Bush's Lost Year - Strategic Failure in the GWOT

[Brad Sallows]

Afghanistan was the "90%" solution in recognition of the Law of Diminishing Returns.

What has been achieved in Iraq is the early triggering of the Iraqi Civil War under controlled circumstances (ie. foreign occupation).  Iraq is not a very good candidate for "natural" nationhood.  We will only ever be able to speculate whether allowing Hussein to die (naturally or otherwise) in office would have led to greater or less instability.

 

[devil39]

 Iraq is not a very good candidate for "natural" nationhood.

Certainly true, and there are those who suggest that it should be allowed to split 3 ways.   I am not certain we will ever see the Kurdish north back in an Iraqi nation.   Certainly not without significant concessions and the same freedoms they enjoy from central authority today.

I am a believer in the school of thought that states Rumsfeld and others in the Office of the SecDef meddled with a workable military plan for partisan political purposes, and as a result wound up without enough troops on the ground to properly secure the country after the war.  

Winning the war was never in question.   A successful occupation was jeopardized by a shortage of soldiers on the ground, and an initial failure to appeal to the international community for assistance in conducting the occupation phase of this war.

In my opinion the invasion was justified, however the justification was very poorly articulated by the administration.  

The occupation was bungled by a shortage of manpower, and political strategic meddling in what should have been the "Operational" Commanders purview.  That purview being the execution of the campaign plan with the resources deemed appropriate by those tasked to physically carry out the campaign.

 

[dutchie]

This might be overanalyzing a bit, but if you look at the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, and compare the two overall strategic options put forth here, I think you might see that there was a better choice. This is kind of an expansion of what CFL said (if you don't mind CFL):

Option #1 (reality)- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q, gather intel regarding plans, pers involved, locations of camps, evidence of links to 9/11, etc, etc, etc. Invade, destroy known camps/hideouts, topple Taliban, look high and low for Bin Laden and assoc. Scour the countryside, failing to find him, assumne he fled to Pakistan and points beyond. STOP, go to Iraq, raise heck, topple Saddam, attempt to placate populace, fail (for the time being anyhow).

AchievementsAfghanistan)-Taliban not nearly the threat they once were Internationaly (although domesticaly a real threat), Al-Q camps destroyed.
(Iraq)- A real monster is removed as leader of Iraq, oil flows from Iraqs wells to world (as opposed to the balck market oil that flowed since the end of the '91 war), Baath party removed, organizations of torture and depravity destroyed, world sees first hand that Saddam really didn't have WMD   , threat that Saddam could attack a neigbour and provoke another war outside Iraq removed.

Failures (Afghanistan):Bin Laden still out there (as well as most of his top associates), Afghanistan is no less a breading ground for terror than before, Ghanistan's infastructure is worse off than before (if that's possible), most of country controlled by warlords who are as bad if not worse than Taliban, opportunity lost to better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity lost to show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region.
(Iraq)- Insurgency that seems poised to overwhelm US forces at times doesn't seem to be dying, Iraq on the cusp of civil war, otherwise marginal figures (Al-Sadr) gain power and 'respectability' by opposing the US occupation, civilian foreign workers kidnapped/executed fairly regularly, Iraqi 'rich' citizens kidnapped and murdered very regularly, regular attacks on Iraqi police/NG killing good men that could help bring country under control, despite elections on horizon and 'handover of power' the country seems less and less likely to become anything that resembles a democratic state.

Option #2- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q, gather intel regarding plans, pers involved, locations of camps, evidence of links to 9/11, etc, etc, etc. Invade, destroy known camps/hideouts, topple Taliban, look high and low for Bin Laden and assoc. Scour the countryside, failing to find him, assumne he fled to Pakistan and points beyond. Continue search for Bin Laden, pressure Pakistan to give full assistance to the coalition in search and arrest of Al-Q operatives, with the help of Intl community (especially the Arab world) develop some form of responsible gov in 'Ghanistan (not necessarily democratic), gather intel from US sources as well as Intl intel sources regarding terror groups and their activities (thereby gaining their trust in the US findings of terrorism). Once stability (relatively) has been gained in 'Ghanistan, and evidence supports action in other states (ie Iraq), and UN/Intl support has been gained, take action elsewhere (Iraq). Then if the crap hits the fan, it's not just the US's problem but also the problem of every state that supported action.

