Some Good News In Iraq?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

It doesn't hurt to hear some.

I think that some of the insergents are actually starting to fight WITH the US soldiers against many others in Iraq. Sounds like good news to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/penhaul.iraq/index.html?section=cnn_latest

BUHRUZ, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multi-National Division North, believes U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Vietnam and Latin America offer precedents for the strategy he is now pushing in this region of Iraq. (Watch how insurgents are turning against al Qaeda )

"We've seen this in previous counterinsurgency operations, using local nationals, arming them and forming them into scouts," he told CNN. "That's the primary role we want to use them in. They know the territory. They know the enemy."

The changing strategy isn't just confined to Diyala, according to U.S. officials. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told CNN Thursday that tribal forces in Anbar, the restive Sunni province west of the Iraqi capital, have "decided to oppose al Qaeda and fight with the coalition forces against them."

"What's taken place in Anbar is almost breathtaking," he said. "In the last several months, tribes that turned a blind eye to what al Qaeda was doing in that province are now opposing al Qaeda very vigorously. And the level of violence in Anbar has plummeted, although there clearly is still work to be done." (Full story)

At the highway intersection in Tahrir, the insurgents said they had named their anti-al Qaeda alliance the United Jihad Council. They said the newly formed council was an umbrella organization of smaller insurgent units, including the 1920s Brigades, the Mujahedeen Army, Islamic Army and the Salaheddin Brigades.

CNN videotaped gunmen posting lookouts on rooftops throughout Tahrir and patting down civilians -- checking for potential al Qaeda infiltrators -- as they made their way to prayers at local mosques.

Locals say al Qaeda amputated fingers for smoking
Nationalist insurgents say al Qaeda excesses are behind their falling-out. Several sources said al Qaeda members burned a 7-year-old child alive and murdered women and other children in the towns and villages around the provincial capital of Baquba. They did not give names or dates to back up their claims.

"They [al Qaeda] ruled with tyranny. They really harmed our town, so we had to stop them, and they left, no return," said one young gunman, who claimed membership in the nationalist 1920s Brigades.

Other civilian and insurgent sources in the towns of Tahrir and neighboring Buhruz said al Qaeda had imposed strict regulations, including a ban on smoking -- punishable by the amputation of a finger or hand -- and a curfew on citizens walking in the streets after 4 p.m.

Some citizens said al Qaeda had even banned Friday prayers.

Based on anecdotal evidence, offered by civilians in Buhruz, al Qaeda was financing its military operations by forcing citizens to pay a "war tax," as well as by kidnapping for ransom, selling smuggled fuel on the black market, and even using forced labor to harvest oranges and dates from sprawling plantations throughout the region.

In Buhruz, Capt. Ben Richards is one of the U.S. field commanders cementing the U.S. military alliance with its former foes from the nationalist insurgent factions. He said the new strategy was highly pragmatic. (Watch a marriage of convenience )

"If we go in with the mindset that every one of these persons has tried to kill an American, I don't think that's true, though in many cases it may be. But if you think that, then you're setting yourself up for a mindset that is not productive for us or for the Iraqi people," Richards, commander of a troop of Stryker combat vehicles, told CNN.

Richards described assistance from the former insurgent factions and what he calls other "concerned local nationals" as "militarily crucial."

His key ally in the region is a man known as Abu Ali, who says he has never belonged to an insurgent force but was an officer in one of Saddam Hussein's feared military intelligence units.

To date, Abu Ali says he has received 39 weapons and about 1,000 rounds of ammunition from the U.S. military. The insurgent factions he represents, however, are known to have significant arsenals of their own weapons, including light machine guns, assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

With the alliance only beginning to bear its first successes, few U.S. commanders seem to be looking toward the end of the affair. But there is a realization that it is a balancing act -- to prevent al Qaeda infiltration and to maintain the collaboration of nationalist insurgents.

"It's a risk worth taking," Mixon said.

[Mechs]

I guess the insurgents got smart. If you can't beat us, join us. Lets just hope it doesn't backfire.

[Beowulf]

I guess the insurgents got smart. If you can't beat us, join us. Lets just hope it doesn't backfire.
Yeah cause it's not like they've been trouncing our asses up and down that damned country or anything...

