Iraq War

[ThePest179]

A war falsly created onthe assumtions that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to use, was harboring terrorists, and were developing an atomic bomb. the Insurgency only caused the 170,000 man Coalition army 4,700 deaths and 32,700 injuries, with the Insurgents suferring around 25,000 deaths and around 12,000 captured. Does anyone else think about how the war was lost even with the large manpower reserves that could have still been used to continue the war and possibly stop the terrorists?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

They never intended to win... It was pure politics...

[ThePest179]

Any opinion on the casulties?

[BTGBullseye]

Typical of any occupying force going up against any decently trained guerrilla force.

[ThePest179]

I also forgot to mention the civil war from 2006-2008 that may resurface and ruin Iraq, the fact that Saddam would have been overthrown by his own people like in Libya and Syria, and the potential for Iran to control northern Iraq. the US has now created more problems then solved them. I personally thougth the US could make Iraq better if Coalition troops remained, and the US media had overhyped the casulties and crippled the hadling of the situation.

[Humin]

Which war are you talking about? The one that's actually a war? Or the one where the U.S. is just... over there.

[ThePest179]

Which war are you talking about? The one that's actually a war? Or the one where the U.S. is just... over there.

 

To my knowledge there is no difference in either.

[Axeldeath]

The "war" was won easily and quickly. It's the years of occupation and babysitting that's taking it's toll on the USA.

[ThePest179]

The "war" was won easily and quickly. It's the years of occupation and babysitting that's taking it's toll on the USA.

 

The occupation years are what I mean when I say "the Iraq War".

[Vapymid]

Does anyone else find the fact that the war was lost even with the large manpower reserves that could have still been used to continue the war and possibly stop the terrorists?

 

The war was lost before it has started. It is impossible to win a war without an objective. It is also impossible to win a war against an entire population of a country - so a double impossibility. History is littered with examples of it and yet the US blundered into not one but two impossible wars at the same time. Very clever.

 

And how do you see that idea of stopping the terrorists? Which terrorists?

 

Definition of terrorism requires them to operate on the home soil of the target country. I have not heard of many Iraqis or Afganis having been caught trying to commit an act of terror in the US. But even if they are there, how do you envisage stopping them though military intervention in their home countries? Do you think they may be supported, directed and funded by the governments of Iraq and Afganistan?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

The terrorist forces lived, and trained in caves in both countries... And they are terrorists, not just against the US.

 

ter·ror·ism

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

No mention of location requirements... You might want to rethink yourself.

[ThePest179]

Does anyone else find the fact that the war was lost even with the large manpower reserves that could have still been used to continue the war and possibly stop the terrorists?

 

The war was lost before it has started. It is impossible to win a war without an objective. It is also impossible to win a war against an entire population of a country - so a double impossibility. History is littered with examples of it and yet the US blundered into not one but two impossible wars at the same time. Very clever.

 

And how do you see that idea of stopping the terrorists? Which terrorists?

 

Definition of terrorism requires them to operate on the home soil of the target country. I have not heard of many Iraqis or Afganis having been caught trying to commit an act of terror in the US. But even if they are there, how do you envisage stopping them though military intervention in their home countries? Do you think they may be supported, directed and funded by the governments of Iraq and Afganistan?

 

Regards

 

The objuctive was to (initially) to dispose Saddam and his (nonexistent) chemical weapons. After, it was to clean up the mess the US caused. The entire population was not for the terrorists (which were many factions that cannot be named, although some were Saddamists) as evidence by lack of support of the terrorists in recent years and the casulties of the new Iraqi security/police/army, which are 4x the coalition casulties. to stop the terrorists, one must first keep troops there to provide security and get Iraq to prosper economically, socially, and politically, although this has caused economic trouble here. That should keep the terrorism at a minimal. I have also come to understand some terrorists have attacked each other on religous beliefs, further degrading their own ablities. If the Iraqis were helping the terrorists en masse and/or the Coalition casulties were higher the situation might have called for a withdrawl, but I think the situation as it is/was needed more troops instead of less.

[Vapymid]

The terrorist forces lived, and trained in caves in both countries... And they are terrorists, not just against the US.

 

ter·ror·ism

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

No mention of location requirements... You might want to rethink yourself.

 

Number of things here. I think I would reply both to BTGBullseye and ThePest179 in one post as the subjects are really intertwined:

 

1) Iraq is mostly flat as a pancake - no caves there, except in the North and the North East but that's Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian border. Saddam would never have voluntarily allowed any militia activities there. Also well known to everyone (expect to George W and Rumsfeld) that Saddam's Iraq was a no-go area for Al Qaeda.