Possible achievments: (Afghanistan)-Taliban not nearly the threat they once were Internationaly (although domesticaly a real threat, Al-Q camps destroyed, Bin Laden still out there , Afghanistan is no less not a breading ground for terror than before, Ghanistan's infastructure is worse off than before improved, most of country controlled by warlords recognized government who opportunity lost to better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity lost to show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region.
(Iraq)-With a clear success in Afghanistan, and a clear plan and mandate in Iraq, the US could only improve their chances of achieving it's stated goals. With a plan, and clear goals, it also gives the US an 'exit-strategy' once those goals are achieved.More Intl/Arab support for action means more sharing of the pain and cost (US economy not put into serious jeopordy), a real handover of power to Iraqis is established and a pro-west/US government a possiblity (as opposed to the zero chance such a government could survive one week today), a chance for real reform in the Arab world regarding Arab-US relations. otherwise marginal figures (Al-Sadr) gain power and 'respectability' remain marginal by opposing the US occupation.

Or as CFL stated so perfectly, finish one job, start another. Yes, Infanteer, you have to look at the overall goal, but it's one step at a time.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

No problem.  I ain't so eloquent.

 

[Infanteer]

Certainly plausible.  But I think there is a weakness in the fact that your entire alternate scenario revolves around the notion that focusing on Afghanistan would eventually lead to:

Ghanistan's infastructure is improved, most of country controlled by recognized government who better the lives of perhaps the poorest people on earth, and an opportunity show the Arab world that the West is capable of working with them to better the region.

Sort of like "Domino Effect Thinking"; stabilize the country to prevent the spread of communism terrorism.  The US tried that with great success in Vietnam; in my view the lost the war when they put a bullet into Diem's head.

Bottom line; I think "developing" a country like Afghanistan is a long and arduous process (it took how many years to sort out Germany and Japan), one that we cannot afford to sit on and do our best when more pressing concerns in the GWOT.  Your assumption above, although ideal, seems to believe that all the Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara, Baluchi, and other assorted bands of tribal warriors are going to put down their traditional xenophobic warrior ways and march to the tune of development and civil society by "Letting Freedom Reign!".

It may be possible to do, but in my opinion, not against the backdrop of a larger geopolitical conflict that we are seeing now.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

First, it's not terrorists they are fighting in Iraq, it's insurgents. Terrorists don't attack soldiers, they attack civilians.

That's the point!

Second, the insurgents aren't the only ones being crucified, so are US soldiers. And I object to that term crucified by the way, as it is loaded with religious implications that would best be left out of the argument.

Sorry if you took me to be making some kind of religious connotation, but I meant it in the sense of "the infliction of extremely painful punishment or suffering," and neither the ancient form of execution (literally) nor the Biblical account of the death of Jesus (which is what I figure you mean by religious implication).  More to the point, these people are being forced live and die in a 'war' zone, rather than living openly and peacefully (while they plan their next attack) on the streets of New York, Toronto, etc.  As invasions go, the invasion of Iraq has been very successful (certainly in historical terms), so I don't buy your argument that the Americans are 'being crucified as well' (unless you are referring to John Kerry's press releases).  Put it this way: ideology aside, I can't imagine anyone would rather be in the position of the insurgents than the American troops in Iraq.

Third, the US, in my opinion, is in more danger of a terror attack now than before the war.

Possibly, but how much of that danger was caused BY the war (on Iraq, I assume you mean), and how much MORE danger would there be if they had not?  Here's a clue: the Russians warned that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US right after 9/11 ... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/ (of course as it was not part of the P.C. 'Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism' argument, it didn't made the front page ...)

Further, the terrorists seem to be a tough nut to crack, and it's a little optimistic to even suggest that as a group, they are meeting their 'demise'.

As individuals, they are.  I think you misunderstood my line of reasoning: the 'group' we are talking about are Islamofascists (for lack of a better term): those that in the past would have 'graduated' (from merely hating the West) to terrorism are instead becoming 'insurgents' and being killed before they become 'terrorists'.

Finally, the terrorists don't seem to be too occupied to bomb trains in Madrid or Aussie embassies in Indonesia....maybe it's the US that is becoming increasingly 'pre-occupied'.

WTF?  Wars aren't won overnight: yes, terrorists still exist and they are being drawn out of hiding and not *every single one* is in Iraq: there WILL be more attacks.  That doesn't mean that they aren't losing ...