[mugen]

I guess the insurgents got smart. If you can't beat us, join us. Lets just hope it doesn't backfire.
haha, thats funny. There can't come any good from picking a side in a civil war, it will only ignite more hate.
edit: towards Americans that is.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

haha, thats funny. There can't come any good from picking a side in a civil war, it will only ignite more hate.
edit: towards Americans that is.


Well the Sunnies and Shiites are working with the Americans.

Sooooo...I don't see a side. I mean unless America sided with Al Qaeda which is kind of stupid.

[Mechs]

Yeah cause it's not like they've been trouncing our asses up and down that damned country or anything...

That all depends on ones perpective.

[h2orowe]

The only good news to come out of Iraq will be when we leave it, tbfh.

[Mechs]

The only good news to come out of Iraq will be when we leave it, tbfh.

Or the insurgents and terrorist give up and come to peace?

......What, it's possible.

[Chris]

Yeah cause it's not like they've been trouncing our asses up and down that damned country or anything...

Um, in what way? Militarily, we've trounced them pretty damn good. 3,500 US deaths as opposed to how many insurgent deaths?

[h2orowe]

3,500 US soldiers have died?! :| ....................................... wow. That's.. sad to say the leastttt.

[Jetsetlemming]

"Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000"
Every.single.site that pops up in a google search for war statistics is one anti-war group or another, so I dunno if these are accurate. :| They're a sign at what might be the actual number, at least.
The insurgents have been more focused on killing Iraqis of disagreeing sects and groups than US soldiers. Hardly "trouncing us up and down the country". :bored:

[Chris]

3,500 US soldiers have died?! :| ....................................... wow. That's.. sad to say the leastttt.

Yeah, it's 3,500 more deaths than I would prefer in any of our operations, but I can't call that a trouncing if you want to look at statistics.

[Beowulf]

That all depends on ones perpective.
Sure, it depends on your "perpective" indeed.

They are indeed trouncing us whether you folk want to admit it or not. Whether anyone wants to admit it this is Vietnam all over again and we are losing in the exact same ways. We are losing this war. Numbers mean basically nothing. They have what amounts to basically unlimited troop numbers, we do not. They have near unlimited resources, we do not. They are able to hide amongst the population (thus making them impossible to root out), we can not. Each respective faction has a civilian base sympathetic to their respective cause, thus giving them territory and a place to hide. We have a "green zone" that is (statistically) less safe then many other parts of the country. It doesn't matter how many we kill. This is an insurgency, the higher their casualty rate, the higher their recruitment rate. Sure they've supposedly stopped killing each other (and us) for the moment, but what happens when the fourth party threat is removed? They go back to killing each other (and us).

The only way to stop an insurgency such as this is either overwhelming them with superior numbers doing near constant house to house searches (impossible), or genocide. There is no other way to finish this with a "win" for the US. Put your nationalism away and get the troops home for their own good.

[Chris]

I wasn't getting all nationalistic there. You mentioned that we were getting trounced, which usually implies that we're losing militarily.

There are other methods of destroying an insurgency, though they are much more complicated and time consuming than the two you mentioned. It's also possible to broker a peace where they stop killing one another, we've done it in the Balkans. That was a similar comparison in regards to the ethnic cleansing which is what both sides are attempting to do now.

If we stay it'll be pretty hard to get that region settled down, but that depends on whether or not you think the Iraqi people are worth helping or not. There's a little more to this than nationalism.

[Plekto]

Eventually, whether it's six months or 60 years from now, they will stop fighting each other and turn their attention to the real problem, which is the foriegn military that's occupying their country.

We need to be long gone before that happens or we will be mauled. There has never been a single case of an occupying army that has survived a general revolt against them - well, not unelss they take a scorched earth policy, which we can't get away with.

[Beowulf]

Eventually, whether it's six months or 60 years from now, they will stop fighting each other and turn their attention to the real problem, which is the foriegn military that's occupying their country.

We need to be long gone before that happens or we will be mauled. There has never been a single case of an occupying army that has survived a general revolt against them - well, not unelss they take a scorched earth policy, which we can't get away with.
Exactly.

