer want to fight. We also bombed the crap out of the Japanese and Germans. Something we fail to do now and something we failed to do in Vietnam (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/vietnam/AP40.htm) for the four years when we completely withdrew air support from our soldiers.

The reason so many people died in Vietnam is because we fought the war half ass and thus prolonged it for far longer then it should have gone on. The peace movement didn't help end the war, it helped prolong it by prevented the US from droping the other shoe. I like how all those peace-niks love to take credit for helping to end the longest war in US history Congradulations on being so effective, even though every other war ended quicker with no major peace movement. Anybody see history repeating itself here?

I agree that many people would be seriously politically damamged if we dropped the other shoe in Iraq. Sadly I think that thats what prevents them from doing the right thing and ending this war. That is why there are 'no good options at this point' Because bleeding hearts can't do the math and realize that less people will get killed if we ended it quickly.

By the by, my second option would be declaring victory and leaving the whole mess behind. My last option would be what you apparently support and going "Oh well, there isn't anything we can do" Which just results in the continuation of whats going on now until forever. The U.N. doesn't want this mess. Most of those countries are against the war, why would they want to go over and die in a war we started and they don't believe in?
Do you even read my posts, or do you already have a reply prepared for what you assume to be the standard 'bleeding heart' response? When I typed declaring total war on the civilian population, I meant that is what you would be doing in going after the insurgents in the same way the Russians have gone after Czechnia and Afghanistan ( and we can all see how well that worked). Total war against Germany and Japan, while it did involve wholesale destruction of civilian cities, primarily involved bombing factories, barracks, shipyards and other military targets, and destroying the ability of the enemy to fight. Where are the barracks of the insurgents? Or their factories? You are not fighting a conventional force, and conventional methods are unlikely to work.

And I can't understand where you get the bizarre opinion that the U.S was half-assed about bombing during the Vietnam war. America dropped 8 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1965 and 1973. That is over 3 times the amount of bombs dropped in the whole of World War Two! Apparently that is about 300 tons for every man, woman and child in Vietnam.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm Man, you seem like a smart guy, but you are so mired in establishment propaganda that you ignore the facts.

And as for misrepresenting my opinion of what to do as "Oh well, there isn't anything we can do", I pointed out that I don't think there are any good options, but the best one is still to hand the problem over to the U.N.

[calpurnpiso]

The only way to win the war in Iraq is to take Sadam and his cabinet back to Iraq so they are in control of the goverment again. Declare victory! Bring all of our forces home, then slowly start to bring our troops home from Islam infected countries. FORBID any despiccable Christ-psychosis infected missionries from leaving the US. Bring home ALL of those abroad infecting other nations.

Slowly but surely we'llstart to see progress......:)

[Fryan]

No way dude, Saddam is definitely not the answer. He was a psychotic, hated dictator, not a deified one. Even if I didn't think it was morally wrong to return strongmen to power, Saddam would likely only cause even more strife, both for the people of Iraq, and the U.S, who keep claiming they are trying to spread democracy.
Bad decision all round. I agree with getting U.S forces out of Islamic nations (and non-islamic nations for that matter) though. That alone would likely cause a dip in support for terrorist organisations. If the U.S then started withdrawing support from all the ruthless dictatorships they support, and instead started supporting actual democratic forces in the middle east, that would be another good step.

[calpurnpiso]

No way dude, Saddam is definitely not the answer. He was a psychotic, hated dictator, not a deified one. Even if I didn't think it was morally wrong to return strongmen to power, Saddam would likely only cause even more strife, both for the people of Iraq, and the U.S, who keep claiming they are trying to spread democracy.
Bad decision all round. I agree with getting U.S forces out of Islamic nations (and non-islamic nations for that matter) though. That alone would likely cause a dip in support for terrorist organisations. If the U.S then started withdrawing support from all the ruthless dictatorships they support, and instead started supporting actual democratic forces in the middle east, that would be another good step.
Perhaps, but remember, Sadam hates Osama and used to be a GREAT friend of the US, we ARMED him to fight Iran and the US KNEW how EVIL he was, he used to be our great FRIEND and STABILIZER........maybe Sadam's hate for Osama has dissipated since the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend"....well, instead of Sadam someone as devious should be placed in power. After all it takes a more poisonous snake to kill snakes. Democracy will NEVER works in Iraq. The Christ-Pychotics running the US are too ignorant and delusional to realize it....:)

[Fryan]

Why would democracy never work in Iraq?

