How to win the War in Iraq.

whoneedscience wrote

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.

Cap'n Awesome wrote

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".

Fryan wrote

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 wrote

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.

Fryan wrote

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.

JimVonRamen wrote

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.)

whoneedscience wrote

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.

Cap'n Awesome wrote

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.

Fryan wrote

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?

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.

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.)

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_webl..._must_lea.html

Fryan wrote

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 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?

Atheistfundamentalist wrote

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_webl..._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.

Atheistfundamentalist wrote

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_webl..._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/milita...slam-sunni.htm is an interesting read on the problem.