You mentioned that we were getting trounced, which usually implies that we're losing militarily.
We're not? That's news to me. The insurgency has accomplished just about every goal they've set out to achieve. We couldn't even find the WMDs we were sent there for in the first place by a lying administration.
There are other methods of destroying an insurgency, though they are much more complicated and time consuming than the two you mentioned. It's also possible to broker a peace where they stop killing one another, we've done it in the Balkans. That was a similar comparison in regards to the ethnic cleansing which is what both sides are attempting to do now.
Your right, and time is something we do not have. In fact we have very little time before the scenario Plekto outlined comes to pass. Where the different factions decide that they should get rid of us before they get rid of each other. I also don't believe that this situation is comparable to the Balkans. The people of the Balkans were able to help themselves with a little bit of help from NATO and the US. The Iraqi's are proving themselves to be far less capable. They simply lived for too long under a facist dictator.
If we stay it'll be pretty hard to get that region settled down, but that depends on whether or not you think the Iraqi people are worth helping or not. There's a little more to this than nationalism.
It's not that I don't believe the Iraqi's are worth helping, they are. This region of the world has been at war since humans began building civilizations. Historically the only way to keep control of the region was Saddam style, with a supreme ruler with his own military. And yes, nationalism does play a very large role in this. In fact I would venture a guess that nationalism is the only reason that we're still there. Our politicians are so nationalistic that they just can't have America lose another war. Everyone loves to say that we went in to remove Saddam (not true, we went in to get WMDs that never existed, well that and the oil) but (whether people want to admit it) things have gotten worse since the US occupation of the country.

[Mechs]

Whether anyone wants to admit it this is Vietnam all over again and we are losing in the exact same ways.

Iraq and Vietnam are two different wars, with two different enemys, that use two different tactics. How can it be lost in the exact same way? And who says were losing now?

We're not? That's news to me. The insurgency has accomplished just about every goal they've set out to achieve. We couldn't even find the WMDs we were sent there for in the first place by a lying administration.

Were not. Remote detonated bombs and random mortar attacks aren't the tactics of a enemy that has a upper hand in a fight. And when they do stand and fight, they pay dearly. Seems to me that the insurgents are getting whooped and not the other way around.

And I'm wondering: What insurgent goals? I've heard of nothing about them having goals other than kicking us out of Iraq by force, which they are failing at.

We need to be long gone before that happens or we will be mauled. There has never been a single case of an occupying army that has survived a general revolt against them - well, not unelss they take a scorched earth policy, which we can't get away with.

I don't think that will ever happen. From my understanding, a lot of Iraqis are friendly with U.S. forces and understand that we are there to help rebuild their country. Why would there be so many enlisting in the Iraqi Army and Police force, even with the danger of the job and to their families also? I think that they are there to help us take back their country from the insurgents and terrorists and make it a better country for their families and future generations of Iraqis. Or maybe it's just for a paycheck? Who knows, but my thought still stands.


I kind of hope I get to go to Iraq just to really see how it is over there, to see if my optimism towards this conflict ending well was not a waste.

[Chris]

Exactly.


We're not? That's news to me. The insurgency has accomplished just about every goal they've set out to achieve. We couldn't even find the WMDs we were sent there for in the first place by a lying administration.

They haven't forced us our of Iraq yet, as Mechs stated. And the entire population isn't against us either. They haven't accomplished their goals.

Your right, and time is something we do not have. In fact we have very little time before the scenario Plekto outlined comes to pass. Where the different factions decide that they should get rid of us before they get rid of each other. I also don't believe that this situation is comparable to the Balkans. The people of the Balkans were able to help themselves with a little bit of help from NATO and the US. The Iraqi's are proving themselves to be far less capable. They simply lived for too long under a facist dictator.

You seem to believe that the Iraqis are suddenly going to see eye to eye. Remember that the Shi'ites and the Sunnis have clashed since the beginning of the Islamic religion. As I've said before, they dislike one another just as much as they do us, if not more. The only thing thats going to stop that is if the bloodshed reaches a point where the population in general are tired of and decide to take some action on their own to reduce the violence inflicted by all parties.