[Cap'n Awesome]

Do you even read my posts, or do you already have a reply prepared for what you assume to be the standard 'bleeding heart' response? When I typed declaring total war on the civilian population, I meant that is what you would be doing in going after the insurgents in the same way the Russians have gone after Czechnia and Afghanistan ( and we can all see how well that worked). Total war against Germany and Japan, while it did involve wholesale destruction of civilian cities, primarily involved bombing factories, barracks, shipyards and other military targets, and destroying the ability of the enemy to fight. Where are the barracks of the insurgents? Or their factories? You are not fighting a conventional force, and conventional methods are unlikely to work.

And I can't understand where you get the bizarre opinion that the U.S was half-assed about bombing during the Vietnam war. America dropped 8 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1965 and 1973. That is over 3 times the amount of bombs dropped in the whole of World War Two! Apparently that is about 300 tons for every man, woman and child in Vietnam.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm Man, you seem like a smart guy, but you are so mired in establishment propaganda that you ignore the facts.

And as for misrepresenting my opinion of what to do as "Oh well, there isn't anything we can do", I pointed out that I don't think there are any good options, but the best one is still to hand the problem over to the U.N.
Some days I get accused of being an anarchist, some days I get accused of being a Fox News drone who is part of the establishment. (I don't get television reception, and I don't like the media at all. Fox news and CNN are both just poorly thrown together entertainment with a side of agenda shoved down your throat)

I'd be all for handing the Iraq mess over to the U.N. But it's never going to happen because the U.N. doesn't want our mess. Even if they did, I'm unconvinced that the attacks would stop simply because there Europeans were patroling Iraq, nor do I think the U.N. has the military power to deal with any sort of insurgency. They are more impotent then Bob Barker when he loses his viagra.

The diffrence between world war two bombing, and the bombing in Vietnam is that we were bombing cities in world war two. Also, remember we weren't bombing anything until the last third of the war. Even with the four year gap where we suspended all air operations in Vietnam (For what reason again? Other then to placate peace-niks) We spent more then three times as long in air operations, because the war was prolonged. Could you imagine if during World War Two we had given in to pacifists and stopped bombing Germany for four years, the war would have gone on much longer, just like Vietnam did, and just like Iraq is doing now. How can anyone say that we were fighting Vietnam to win, when we stopped bombing for four years?

Of all the options avaliable to us, fighting the war to win it is the most natural, the most realistic, and the most achievable. The U.N. isn't going to ever take over, because they don't want to. Even if they do, they are going to be stuck in the same situation that we are in.

Even if by some miracle we convinced North Africans or other Muslim members of the U.N. to patrol Iraq, as per your plan, it isn't going to stop anything. The insurgents don't have a problem killing other Muslims, in fact they seem to love to kill the Iraqis. (They make easier targets then U.S. soldiers after all)

[Fryan]

When exactly has the U.N, the secretary general, the security council, or in fact any group or individual within the U.N, said that they don't want to be involved in Iraq? Never. Why won't the U.N ever be involved? Because the U.S doesn't want anyone else to have influence in the Middle-East.

I have never, in any of my posts, stated that I envision European soldiers doing the peacekeeping. As for the insurgency not losing steam after a U.S withdrawal, I have to disagree. The U.S troops are the main reason for the insurgency. Most of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign fighters, and want the infidel invaders out of their land. Would the violence evaporate if U.S troops were replaced by muslim peacekeepers? No, however it would probably end up at about the same level as the Al Qaeda inspired violence in Saudi Arabia.

And this Vietnam thing is crazy. Were the nations in World War Two not fighting to win? I guess not since the U.S wasn't fighting to win in Vietnam, yet dropped three times more bombs than all the combatants in WW2 put together. Not to mention the millions of dead.