 

2) Terrorism. Please review the definition you quoted. *Political* gains. Terrorists cannot achieve political gains in America by blowing themselves up in Iraq - they have to do it in America. In Iraq they can only attack American occupying force (and so qualify as partisans, le resistance or simply freedom fighters, i.e. not terrorists) or behead an occasional American tourist: political effect = 0.

 

There was no point for Saddam to attempt to influence American policy by terrorism on the US soil and indeed it seems well established now that he did not try to do it. However, if there is evidence to the contrary - let's discuss.

 

3) Afgan - yes, there are caves there. Yes, they were used for militia and terrorist training (initially largely courtesy of CIA, sponsoring anti-Soviet guerrillas but it is not the point). There was a limited justification for a punitive operation against them after 9/11, although most of the motivation was down to simple revenge, which is never a good reason to do anything. Taliban was stupid in thinking they could cosy up to Al Qaeda but it often happens, the more insignificant a bunch of people is, the more they are willing to try to play big games with big guys.

 

However, it was really really very stupid of the US to stay in Afganistan after the initial strikes - result? Just like Persians, Indians, Arabs, the British, Russians/Soviets before them they now have to run. Taliban is coming back. Achievement = 0

 

4) Back to Iraq. I am no great fan of Saddam. However, he played a role in the order established by the crumbling (with the helpful assistance of the US) British and Turkish Empires in the early-mid XXth Century.

 

Iraq is not a natural or a stable country. It is basically made up of 3 regions - Shia Arabs in the South (with their natural allegiance to Iran), Sunni Arabs in the West, Kurds in the North. Saddam established the minority Sunni as the ruling elite, suppressing and oppressing Shia and Kurds. The regime was vile. However, without that kind of coercion, there is very little that can be done to hold these people together.

 

Arguably, it would have happened anyway as Saddam's kids would not have been tolerated for long after succession and the US intervention probably just sped up the process, but Iraq is now steadily moving towards a break up.

 

5) Current terrorism in Iraq. This is mainly a response to ThePest179. You think that by continuing to stay in Iraq the US could have gradually eliminate the continuing sectarian violence. I don't think so, here's why:

 

- the US presence was an occupying force. They were considered invaders, outsiders by the locals of every ethnicity in Iraq. As such, the US would just stir up constant resentment and would be the cause of a lot of attacks, rather than be a pacifying factor.

 

- The violence is now a part of the political process in the country. Roughly speaking, when the MPs from different regions cannot agree on something they go back to their towns and start sending bombs to each other to prove who has the strongest force or who is the most tolerant to losses. Having that point established, they meet again in a civilised environment and resume negotiations until the next disagreement. No occupying force would be able to fix it until the people themselves have sorted out their differences (or a new dictator appears)...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

In response to 2)...

 

Does it specify that it has to be America for them to be terrorists? No. At the time we had just been attacked by terrorists, and were wiping out as many terrorist threats that could attack us as we could. Did they have to attack us directly to be considered terrorists that COULD attack us? No.

 

As for that part about executing an American not being a terrorist act, you're wrong. The US considers any attack on it's citizens an attack on the country itself, and it can easily be something that can start a war.

 

In response to 3)...

 

You obviously don't know much about the way things are working over there... Yes they are renewing their attacks, but only after we wiped out most of their forces and equipment. They are attacking because they know that the only force that was able to stop them, and kill them, is pulling out... They also know that the US troops are not getting reinforced any more. They are now trying to make it seem as if nothing has changed so as to affect the global opinion, just like any well trained terrorist group would. (it causes more fear, even if it's a lie)

 

 

Finally, I'm not saying you're right or that I agree with your other points, those are just the ones I had time to reply to right now.

[ThePest179]

 

5) Current terrorism in Iraq. This is mainly a response to ThePest179. You think that by continuing to stay in Iraq the US could have gradually eliminate the continuing sectarian violence. I don't think so, here's why:

 

- the US presence was an occupying force. They were considered invaders, outsiders by the locals of every ethnicity in Iraq. As such, the US would just stir up constant resentment and would be the cause of a lot of attacks, rather than be a pacifying factor.

 

- The violence is now a part of the political process in the country. Roughly speaking, when the MPs from different regions cannot agree on something they go back to their towns and start sending bombs to each other to prove who has the strongest force or who is the most tolerant to losses. Having that point established, they meet again in a civilised environment and resume negotiations until the next disagreement. No occupying force would be able to fix it until the people themselves have sorted out their differences (or a new dictator appears)...