It also took more than a little bit of help to fix the Balkan situation (which I'm not entirely sure if its 'fixed', violence could resume if NATO pulled out). The Balkans required a massive military campaign along with a prolonged peacekeeping effort in which we've physically had to step in and keep them apart, as well as politically. If you want to use the 'too-long' argument then what about the Balkans? They've been under the threat of various invasions and violence since civilization started there. Are they hopeless as well?

It's not that I don't believe the Iraqi's are worth helping, they are. This region of the world has been at war since humans began building civilizations. Historically the only way to keep control of the region was Saddam style, with a supreme ruler with his own military. And yes, nationalism does play a very large role in this. In fact I would venture a guess that nationalism is the only reason that we're still there. Our politicians are so nationalistic that they just can't have America lose another war. Everyone loves to say that we went in to remove Saddam (not true, we went in to get WMDs that never existed, well that and the oil) but (whether people want to admit it) things have gotten worse since the US occupation of the country.

It goes beyond losing another war. I'm not gonna disagree with you in that it'd be extremely hard for Bush to admit he was wrong on the WMDs and that oil was a big part of it, however we've also made commitments to the Iraqi people. Granted, the politicians didn't seem to realize the actual requirements of keeping true to those promises. Whether or not they feel up to the task of keeping those promises remains to be seen, however I do believe that it might be worth staying there unless things get exponentially worse. The violence and amount of dead always fluctuate, but progress is being made. The Iraqi people are making an effort.

[Radiance]

3,500 US soldiers have died?! :| ....................................... wow. That's.. sad to say the leastttt.

.... You're in school right? You do know how many people died in WW1 and WW2 don't you? Do you know how many died in the WTC attacks? (Seriously, the final count is much higher than you think after the factored in emergency response units.) While I am in no was saying every single one of those lives is not absolutely precious and there is any excuse for a single life being lost. 3,500 is nothing, not even a fraction of our national population. Now not all of them are there because they agree with being there, but they made the choice to enlist, as such they took on the role and all of the danger that comes with it. (I know exactly what they signed, I pissed off the enlistment officers so much they sent me to their boss cause I wouldn't stop going over the contract with a fine tooth comb before I told them I wasn't interested because of extremely vague details.)

Or maybe it's just for a paycheck?

Its more lucrative for them to sign up with a defense contractor company nearest to them. Highest paying job in their country right now. So I can only assume their enlistment is the desire to restore peace to their country. (Granted the details aren't the same for every individual that enlists over there, it is a steady paycheck so who knows.)

Also, as far as the country getting worse in regards to our arrival. How about we just state it is openly more violent? When saddam was in control it was all kept quiet if he could help it. I mean, after the fall of saddam there was an insane flood of torture videos. Beatings, stoning, people thrown from buildings, people set on fire. So in general it is more dangerous to walk down the street but the violence was always there.

[Jetsetlemming]

Lawl. Beowulf reminds me of mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n, except opposite.

[Radiance]

This reminds me. No offense Beoulf, but could I ask how old you are? Also, do you have any military experience? Sans those things, a political science or history degree? Just wondering if you have more incite into some of these things that I myself do.

[Plekto]

You seem to believe that the Iraqis are suddenly going to see eye to eye. Remember that the Shi'ites and the Sunnis have clashed since the beginning of the Islamic religion. As I've said before, they dislike one another just as much as they do us, if not more.


Currently, this is true. But eventually it will change. It has in every single instance of an occupation in human history*.

*Two exception scenarios to this, though - co-opting and scorched earth. Scorched earth is simple enough to understand, of course. co-opting is like the U.K. did with Canada and Australia. They gave up and rather than beat them over the head, they treated them as equals and gosh if it didn't work.

Of course, the ship long ago sailed with Iraq. Neither of these to options are viable now, and rebuilding won't happen for a very long time, either, due to a myriad of problems and issues that go to the core of their society.(basically it's Lebanon on ten times the scale)

We cannot win - the best we can manage tactically is a draw, but only if we start to use diplomacy instead of a 2x4. I give us a year before it hits the fan - or it would - but the elections will push it forward until Jan/Feb. If the new President doesn't apologize to the entire world for Bush's behavior and pull everyone out immediately - we're in a world of trouble.