Afghanistan and Iraq are all portions of a much bigger job; staying focused on that job is the key.

EXACTLY, IMHO!

I'm not necessarily saying to fix Afghanistan but to finish the job of eradicating the Al Quida (SP) and neutering Bin Laden to the best of your ability then move on. Sure its nice to fix the place but they should have turned that figured head into pink mist before leaving and keeping a fraction of their forces there.

When was last we heard from him?  I suspect he is little more than a pink mist already (but no body = legend lives).

Iraq is not a very good candidate for "natural" nationhood.

Certainly true, and there are those who suggest that it should be allowed to split 3 ways.  I am not certain we will ever see the Kurdish north back in an Iraqi nation.  Certainly not without significant concessions and the same freedoms they enjoy from central authority today.

Much the same could (still) be said about Canada: I think, once some of the more militant elements have been pacified a quasi-Canadian model would make a lot of sense ...

We will only ever be able to speculate whether allowing Hussein to die (naturally or otherwise) in office would have led to greater or less instability.

Do you mean this domestically or internationally (or both)?  And is "stability" still the end goal (certainly Bush repudiated that notion (in the international case) in his "London Speech" of November 2003)?

Option #2- Identify Afghanistan/Taliban as supporters of Al-Q ...

I suspect that Option #2 IS reality, with the following caveats: 1) Bin Laden probably already dead, but certainly very ineffective as a leader in any event; 2) Pakistan IS co-operating as best they can, given their domestic political environment; 3) the US felt (and still does) that they had enough 'evidence' (of terrorist co-operation) on Saddam to justify invasion and 'regime change'; 4) Russian and French financial interests, and German domestic political reality ensured that full UN support for invasion of Iraq would never happen (deVillepins actually said that the French would never support another resolution authorizing 'automatic' use of force - WTF?); and 5) the US expected greater UN and NGO support for both political (Afghanistan) and humanitarian (moreso Iraq) reasons, which simply did not materialize.

Bottom line; I think "developing" a country like Afghanistan is a long and arduous process (it took how many years to sort out Germany and Japan), one that we cannot afford to sit on and do our best when more pressing concerns in the GWOT ... It may be possible to do, but in my opinion, not against the backdrop of a larger geopolitical conflict that we are seeing now.

And all the moreso WITHOUT the unconditional backing of the "International Community" ... 

 

[dutchie]

"As individuals, they are....those that in the past would have 'graduated' (from merely hating the West) to terrorism are instead becoming 'insurgents' and being killed before they become 'terrorists'."

So let me get this straight. It's ok to invade a country, infuriate the populace (rightfully so in my opinion), drive them to armed resistance, kill them and call it success claiming if we hadn't they might attack our civilians due to their anger that we caused in the first place? What makes you think that even a majority of these Insurgents (or Freedom Fighters depending on your perspective) would become Terrorists against the West/US?

"As invasions go, the invasion of Iraq has been very successful "
I'll concede that, but the occupation has not gone so well, has it?

"I suspect that Option #2 IS reality" - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Goober]

...
So let me get this straight. It's ok to invade a country, infuriate the populace (rightfully so in my opinion), drive them to armed resistance, kill them and call it success claiming if we hadn't they might attack our civilians due to their anger that we caused ibn the first place? What makes you think that even a majority of these Insurgents (or Freedom Fighters depending on your perspective) would become Terrorists against the West/US?

...

Thats how I see it. Just because the rebels are taking up arms against their occupiers, doesn't mean they are terrorists.

The job in Afghanistan should have been finished before another front was established. The US didn't have to be the ones to finish it either. They had the support of the international community, they should have embraced it more, and set a stronger foundation in Afghanistan before moving on (reconstruction, security..).

I read an interesting article that parralels the war in iraq to another war in the 40's

http://groups.msn.com/WelshRepublicanComment/freedom.msnw

The place was a house in T. The time was AD.... The terrorists were A.V. and E. H. The occupiers were informed about the hiding place of the terrorists by a collaborator. The occupiers attacked the terrorists in the house. The terrorists fought back. Two of the attacking occupiers were killed by the terrorists. The occupiers killed A.V., but E.H. survived seriously wounded. Then the occupiers left T. The inhabitants of T. made "a fatal misjudgment", they thought that the occupiers got "those they wanted" and left. However, four days later the occupiers came back.