 

Regards

 

Iwould tend to think that removing Saddam the Americans would be seen as liberators that are bringing prosperity to an oppressed and damaged nation. Shows me for giving people ANY credit. Although my previous statements on how the terrorisim has decreased over years of occupation seems to me that they HAVE been accepted to varying degrees. For your second point on the clashes between groups, that could be solved be eliminating both groups unless they agree not to be a danger to each other (and to a lesser extent, a danger to civillians). An unthinkable solution would be to remove everyone from Iraq and "fill it back up" with people that can live there without killing each other. Of course it IS unrealistic and impossible. One point I wanted to adress initially (but got ignored) was that the Coalition troops in Iraq would be able to stay there for decades with the losses they were taking and the sheer number of troops they had.

[Vapymid]

but only after we wiped out most of their forces and equipment.

 

It's irrelevant because we are leaving and they are staying - they've won.

 

They are attacking because they know that the only force that was able to stop them, and kill them, is pulling out... They also know that the US troops are not getting reinforced any more.

 

I am glad that we may finally agree on something. Of course, they know. The US (and NATO) position there is what's known as a "lame duck". Every death of a Western soldier from the date of the announcement of the imminent withdrawal is futile and totally unnecessary and only serves the purpose of saving face for the politicians in our countries. That actually infuriates me.

 

Does it specify that it has to be America for them to be terrorists?

 

Well, we are not talking about a war started by China or Burkina Faso. It was an American war, so we are talking about terrorism relative to America.

 

The US considers any attack on it's citizens an attack on the country itself, and it can easily be something that can start a war.

 

Well, if believing in that brings you comfort - fine. Just don't try to test this principle on your own skin, that's all.

 

An unthinkable solution would be to remove everyone from Iraq and "fill it back up" with people that can live there without killing each other.

 

That is the "Final Solution" isn't it. It sounds tempting and we, of course, know that even people who consider themselves civilised may be seduced by it. But it is in reality the ultimate failure. You don't solve the problem (of conflict resolution) by doing this and you don't learn *how* to solve such problems in the process. So it will happen again and again if you resort to it.

 

Thankfully, the humanity seems to instinctively reject such "solutions" and would consolidate against anyone found trying to *overtly* use them.

 

the Coalition troops in Iraq would be able to stay there for decades with the losses they were taking and the sheer number of troops they had.

 

Technically - yes, but it would be a) pointless, b) expensive and c) politically suicidal.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

the Coalition troops in Iraq would be able to stay there for decades with the losses they were taking and the sheer number of troops they had.

 

Technically - yes, but it would be a) pointless, b) expensive and c) politically suicidal.

 

Regards

 

I agree it would be expensive, but if the Coalition troops stayed in Iraq for decades, then most terrorists would eventually give up (or move).

[ThePest179]

I also forgot to mention the civil war from 2006-2008 that may resurface and ruin Iraq

 

Now I mentioned the civil war earlier, and it may resurface. if Coalition troops remained, fear of a civil war that would destroy Iraq in every sense might have been avoided or postponed.

[Vapymid]

The Coalition never had the motivation to apply such effort - other than UK and US, most of them did not get any sizable commercial deals out of it and even for UK and US the situation is not very enticing. The taxpayers are footing the bill but get nothing in return.

 

Also, the brutality needed to deal with the kind of insurrection happening in Iraq is not what the Western powers are ready to swallow - and thank god for that.

 

Finally, as I tried to say earlier, foreign intervention in civil wars usually only provokes more violence. Russia is a prime example - when Entente countries tried to intervene after the October revolution even parts of the population opposing Bolsheviks turned against the invaders.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Also, the brutality needed to deal with the kind of insurrection happening in Iraq is not what the Western powers are ready to swallow - and thank god for that.

 

Finally, as I tried to say earlier, foreign intervention in civil wars usually only provokes more violence. Russia is a prime example - when Entente countries tried to intervene after the October revolution even parts of the population opposing Bolsheviks turned against the invaders.

 

Regards

 

You don't need very much brutality in dealing with these terrorists. You only need to keep a strong, large force that is trained in locating and stopping the terrorists wherever they are. Security checkpoints and body search programs will slow things down in Iraq, but will be invaluble in preserving lives (which I remind you, is the reason Iraq was left for dead (pun not intended)). I also remind you, Coalition troops in Iraq (in my opinion) would have post poned Civil War.