Oh - and honestly,3-5K troops is a shame, but not that many compared to most wars.

[japanat]

Oh - and honestly,3-5K troops is a shame, but not that many compared to most wars.Immense for the families, but small for a war:
from Wikipedia
The Battle of the Somme, fought in the summer and autumn of 1916, was one of the largest battles of the First World War. With more than one million casualties, it was also one of the bloodiest battles in human history... ...best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead — at that time the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.

3,500 US soldiers have died?! :| ....................................... wow. That's.. sad to say the leastttt.Do you even have a TV? I don't understand how you could not know...

[Mechs]

We cannot win - the best we can manage tactically is a draw, but only if we start to use diplomacy instead of a 2x4. I give us a year before it hits the fan - or it would - but the elections will push it forward until Jan/Feb. If the new President doesn't apologize to the entire world for Bush's behavior and pull everyone out immediately - we're in a world of trouble.

The "2X4" is an extension of dipomacy, and we are already using the peaceful side of it, it just isn't being done by stiffs in suits with cameras and reporters that follow them everywhere.

The country is slowly being rebuilt (things would be faster if not for the insurgents and terrorists), new jobs are being created everyday, people are getting better medical services, and utilities we take for granted like sewers and running water. People are opening new businesses, etc.

There are even many places in Iraq where the people of a village or city neighborhood have begun patroling their own streets and rooting out the bad guys. Things in that country are getting done. Maybe not as fast and efficient as most people would like, but nonetheless things are moving and getting better little by little, and we still have a very good chance at victory.

[Beowulf]

Iraq and Vietnam are two different wars, with two different enemys, that use two different tactics. How can it be lost in the exact same way?
No actually they are using very similar tactics. Maybe you should look into this because I haven't got the will to explain to you why we lost the Vietnam war. And it can be lost the exact same way because we've been making the exact same mistakes.
And who says were losing now?
"a sizable majority" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200278.html)

Lawl. Beowulf reminds me of mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n, except opposite.
I'm not even sure I know who that is...

Were not. Remote detonated bombs and random mortar attacks aren't the tactics of a enemy that has a upper hand in a fight. And when they do stand and fight, they pay dearly. Seems to me that the insurgents are getting whooped and not the other way around.

And I'm wondering: What insurgent goals? I've heard of nothing about them having goals other than kicking us out of Iraq by force, which they are failing at.
No, they are the tactics of a force that knows it's outgunned, but never outnumbered. These are examples of a way to successfully wage war against a superiorly equipped force. If your in the military shouldn't you be studying this?
As for insurgent goals, they're the same as any insurgency.
1. Blend into population in order to wage successful guerrilla warfare - Success
2. Garner support for your cause in the local population (fueling aid and recruitment rates) - Success
3. Wage successful hit and run tactics in order to continually demoralize the opposing force - Success
Look up the instances of the US facing down a guerrilla fighting force, it never ends well for us.

This reminds me. No offense Beoulf, but could I ask how old you are? Also, do you have any military experience? Sans those things, a political science or history degree? Just wondering if you have more incite into some of these things that I myself do.
20 years old. I took AP European and American history in high school (along with the requisite courses all high schoolers take). I've taken two years of Political Science at the college level (I'm like a class away from an associates degree in it). The worst of it was a 10 page paper on gerrymandering...yeah no fucking fun. I've also taken about 9 or 10 credits worth of various history classes. I actually did a paper on the Iraq war. I had to interview veterans of the war, one of whom began crying when telling one of his stories. It was easily the most awkward (and terrifying as a guy) moment of my life.
Do my credentials pass your test?

The "2X4" is an extension of dipomacy, and we are already using the peaceful side of it, it just isn't being done by stiffs in suits with cameras and reporters that follow them everywhere.
Threats and loaded guns do not equal diplomacy. In fact they are the exact opposite of diplomacy.
The country is slowly being rebuilt (things would be faster if not for the insurgents and terrorists), new jobs are being created everyday, people are getting better medical services, and utilities we take for granted like sewers and running water. People are opening new businesses, etc.
Things would be going faster if our troops were trained to be peacekeepers. The country is, as it stands right now, just about a step below where it was when Saddam was in power. Only instead of an angry dictator, they have an occupation army.