They arrested 66 men of T. and shoved them in a shed where they were subjected to the "psychological torture" of imminent execution. A few hours later they were driven to the top of a mound so that they could witness the blowing up of their houses, one after the other, according to the decision of the occupiers. Then they drove the women, the children, and the old people in a concentration camp taking care as "punishment" to separate the children from their mothers. Of the 66 men 31 never saw their home place again. Most of them died in concentration camps. Some were executed. The women, the children, and the old people returned to their destroyed homes three years later.

- The place was the fishing village of Telavag, in Norway. (Now, it is Falluja, in Iraq.)

- The year was AD 1942. (Now, it is AD 2004)

- The terrorists were the Resistance fighters Arne Vaerum and Emil Hvaal. (Now, it is any Iraqi Resistance fighter.)

- The occupiers were the Nazis (Now, they are the American soldiers.)

- The explosives used by the Nazis were dynamite (Now, the US military use helicopter ordnance.)

- The concentration camps were: Grini, Sachsenhausen, etc. (Now, they are: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.)

(Note: For the information on the Telavag events we are indebted to Roland Loeffler for his article "Telavag - an Almost Forgotten Tragedy" in the "Neue Zuercher Zeitung" of May 5, 2004.)

Any occupation of a people by an invader is characterized by three significant aspects:

1. the emergence of collaborators among the occupied,

2. the amateurism of the Resistance fighters versus the "professionalism" of the occupiers, and

3. the occupied people's painful dilemma of the need for Resistance versus the brutal reaction of the occupier to the actions of the Resistance.

The collaborator through history has been one of the most loathsome of humans. The spectrum of collaborators is quite wide extending from the "elite" Quisling down to the lowly policeman. The value of the collaborators to the occupier is inestimable. It is not an exaggeration to say that an occupation cannot exist without the help of the collaborators. This explains why the Iraqis gradually shifted their attacks mostly against the Iraqi collaborators instead of mostly against the American occupiers.

It is rather inexplicable why some people choose to become collaborators knowing that an occupation ultimately ends and that the occupied people finally punish the collaborators. Yet, the only period that the collaborators can be really punished is during the occupation itself. History teaches that even if the occupation ends the collaborators will be protected by the "Great Powers". The powers which are the "patrons" of any occupier no matter if momentarily they appear to be against a particular occupier.

During the 20th century the US has been the "patron saint" of the most obnoxious of collaborators worldwide. The case of the collaborators with the Nazis all over Europe is an illuminating example.

Some of these collaborators have been pushed by the US to the top offices in their respective countries. The Vietnam experience with collaborators is another characteristic example of the application of the US collaborators "rule". It is not improbable that the Iraqi collaborators expect to have the "protection" of the Americans even if the Americans end their occupation of Iraq. Also, it is not improbable that this time the US will not be able to apply its collaborators "rules" in Iraq. No one knows how George the Second's adventure in Iraq will end.

The Nazi collaborators of Telavag in Norway have the blood of 31 of their fellow countrymen on their hands. I do not know if they paid for this blood. The collaborators in Iraq seem to have a more difficult time. Which means the Americans will have a more difficult time.

The fundamental criterion for the distinction between the "amateur" Resistance fighters against an occupier and the professional soldiers of the occupier is morality. The motive of the Resistance fighters is morally quite concrete: they fight for freedom. The motive of the professional soldiers of the occupier is ultimately remuneration.

In fact, if stripped of the predominant patriotic hypocrisy, what is a professional soldier but a mercenary killer. (Of course the upper layers of the officer corps have the additional "bonus" of participation in the weapons producing industry). Even if the soldiers of the occupier are ordinary citizens forced into the army through the draft, in their majority, as occupiers, they participate in immoral acts, meanwhile striving to justify them as patriotic acts to protect the "Fatherland".

That the vanguard of the Iraqi Resistance consists of religious people, though based on historical factors, is a negative characteristic of this Resistance. However, it is legitimate as long as it originates with the Iraqis themselves. It is a matter for a later fight by the Iraqis for real freedom and social justice in a secular society. In contrast to the Iraqi case the vanguard of the anti-Nazi Resistance in Europe was the Left. A development that forced the US to dismantle through bloody violence the European Left after WWII. Our estimate is that if the religious-based Resistance in Iraq installs a theocratic regime, the US will support that regime as long as it has covert control of the top clerics.