[Philboid Studge]

No way dude, Saddam is definitely not the answer. He was a psychotic, hated dictator, not a deified one. Even if I didn't think it was morally wrong to return strongmen to power, Saddam would likely only cause even more strife, both for the people of Iraq, and the U.S, who keep claiming they are trying to spread democracy.
Bad decision all round. I agree with getting U.S forces out of Islamic nations (and non-islamic nations for that matter) though. That alone would likely cause a dip in support for terrorist organisations. If the U.S then started withdrawing support from all the ruthless dictatorships they support, and instead started supporting actual democratic forces in the middle east, that would be another good step.
Perhaps, but remember, Sadam hates Osama and used to be a GREAT friend of the US, we ARMED him to fight Iran and the US KNEW how EVIL he was, he used to be our great FRIEND and STABILIZER........maybe Sadam's hate for Osama has dissipated since the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend"....well, instead of Sadam someone as devious should be placed in power. After all it takes a more poisonous snake to kill snakes. Democracy will NEVER works in Iraq. The Christ-Pychotics running the US are too ignorant and delusional to realize it....:)
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/rumsfeld_%26_hussein1.jpg

(This pic was taken right around the time the US was training the mujahadeen, the nice boys who would become al Qaeda. Reagan was the bestest prez ever!)

[Philboid Studge]

The US military launched air strikes around Ramadi on Monday, killing 70 persons. Iraqi police maintained that 20 of them were innocent civilians, including some children. The US military said it had received no such reports. Five US GIs were killed at Ramadi this weekend, and the city largely refused to have anything to do with the constitutional referendum. Whatever the reality, Sunni Arabs, whose nerves are raw from losing in their attempt to stop the constitution, will likely believe the story about the US bombing children. The guerrilla war is set to go on a long time.
Kill 'em all. Let Cap'n Awesome sort 'em out.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Would the violence evaporate if U.S troops were replaced by muslim peacekeepers? No, however it would probably end up at about the same level as the Al Qaeda inspired violence in Saudi Arabia.
I don't see that happening at all, most of the attacks aren't even on U.S. soldiers, they are on Iraqi policemen. (Who are easier to kill) Also when have you ever heard the U.N. saying that they wanted to be involved in the war in Iraq? Even if they have never made any comments dirrectly, the individual countries involved sure have made comments to the effect that they want nothing to do with the war. Most of those countries would much rather fight on the other side then our side.

[Cap'n Awesome]

The US military launched air strikes around Ramadi on Monday, killing 70 persons. Iraqi police maintained that 20 of them were innocent civilians, including some children. The US military said it had received no such reports. Five US GIs were killed at Ramadi this weekend, and the city largely refused to have anything to do with the constitutional referendum. Whatever the reality, Sunni Arabs, whose nerves are raw from losing in their attempt to stop the constitution, will likely believe the story about the US bombing children. The guerrilla war is set to go on a long time.
Kill 'em all. Let Cap'n Awesome sort 'em out.
Phil, this is exactly my point. We get a report of something like this happening, what, every week or two? So it doesn't really shock that many people. But it ends up happening every week for 5 years. Well...you get the point, alot of people are going to die that way. If we were to do it all at once, the war would end pretty damn fast, and overall less people would die. The second best option is just to declare victory and withdraw.

[ocmpoma]

I agree with Cap'n that if we kill enough "insurgents" or suspected "insurgents" that the "insurgency" will come to an end. However, I don't agree that this will "win" the war that is going on over there - it certainly will not be anything more than a Pyrrhic victory for the US.
It is certainly possible to achieve victory over guerilla forces. All it requires is something close to wholesale slaughter, domination of both guerillas and the populace, and an unrelenting show of force. While it would cut down on the deaths of US personnel in Iraq, it would be as drastic a political loss as would complete withdrawal.

The situation in Iraq has devolved into a no-win. In fact, I think it was a no-win from the moment the decision was made to go in.

(Edited to add "of US personnel" in 2nd para.)

[kmisho]

I agree with VonRammen about the real motivations behind attacking Iraq. I would add one other thing: The military needs to shoot its wad every once in a while. Make the people in their little suits feel like they're doing something. Get rid of those stockpiles of bombs. Good for business.

If the UN is impotent, we should make it potent. Start by getting rid of the veto powers of the WW2 self-congratulators.

[Eva]

GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

i agree to that 100%.

[Philboid Studge]

Cap'n, maybe I misunderstood your original comment: "I would turn half of Iraq into a mud hole," a sentiment which OC echoes -- "wholesale slaughter, domination of both guerillas and the populace, and an unrelenting show of force" -- if not endorses.