There are even many places in Iraq where the people of a village or city neighborhood have begun patroling their own streets and rooting out the bad guys. Things in that country are getting done. Maybe not as fast and efficient as most people would like, but nonetheless things are moving and getting better little by little, and we still have a very good chance at victory.
Yeah those towns are doing that because nobody else is helping them. Not their government, not their neighbors, and certainly not the US. Eventually those patrolling groups will gain enough power to form their factions, which only further compounds the civil war. If we had obtained the UNs blessing then their peacekeeping trained troops could be handling this sort of thing.

And a general problem that I'm starting to see is that everyone keeps referring to numbers. Numbers mean nothing in this war. For every insurgent we kill, they bring up two more. In fact I think it's extremely sad that we've lost as many as we have. Had this war been done right (and for the right reasons) then we would have lost maybe only a third of what we have now. The fact of the matter is, is that we went in for oil, and to gain another staging ground to attack Iran (which seems to be the ultimate goal).

Everybody likes to talk about how they "support our troops". The best thing for the troops would be if they were at home, out of danger, with their families where they belong.

[Jetsetlemming]

"a sizable majority" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200278.html)
I'm not even sure I know who that is...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
We're losing the war because a news poll said so! Jesus, that's hilarious logic.
And he's someone in the "What the rest of the world thinks of America" thread who was saying that anyone who disagrees with the government should be shot and everything about the war is 100% right.

[Beowulf]

We're losing the war because a news poll said so! Jesus, that's hilarious logic.
Yes the example I chose of the hundreds of choices was the only one that said we were losing the war. I fail to see why this is hilarious. I could have chosen from a lot of different things and I just randomly went with that. Type the topic into google and you'll see what I mean.
Have you ever talked about the war with people? The consensus is that we're losing in general, and calling it a civil war at best.

[Jetsetlemming]

Since when does a poll, even assuming it's an accurate representation of public opinion, determine the truth of a situation? John Q. Public doesn't know DICK about the Iraq War except the occasional two minute blurb on how many people were blown up by a car bomb or how many people were shot down by an insurgent raid, with a good number of sensationalist bullshit news stories about how they all thing the war is terrible sprinkled in.
That ain't the truth, the whole truth, and it's far from nothing but the truth.

[Beowulf]

Since when does a poll, even assuming it's an accurate representation of public opinion, determine the truth of a situation? John Q. Public doesn't know DICK about the Iraq War except the occasional two minute blurb on how many people were blown up by a car bomb or how many people were shot down by an insurgent raid, with a good number of sensationalist bullshit news stories about how they all thing the war is terrible sprinkled in.
That ain't the truth, the whole truth, and it's far from nothing but the truth.
Your logic is baffling. Calling the entire American public a bunch of morons, then calling the news media worthless is an odd argument to say the least. By your logic everyone posting in this thread doesn't know anything about what's going on in the conflict (which would include yourself I'm assuming) because we watch the news.

[Kaji]

Threats and loaded guns do not equal diplomacy. In fact they are the exact opposite of diplomacy.

Seems to have been close enough at times, historically speaking... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry#The_Opening_of_Japan:_1852-1854)

[Mechs]

Your logic is baffling. Calling the entire American public a bunch of morons, then calling the news media worthless is an odd argument to say the least. By your logic everyone posting in this thread doesn't know anything about what's going on in the conflict (which would include yourself I'm assuming) because we watch the news.

And this coming from the man that hates "Faux News" (Or I believe that was you). And I watch the news, but I also visit soldier blogs and other forums where Soldiers gather, Soldiers that have been or are in Iraq. So I know something.

With your logic, I might as well trust my dentist when she tells me I have a brain tumor.

[Radiance]

And this coming from the man that hates "Faux News" (Or I believe that was you). And I watch the news, but I also visit soldier blogs and other forums where Soldiers gather, Soldiers that have been or are in Iraq. So I know something.