[Note: What a theocratic regime is can be accurately defined by the following news item: The Iranian dissident academic Hashem Aghajari was condemned to death "for saying Muslims should not blindly follow their clerical leaders like ' monkeys'". The Iranian clerics under pressure from PR considerations commuted the sentence to 5 years in prison. (International Herald Tribune, July 21, 2004). ]

The "amateur" (but morally superior) Resistance fighters usually give a really hard time to the (rather immoral) professional soldiers of occupiers. An optimistic observation for humanity.

Even in places of martyrdom as the Norwegian village of Telavag, among some people there is a residual feeling that the calamity would not have happened if the Resistance fighters had not "provoked" the Nazi occupiers. The same holds for the inhabitants of Falluja in Iraq. The claim is that if the Americans are not attacked, then there will be no helicopters killing women and children.

So, is there a moral dilemma? To resist or to survive? The answer could be: to resist and to survive. However, the dilemma no matter how painful is rather academic. What is REAL is the barbarity of the occupiers that force innocent humans in the domain of such a dilemma.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why did you cite that?  Did you feel a need to fill space, or do you intend to support the view that the US occupation of Iraq is equivalent to the Nazi occupation of Norway, notwithstanding the fact the US is not levelling villages with helicopters (or dynamite) or shipping entire families off to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?  Do you think the Norwegians wanted their government replaced by Nazi puppets to the same extent that Iraqis wanted their government replaced, period?  The Germans invaded Norway to occupy it, period.  Is that a reason the US invaded Iraq?  Yes, people under occupation can learn to dislike those who rock the boat.  It doesn't mean that at the end of the tunnel liberation isn't worth some price.  If it isn't worth some price to the people living under occupation or tyranny, then there is no need for anyone else to ever intervene except in self-interest.  The oppressed can pay the other price - the one they know.

Regarding instability: my view is that eventually Hussein had to die or become sufficiently infirm that someone would be tempted to overthrow him.  I can not see why the Kurds would seek to rule all of Iraq, or settle for less autonomy.  I can not see why the Shi'ite majority, backed by Iran, would not use the opportunity to rearrange the distribution of political power.  Iraq, like Yugoslavia, was a nation held together by a strong central ruler.  Remove the ruler, and all manner of unpleasant conflict might be expected.  My speculation is that by intervening, the US forestalled a greater tragedy (provided a full-blown civil war is not the result anyways).  I am pretty sure that smarter people than me were able to predict this after witnessing the mess in the Balkans and the cost of trying to deal with it on the cheap.  However, while the Balkans furball could have been ignored (if you are willing to accept the cost of ethnic cleansing) with minimal impact to people outside the region, an Iraqi civil war would impact a great many people outside the region economically (oil).  No matter which way it is sliced, the downfall of Hussein would be seen as a crisis/opportunity by very many players inside and outside the region.  What has happened is that the US got its foot firmly in the door first.  What remains to be seen is whether the initiative and advantage will be cast away by honest mistakes or political opportunism.  People content to believe it was all about oil or WMD have merely committed the error of limiting their fields of view.

 

[dutchie]

I am not going to defend another's post, Brad, but it seems to me he is comapring one occupation with another. I can see some definate similarities between German ocupation of Norway/France/Whatever and the US occupation, but have chosen not to draw those comparisons mainly because by doing so I would infuriate so many as to lose any chance of meanigful discussion. Having said that, by denouncing his comparison, you do not automatically legitimize your assertion the US invasion is justified.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Whoa!  How is the US/UK/Australian/Polish/etc. occupation anything like the Nazi occupation of Norway?!?!?  We're veering into serious Godwin terroritory here!

How about a little perspective:

A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.  Full results here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Not good enough?  Why not look at some information directly from an Iraqi (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109526698046079070):

I guess we all agree that hatred is probably the main precursor of violence, so a full understanding for this unpleasant feeling is needed if we we're looking for a way to end the violence, and finding answers for questions like: why hatred appeared? when did it begin for the first time? what are the related factors? and who contributed in provoking hatred? Is a key step in curing hatred.

As the world is living the 3rd memorial of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC opened a forum for Arab readers to allow them to voice their feelings about the â Å“hatred wave against Americaâ ?. This time the forum has a special significance because Arabs are directly related to this topic and the largest part of this â Å“waveâ ? comes from Arab countries.
I've found that all Iraqi participants (except for two) carry no hatred for America, not to mention the admiration and gratitude for America that were clear in some Iraqis' comments.

