[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Bull. There was that little kerfuffle called the Gulf War that kicked off a decade of tension. Before this we had to deal with an aggressive Iran - we even engaged in a small naval war with them in the 1980s - the Tanker War. Not to mention the hostage crisis of 1979.
This isn’t a stable region, now is it?
[/QUOTE]
Compared to now. Yes.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Oh, no, it’s even worse than that. They had several incompatible plans.
[/QUOTE]
While your post is far more detailed and informative and in the best tradition of GD after reading it seems my original assessment holds since no one knew which way to go:
Step 1: Win war in Iraq
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Or more euphemistically: A clusterfuck.
The figures I have just quoted seem to indicate the opposite is true.
A massive increase in defense spending should be just the ticket then.
Well, maybe you should have said something before you invaded, but I take your point that America is generally a nation of cowards and shirkers.
Usually, if you have more troops and money, you win the war. Why would you say otherwise.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Usually, if you have more troops and money, you win the war. Why would you say otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
History.
Political will is a modern concept that is just as necessary to fighing a war as bullets and beans. You can have all the guns in the world, but if your people are not willing to bravely face flag drapped coffins, you will not win in a free country.
As for larger better equipped militaries that failed to “win”:
Vietnam
1st Chechen conflict
Soviet Afghanistan
American Revolution
IRA vs. UK (not the best example, but you get the idea…)
Arab states vs. Isreal, any number of times
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
The figures I have just quoted seem to indicate the opposite is true.
[/quote]
You are looking only at our military resources and ignoring the many demands on them. We have troops stationed all over the world. I don’t think we need to have troops in South Korea or Japan any more, but there’s a lot of policy-inertia to be overcome there. Meanwhile, just at present levels we have not only the world’s mightiest but the world’s most expensive military establishment, and we’re feeling that strain.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
A massive increase in defense spending should be just the ticket then.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: It ain’t a panacea. This is not 1941. The recession is attributable at least in part to the federal budget deficit, Bush having had the unprecedented stupidity to cut taxes at the start of a war. “A massive increase in defense spending” would only make it worse, without substantially stimulating domestic industrial production across the board as it did in WWII; the economic conditions are too different. It would only fatten a few defense-industry fatcats. That has been the only effect of the war on America’s economy so far, that and the deficit. You think the only problem is we’re not wasting enough resources on this?!
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Well, maybe you should have said something before you invaded, but I take your point that America is generally a nation of cowards and shirkers.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah. How long since Canada had a draft? And can you think of single good reason why you should?
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Usually, if you have more troops and money, you win the war. Why would you say otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Because there is nothing to “win.” There never was. Perhaps the clusterfuck would have been somewhat less so if Bush had committed at least 400,000 troops to Iraq from the beginning as all the sensible generals (since cashiered) advised; but that would not have made America any safer or more prosperous, and in any case, now it’s too late. That window of opportunity is closed. Six years of failed-state social chaos in Iraq have bred too much bad blood, factional lines have hardened, and everyone is sick to death of the very sight of American troops. Putting 400,000 troops in-country now would just be throwing good blood-and-treasure after bad, and would inflame nationalistic resentments even more. Every American soldier in Iraq is willy-nilly a recruiter for al-Qaeda, just by being there.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
The figures I have just quoted seem to indicate the opposite is true.
[/quote]
This assumes the US has no other places to be with its military than in Iraq.
We’re already spending something on the order of $250 billion per year for this…already $1 trillion gone. If this were a fight for our very existence then sure but it’s not.
The population was lied to in order to justify the war. You can probably imagine the CIA/NSA does not and should not send its reports to US citizens. We have to trust our leaders are giving us the straight dope on this. While we may expect some spinning of the details no one suspected a president would so completely mangle the truth for his own agenda. Add in the MSM which was asleep at the wheel and this is what you get.
And cowards/shirkers? :rolleyes:
Tristan got this one. Besides, we technically did win the war. In record time no less with casualties to ourselves unbelievably low considering it was an armed conflict (it’s a wonder cowards and shirkers could pull off one of the most lopsided victories in military history). It is winning the peace we seem to have trouble with.