With your logic, I might as well trust my dentist when she tells me I have a brain tumor.

You have a brain tumor? I'm sorry, I hope it is benign. :X (This made me laugh much harder than I should have. :D)

[Mechs]

I hope I don't :D.


Things would be going faster if our troops were trained to be peacekeepers.

Our troops are trained in peacekeeping roles, but you can't use peacekeeping in a combat environment.

Threats and loaded guns do not equal diplomacy. In fact they are the exact opposite of diplomacy.

Threats and loaded guns have always been apart of diplomacy. Diplomacy is not always peaceful.

No, they are the tactics of a force that knows it's outgunned, but never outnumbered. These are examples of a way to successfully wage war against a superiorly equipped force. If your in the military shouldn't you be studying this?

Correction. Outgunned, outnumbered, and out classed. And they are not using tactics to win a war, especially when your own people get caught in the crossfire regularly.

[Jetsetlemming]

The insurgency in Iraq seems to be more focused on killing Iraqis of other groups anymore than westerners. A couple thousand US soldiers have died. 50k or so insurgents have died. Somewhere between 50 and 500 thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed.

[Plekto]

When our own generals and military experts who do this for a living say we are losing, well, I take that to mean we are.

What our enlightened President who actually thinks God speaks to him among other oddities decides that we're winning and the press says so as well... I'll still believe the generals.

This is why most failed military campaigns happen, historically. The leaders and the guys who actually do the fighting don't communicate and have different views. It's why we lost Vietnam and will lose this one as well.

A good example was our own revolution. King George sent over a tiny fraction of its military forces over to one of its colonies and told the leaders to win it. They complained and said they needed far more forces(among other things). As expected, they were defeated due to a a typical boss/employee failure to listen. You know the type - "make it happen" says the boss and the employee can't get it through their head that it's just not possible.

Or generals asked for 500-700,000 troops and we sent over a fraction of that number. With predictable results.

[Chris]

Well, no one can deny that Bush did a crap job of listening to his generals. But that doesn't mean the war is lost and over. What's needed is a change of strategy and tactics.

[Trump]

We are "losing" this war? So that begs the question, how do you define losing in terms of this war? How do you define winning?

This isn't like the civil war or the world wars where there were specific enemy lines, territory, and battles where victory was determined by who retreated. We actually end up retreating more than not to protect the lives of our soldiers and everyone else around. So from a military standpoint, it doesn't surprise me that they say we are losing. But is that the only way to define this conflict? Sure we retreat, but two hours later the enemy has left and we can return.

So my question remains, how do you define winning or losing in Iraq?

[japanat]

I also visit soldier blogs and other forums where Soldiers gather, Soldiers that have been or are in Iraq. So I know something.I don't mean to be nit-picky, but... why "Soldiers"? While I respect anyone who'll volunteer to stick his/her ass in front of a bullet for the rest of us, 'soldier' is not capitalized - it's not a name.

And I agree with many of you that this isn't a conflict that can be defined the way most are: with front lines, clearly identifiable enemies, etc.

But it realllllllyyyyy chaps my ass when a Nat'l Guard dropout decides not to listen to his professional soldiers (which most Nat'l Guard soldiers are), runs before the army is truly ready and with less than 1/4 the troops said professionals recommend; then grandstands and sets up a quagmire that is going to be a nightmare to pull out of, costing many, many unnecessary civilian and military casualties.

[Chris]

So my question remains, how do you define winning or losing in Iraq?


I'd say that it would be dependant on if we're actually making the country a better place or not, but I really don't think we'll know until we can look back in time and see how Iraq has evolved, if its gone from a nation beaten down by decades of a dictator to a country that can stand on its own without us having to forward them billions of dollars every year? A country that can keep corruption and terrorism in check on its own without the aid of the US or any other allies?

[Mechs]

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but... why "Soldiers"? While I respect anyone who'll volunteer to stick his/her ass in front of a bullet for the rest of us, 'soldier' is not capitalized - it's not a name.

Typo :boggled:. I didn't even notice I captialized it.