Whether such a tactic would save lives is disputable. Whether it would result in a "secure" nation-state is doubtful; I'd say incredible. Slinking out, pretending we won, might be the best option. By "best" I mean the "least horrible." But I think we should slink away, then support the effort to rebuild that mess. I know how you feel about the UN (that's a debate for another day), but there's really no other organization on that scale fit to clean up the unbelievable frigging mess we made. It's criminal what we've done over there.

You and I have a common starting point, at least, if for different reasons: we both think the invasion was a mistake. Speaking of strange bedfellows, I think your prescription is closer to the Hillary-Biden model for "getting out" but I could be wrong, as both of those people nauseate me, and I stopped paying attention some time ago.

[Cap'n Awesome]

Cap'n, maybe I misunderstood your original comment: "I would turn half of Iraq into a mud hole," a sentiment which OC echoes -- "wholesale slaughter, domination of both guerillas and the populace, and an unrelenting show of force" -- if not endorses.

Whether such a tactic would save lives is disputable. Whether it would result in a "secure" nation-state is doubtful; I'd say incredible. Slinking out, pretending we won, might be the best option. By "best" I mean the "least horrible." But I think we should slink away, then support the effort to rebuild that mess. I know how you feel about the UN (that's a debate for another day), but there's really no other organization on that scale fit to clean up the unbelievable frigging mess we made. It's criminal what we've done over there.

You and I have a common starting point, at least, if for different reasons: we both think the invasion was a mistake. Speaking of strange bedfellows, I think your prescription is closer to the Hillary-Biden model for "getting out" but I could be wrong, as both of those people nauseate me, and I stopped paying attention some time ago.
I agree that slinking out and pretending we won is probably the most workable model that has the least negative consequences for us. The problem being Iraq might go to Civil War, so more people might die in Iraq if we leave then if we were there. The problem with my plan is that it would be very unpopular, isolate us more from the Europeans and cause disrest at home. (Because people are emotional and can't see the long term.) Plus it might inflame the Muslim world against us. Which could kill more people in the long run.

But the absolute worst option is the path which we are currently on 'Staying the Course' as President Bush likes to call it. Staying the course means nothing is going to change over there, the war will likely slowly escalate, which is just a caulous political move so as not to draw out as much of a reaction. It's much more honest to just fight the war as hard and fast as possible. We need a plan to do something at this point.

Just on a side track, speaking of really strange bedfellows, I was a speaker at the local college on diversity week. I had shown up to a previous debate and been the loyal opposition when they asked for questions. When one of thier speakers crapped out on them they asked if I could fill in on short notice and 'share my opinion'
Holy Crap was I surprised at that. Liberals must actually be living up to thier 'open minded' claim these days. That's right hippies, Cap'n Awesome, champion of diversity.

[There Is]

Liberals must actually be living up to thier 'open minded' claim these days. That's right hippies, Cap'n Awesome, champion of diversity.
Here's what I have against this kind of post. It generalizes without reason. The funny thing is I never hear about this kind of speech when it comes to conservatism. Why? Because there's no such thing as a single conservatism, just as there really isn't for liberals either. I support many liberal policies, just as much as I respect policies considered conservative. I like neither Clintons nor Bushees, so going off on LIberals this, or Liberals that really doesn't make all that much sense. It's fallacious to think all policy can be so clearly distinguished, and since Liberal, and Conservative has nothing to do with Atheism, then it's probably best to start seeing these things based on the single policies themselves.

As for Iraq, I say we ask China to come in, and take over. We owe them all the debt. Why not just let em' come in, quell the Iraq problem, and let em' capitalize on the area? In fact, any global competitor that wishes to capitalize on Iraq, let em. It's better than letting the area roil back into civil war chaos.

[miata]

Did we use all our nukes??

[Another brick in the wall]

I say withdraw. If the Sunnis have half a brain, they'll beg for mercy to avoid being stomped on by the Shiites and the Kurds.

[a different tim]

Going back to the start...

Well there is a powerful state that is dealing with Islamic terrorism in exactly the way the Cap'n proposes. The Russkies. They are indeed killing "all the insurgents" in Chechnya. Let's just see how that's working for them.....


.....oh.