Anyway, I decided to translate most of the comments posted by Iraqis along with some of the Arabs' comments that caught my attention so that you can view some opinions that can rarely be seen in the media and I decided not to translate any of the offensive comments which you can find almost everywhere. I must add that most of these posters with offensive comments said that their comments were directed â Å“against the American government, not the peopleâ ?.


â Å“America is not an enemy of Arabs and Muslims, on the contrary, on many occasions she backed Muslims when other Muslims did nothing like in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. America helped us get rid of the worst dictatorship in history and despite the unstable security situation now in Iraq we breath freely and say whatever we want to say without fear from Saddam and his dogs
I was-and still-working as a teacher and Saddam was paying me 2 dollars a month, can you imagine that? while he paid thousands and thousands to his followers. Things now are much better for me and I feel grateful for America and the coalition for what they did to save usâ ?
Amjad Al Ubaidy -Baghdad/Iraq.

â Å“The Americans are peaceful and smart people. Unfortunately, this hatred was created by some clerics who try to brain-wash the youth every Friday after the prayers so many would go out with hatred in their hearts and anger toward Americaâ ?
Reemon A'adil Sammi-Iraq., etc., etc., etc. (ad naseum) ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, the quoted passage compares one occupation to another.  My point is that the author, and the people citing the author, need to find a meaningful comparison.  That is true regardless whether one takes up the undocumented assertion that the US supports the most obnoxious collaborators or the weak attempt to equate professional soldiers with mercenary killers.  It would help if the first part of the rant was limited to an objective comparison and not merely a springboard to an ideological tantrum.

It was not my intention to justify the US invasion by my response.  It was my intention to illustrate that inaction, when one has the power to do something, can also have consequences.  Those consequences should form part of the framework of a discussion.

Back to the topic: what should the strategic aims of the GWOT include?  Should we simply play whack-a-mole, or attempt to change the initial conditions?

 

[dutchie]

Whack-a-mole...now that's funny!
;D

Seriously though:

The GWOT is doomed (IMHO) unless there is a strong, widespread coalition. I feel that since the majority of global terrorism is originating in the muslim/Arab world, membership in the coalition must include as many Arab and Islamic nations as possible. If the West/US thinks it can 'go it alone' with just a few allies I think they are kidding themselves. They don't have the resources to fight an elusive enemy on a dozen or more fronts, even if some of those engagments are limited in scope.

 

[Infanteer]

Goober, you should consider taking off you Noam Chomsky inspired blinders if you want to join an intelligent discussion....

 

[Goober]

Goober, you should consider taking off you Noam Chomsky inspired blinders if you want to join an intelligent discussion....

Perhaps you should refrain from obnoxious posts, I didn't realise you dictate what is intelligent. Your view isn't the only view you know.

Brad:

Did you feel a need to fill space, or do you intend to support the view that the US occupation of Iraq is equivalent to the Nazi occupation of Norway, notwithstanding the fact the US is not levelling villages with helicopters (or dynamite) or shipping entire families off to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?

I do support the view that many things are similar between the two occupancies, but not all of course. The US is not leveling entire villages no, but their smart bombs don't seem to be too smart. There are many videos out there as proof the US has bombed many civilian targets. Collateral damage is always a factor in war, but how much is too much? Also the US seemed to round up a whole lotta families when they first took over. Taking all men of fighting age, and even some children to their prisons in suspected homes, or neighborhoods. http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

...
It was not my intention to justify the US invasion by my response.  It was my intention to illustrate that inaction, when one has the power to do something, can also have consequences.  Those consequences should form part of the framework of a discussion.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' I agree with you there. This discussion has a lot of views and a lot of people are putting their own in the mix. I was simply drawing some parallels because most people seem to think that the US is the good guy and the Iraqi rebel is the bad guy in this Iraq war. I don't think it is as clear cut as that. I'm not saying the US is the bad guy and the rebel the good guy either.

A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq. Which Iraq isn't right now, it's an occupied country. The US has one view, that they are helping Iraq become free. That may happen. But that's not how the Iraqi rebels feel, to them, they are being taken over by the US, and don't trust their words. So they are fighting for their freedom.

Both sides are fighting for Iraqi freedom, yet neither agrees with the way the other is doing it.

 

[Infanteer]

Perhaps you should refrain from obnoxious posts, I didn't realise you dictate what is intelligent. Your view isn't the only view you know.