I was actually looking at the total resources of the entire country. Current US defense spending is around 4% of GDP which is not high for a nation at war, and I have already quoted the figures for manpower.
I suppose the question ultimately is whether the US wants to win or not. It certainly doesn’t seem to me that the country is going bankrupt or running out of people.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Usually, if you have more troops and money, you win the war. Why would you say otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
The fact that short of genocide/ethnic cleansing or several centuries of occupation, the “War” ( rather, the occupation ) is unwinnable. Fine, we do as you say and put hundreds of thousands of more troops there. So what ? The Iraqis live there; unless we kill them all or drive them out, they’ll still be there when we leave. They, justifiably, hate us, and adding more troops will just make them hate us more. We can stay there for a century, and judging from the history of imperialism they’ll STILL hate us.
What are all those extra troops supposed to do that’ll help us “win”, anyway ?
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Usually, if you have more troops and money, you win the war. Why would you say otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Would you mind defining how one would “win” this “War On Terrorism”?
Thanks for everyone’s thoughts on the OP.
Good comments, all around (well “most around”).
I don’t refute any of them, as I was not really looking to the debate. It is hard to take a stance when your position is “???”
While I didn’t agree with it, I found *Dinsdale’s theory most illuminating: “In short, I didn’t give a damn about Iraq before we invaded, and I don’t give a damn about them today.”
You and I are not really far off on many issues such as this, but I suppose I’ll be a glass half full to your half empty. There are plenty of examples of counter-insurgency wars that have been won by the counter-insurgents, such as Malaya or Chechnya. There are lots of examples of repressive and unpopular right-wing governments that eventually managed to turn things around for the better under US tutelage, such as South Korea or Taiwan. One of the key factors that “lost” the war for the US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan, namely superpower support for the opposing side, is a non-factor in Iraq, and in any case the modern day US military is vastly more capable by comparison.
So I don’t think the outlook is quite as bleak as you make it out to be.
I don’t know about the war on terrorism in general, which seems like a silly way to phrase it - I admit the current administration may have worded that one poorly. But hasn’t President Bush fairly clearly elucidated the goals in Iraq? - i.e. establishment of a strong western style liberal democracy?
Yeah, I’m with you there. This is really the source of my “cowards and shirkers” comment. Right from the getgo, regardless of whether the Bush administration’s position on Iraq was based on principles or self interest, it was very clear that the American people’s stance was NOT based on any moral principle, or any sort of concern for the wellbeing and future of the people of Iraq, but a mixture of self interest and paranoia. The majority of Americans thought that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis(beside this, 4,000 dead Americans seems an insignificant number) was an acceptable price to pay for the satisfaction that the very remote possibility of Saddam having some kind of weapon capable of striking the US and causing whatever miniscule damage was eliminated.
I opposed the war back then because it seemed to me that Americans have simply been terrified into submission, and that people who thought like this will probably cut and run at the very first opportunity and leave a mess behind them. Even today, apparently “getting out of Iraq” is an actual serious policy goal, even though no American at any point has ever actually been sent there against their will.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
There are plenty of examples of counter-insurgency wars that have been won by the counter-insurgents, such as Malaya or Chechnya.
[/quote]
Chechnya actually underlines my point; the Russians are only in control because of repeated use of military force. So does Malaysia from my reading; they are an independent country, and the granting of independence took a lot of the sails out of the Communist insurrection in the first place. I never said we couldn’t occupy them indefinitely, but that’s not “winning” because most people don’t want to stay in Iraq forever.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
There are lots of examples of repressive and unpopular right-wing governments that eventually managed to turn things around for the better under US tutelage, such as South Korea or Taiwan.
[/QUOTE]
Did we invade those countries in an obvious war of pure aggression and wreck them ? We turned Iraq from an unpleasant dictatorship to a hellhole failed state.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
of the key factors that “lost” the war for the US in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan, namely superpower support for the opposing side, is a non-factor in Iraq, and in any case the modern day US military is vastly more capable by comparison.
