How to win the War in Iraq.

Cap'n Awesome wrote

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 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......:)

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]

Fryan wrote

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....:)

Why would democracy never work in Iraq?

Fryan wrote

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)

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]

calpurnpiso wrote

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....:)

(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]

Juan Cole wrote

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.

Fryan wrote

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.

Philboid Studge wrote

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.

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.)

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.