I don't dictate what is intelligent, but clearly your suggestion wasn't.  Your defining the term "occupation" quite loosely; if you think Americans are Nazis due to the fact that they have occupied Iraq, than you truly have no firm grip on reality.  Are we Canadians Nazis invaders as well for occupying parts of Germany in 1945?

Don't be a moron.

 

[Goober]

I don't dictate what is intelligent, but clearly your suggestion wasn't.   Your defining the term "occupation" quite loosely; if you think Americans are Nazis due to the fact that they have occupied Iraq, than you truly have no firm grip on reality.   Are we Canadians Nazis invaders as well for occupying parts of Germany in 1945?

Don't be a moron.

You seriously need to stop the name calling.

And I don't think Americans are Nazis. As I said in my second post, I was only drawing parallels.

 

[Infanteer]

Quit sobbing.

If you're are going to draw parallels, at least try to use some common sense.

The idea that America + Iraq = Occupation = Nazis + Norway is as silly as saying Israel + WestBank = Occupation = Nazis + Poland.   Although their may be connections among various ideas, they are blurry and disjointed and your parallel includes some logic that stretches the truth and compares apples to oranges.  If you want to debate this junk, go find a receptive audience at your local revisionist university campus.

If you're going to put up a ridiculous notion, prepared to get ridiculed for it.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I do support the view that many things are similar between the two occupancies, but not all of course. The US is not leveling entire villages no, but their smart bombs don't seem to be too smart. There are many videos out there as proof the US has bombed many civilian targets. Collateral damage is always a factor in war, but how much is too much?

What?!?  In the sense that there are "many things that are similar between" the Hitler-Jugend and the Boy Scouts, too?

Also the US seemed to round up a whole lotta families when they first took over. Taking all men of fighting age, and even some children to their prisons in suspected homes, or neighborhoods. http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

This happens in war: sometimes a 17-year-old with an AK74 is just as dangerous as an 18-year-old with an AK74.  Deal with it.

most people seem to think that the US is the good guy and the Iraqi rebel is the bad guy in this Iraq war. I don't think it is as clear cut as that. I'm not saying the US is the bad guy and the rebel the good guy either.

A lot of these rebels are not loyal to Saddam, rather loyal to a free and independent Iraq.

According to this Iraqi you are totally wrong:

there was no resistance but there should've been one, so the Iraqi resistance was 'invented'.

This started with foreign fighters crossing the intentionally left open borders with finance from outside. These fighters joined the remnants of the Baáthists who although were defeated, were still alive and had huge amounts of money and many supporters who just ran away when faced with the overwhelming American power, but couldn't find a job or a life for months. Another way to make the opposition to the American presence look like a real resistance is by using many names for the same organization. For example we could see a bunch of masked men on TV claiming they are part of "Ansar Al Sunnaâ ? or whatever, and few days later, we see other bunch of masked men calling themselves "Mohammed's armyâ ? and it's not just a guess but I believe that these are the same people; meaning they are ex-Baáthists united with Salafies mainly from outside picking a different name for illusionary organizations so the one power that represent one very small segment of Iraqis and one that is much hated inside and outside Iraq, looks like many parties representing different segments of Iraqis. One incident that support this is when one of those Mujahideen took his mask of his face to show that he's not afraid of showing his face anymore, and all Baghdadees who were watching recognized the man. He was a well known Baáthist and a security agent at Saddam days and now he's a member of an Islamist group! http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109500766922657561

Both sides are fighting for Iraqi freedom, yet neither agrees with the way the other is doing it.

Yeah, right: one man's terroriist is another man's disciple of God who practices at the rifle range in his free time so he can nail a fleeing kindergardener in the back at 50 metres (I must have missed the USMC's last "beheading video").

 

[dutchie]

Why don't we get the thread back on track and discuss the GWOT and not simply Iraq.

Goober: if you want to discuss Iraq on it's own, there is another thread

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18280.0.html

Do you have any other points not related to Iraq? I myself am tired of the debate of the legitimacy of the Iraq War (not that I don't have a strong opinion on the matter). I just think that unless you have more to discuss other than "US bad, Iraqi Freedom Fighters good", maybe you should find another thread.

What are your views on the Global spread of Islamic Fundamentalist-based Terrorism(or Islamo-fascism as John Galt calls it)? What should be done and by whom?