[/quote]
So ? Military force doesn’t make much difference for this. Again, what are those troops supposed to DO ?
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
But hasn’t President Bush fairly clearly elucidated the goals in Iraq? - i.e. establishment of a strong western style liberal democracy?
[/QUOTE]
Such a nation would be our implacable enemy; so if it’s a goal it’s a stupid one.
Yeah, but the ultimate goal (i.e. stopping Malaysia from turning communist) was achieved. Presumably occupying Iraq indefinably and turning it into the 52nd state is not the goal today.
Well, again, it’s sort of a glass half full thing for me. People are fickle, certainly the present population of South Korea isn’t 100% Americanophiles, but I think you’ll agree that whatever they might feel today, ultimately South Korea was a success for the US. There’s no reason why 50 years from now Iraq won’t be the same way.
The same thing that the current surge is doing. Besides, I meant resources in general, and not just soldiers.
Are there any liberal democracies today that are “implaccable enemies” of the United States? Certainly there are many of them, i.e. Germany or Japan, that had been unfriendly to the US at some point in living memory.
Wow. You should be a doctor. If one of you patients had a tumor, you could tell them that the question ultimately is whether they want to have cancer or not.
Nobody wants to get cancer. And nobody wants the United States to lose. But bad things happen even when nobody wants them to. Reality isn’t like American Idol - we don’t get to vote on it.
Reality isn’t going to change just because we don’t like it.
I don’t understand your analogy. The present situation in Iraq is not great but it isn’t out of control. If the US wants to win, it can try a lot harder and it has many more resources that could be brought to bear. If the US is rationing gasoline and conscripting schoolgirls and still not winning, then you would be correct.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Yeah, but the ultimate goal (i.e. stopping Malaysia from turning communist) was achieved.
[/quote]
Um, no. The ultimate goal had always been British control of Malaysia, and they lost. Communism was just a recent issue.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Well, again, it’s sort of a glass half full thing for me. People are fickle, certainly the present population of South Korea isn’t 100% Americanophiles, but I think you’ll agree that whatever they might feel today, ultimately South Korea was a success for the US.
[/quote]
It was a stalemate. North Korea is still there, and so are we. And what have we gotten from it ?
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
There’s no reason why 50 years from now Iraq won’t be the same way.
[/quote]
Except that we’ve done everything we could to ensure that they’ll hate us for generations.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
The same thing that the current surge is doing.
[/quote]
Marking time, you mean ?
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
Are there any liberal democracies today that are “implaccable enemies” of the United States? Certainly there are many of them, i.e. Germany or Japan, that had been unfriendly to the US at some point in living memory.
[/QUOTE]
And did we engage in the unprovoked destruction of either of those nations ? No. Did we occupy them and then spend years making things WORSE for them ? No. Did we make things so hellish that most of the people who could actually rebuild the place have fled ? No.
A liberal democatic Iraq will be our implacable enemy because we have made the Iraqi population into our implacable enemy. And unlike Germany or Japan, they have no reason to blame their own actions for what happened to them; the Iraqis know that what’s happened to them is OUR fault.
You are mistaken.
Come on, now. You’re not here for honest discussion, are you?
In any case, I get your point - you don’t think the US can win. I think the US can, but certainly the American populace simply lacks the intestinal fortitude to see it through, and in any case were never particularly interested in doing so. That’s why I opposed the war.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
In any case, I get your point - you don’t think the US can win. I think the US can, but certainly the American populace simply lacks the intestinal fortitude to see it through, and in any case were never particularly interested in doing so.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how “intestinal fortitude” has anything to do with it.
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove]
You are mistaken.
Come on, now. You’re not here for honest discussion, are you?
In any case, I get your point - you don’t think the US can win. I think the US can, but certainly the American populace simply lacks the intestinal fortitude to see it through, and in any case were never particularly interested in doing so. That’s why I opposed the war.
[/QUOTE]
There’s also the fact that we didn’t have the right to do it.