How much longer will we be in Iraq, Mr. President?

[John_Mace]

@Malodorous

Most current Iraqi political parties, including the Al-Sistani endorsed shitte party which will probably win most of the posts in the elections, are running on an anti-US platform. That said, I’m fairly skeptical that whoever wins will send us packing, as they will find themselves dependent on American troops for protection and american money for reconstruction. If they want to stay in power, they will almost certainly resort to only symbolic anti-american gestures.

Exactly.

Unless the political party or parties in power actually WANT a civil war and a divided Iraq, you are absolutely correct. Even the Kurds, who might really, really want an independent Kurdistan have to realize that a civil war would only make matters worse for them, given how outnumbered they are by both of the other major ethnic groups.

[Mr.Biggles]

@Maeglin

And this line of reasoning rears its ugly head again. I have commented at some length on this in the past. You may find some of my more recent remarks here.

Right. Out of 22 ranked countries, the US is 22. The larger point is as far as economies go the US is at the top, so the disparity is more obvious. The numbers, if I recall, break down to something like .14¢ for every $100.00. Breaking it down further, after salaries to the service workers, real, actual aid that reaches those in need comes to .05¢ per $100.00.

Putting it terms of graciousness, a $1,000,000 from a million people is nice, but $1000 from ten average people seems more charitable minded. Having said this, I’ll gladly take the million. On the other hand, if the choice was those same ten people offering me the $1000 or Bill Gates offering me a $1000, I’d take the other peoples money because their money would seem more sincere and meaningful and Bill’s would seem like a cheap bastard in comparison.

The idea of “just take the money and be happy you ungrateful turd” seems more self-serving to one’s ego than serving the true purpose of charity.

[elucidator]

Hmm, maybe. On the other pod, the Bushiviks might just take even the mildest such rhetoric as a perfect opportunity to get the Hell out of Baghdodge. “We saved their butts and the ungrateful buggers gave us some shit, so fuck 'em!”

You may have overestimated the tireless dedication and idealism of the Bush administration.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Hmm, maybe. On the other pod, the Bushiviks might just take even the mildest such rhetoric as a perfect opportunity to get the Hell out of Baghdodge. “We saved their butts and the ungrateful buggers gave us some shit, so fuck 'em!”

You may have overestimated the tireless dedication and idealism of the Bush administration.

Actually, I think you’ve underestimated it. There is no hint that Bush wants to get our of Iraq and let it fall further into chaos. None. Whether you agree with him or not (I’m guessing you don’t ), Iraq is the centerpiece of Bush’s ME policy.

[Wrath]

First of all, welcome back to SDMB, Wrath, after 3 years absence.

Thanks. Didn’t think anyone would remember me. Or care. snif

Could you back up your above declaration with a cite, taking into account the ranking of countries by their GDP per capita contribution to the development of the 3rd world.

Sorry if I can’t customize a graph for you or find one in a timely manner.

From [http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040620-095247-6566r.htm]this]( [url) site the US donated $240.7 billion in 2003. From [This document:](www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/pdf/Cswp17_web.pdf)

[quote]
Giving in the US was 2.1% of GNP in 2000… Figures on UK giving usually estimate it at anywhere between 0.63% and 0.77% of GDP

[quote]

And from here is a chart indicating GDP in trillions
US $7.2
Japan 5.1
China 2.8
Germany 2.2
France 1.5
UK 1.1

I’ll keep digging. Problem is, this is strictly talking about charity. It’s much more difficult to support my claim with sites when taking into account the troops [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm]deployed]( [url) around the world…

As of early May 2004, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000.

.

And then of course all the nation building that we’ve footed the bill for over the decades in Germany, Turkey, Iraq, et al.

[Wrath]

I really hate the fact that we can’t edit posts. This will take some discipline.

[Mr.Moto]

@Malodorous

True, but to the best of my knowledge, the allied forces in Germany weren’t fighting resistence forces, but rather just doing police work and probably staring down the Soviets.

It would be nice to think things were that clean and simple, but that’s not the case. Ever heard of Werwolf?

Typical Werwolf tactics included sniping attacks, arson, sabotage, and assassination although in Poland they also carried out massacres of civilians, and a few substantial attacks against Soviet troops. Their most costly single attack in the western zones of occupation was a bombing which killed 44 persons. Their most prominent victims were Dr. Franz Oppenhoff (the new anti-Nazi mayor of Aachen and most prominent democratic politician left in Germany), Major John Poston (Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s liaison officer) and (possibly) General Berzarin (Soviet commandant of Berlin). (Their radio propaganda also claimed the assassination of General Maurice Rose (the most senior Jewish US officer), though it is more likely his killers were ordinary soldiers who had no idea who he was).

One often overlooked aspect of Werwolf is that the Hitler Youth component was also responsible for developing a new political youth movement which was intended to outlast the war, and which was called “neo-Nazism”. Some current German neo-Nazi groups pretentiously refer to themselves as Werwolf or Wehrwolf.

On 25th August 2003, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld compared the problems faced by US troops then in Iraq, to those faced by US troops in post-World War II Germany; in particular, they mentioned Werwolf. Subsequently former Clinton staffer Daniel Benjamin wrote an essay where he attacked these remarks and claimed “Werwolf amounted to next to nothing.” Although widely quoted in the media, Benjamin’s views have been rejected by several historians of the period. The more conventional view is that while Werwolf was too disorganised to provide any significant military impediment to the occupiers, it delayed economic reconstruction and democratisation by three or four years.

No military impediment, but a hindrance to economic reconstruction and democratization. Sound familiar?

[Mr.Biggles]

@Wrath

I really hate the fact that we can’t edit posts. This will take some discipline.

Two words: “Preview Post”

[Wrath]

Thanks Mr. Biggles.

[Wrath]

not that America is simply generous. His suggestion that the US is on a higher moral plane than the entire rest of the world is the one he’s being asked to support.

There’s no such moral suggestion. Generosity does not specifically mean philanthropy, although the amount American’s give is noteworthy.

[Sevastopol]

The moment it costs votes and tugs TexCorp petroleum towards the red, then the occupation will end.

Torture etc of Iraqis won’t do it. Enough of the US population is indifferent to or approves of those activities. No, it will take a sufficiency of maimed and dead US service people from the red states & a media prepared to report those statistics, before there is an influence on the polls.

Otherwise, the US will be there until the oil runs out.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr. Moto

No military impediment, but a hindrance to economic reconstruction and democratization. Sound familiar?

No, not really. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi insurgency isn’t, or won’t long be, a “military impediment”? What’s all the fuss about vehicle armor, then?

[Mr.Moto]

Are those insurgents capable of beating the entire U.S. military force currently in Iraq? I don’t believe they are. Do you?

What they can do is harass our military and the Iraqi population, in order to make us war weary and allow them to step into the power vacuum.

There are plenty of defeatists in America, prevalent especially on this board, that are an integral part of the insurgent strategy, in much the same way as any hope for victory by the North Vietnamese rested on the domestic antiwar movement.

I’m not saying that a person who is antiwar is a traitor, mind. But this is the reality of the situation. The insurgents are even putting out videos designed to undermine morale on the home front.

[elucidator]

How very odd, Moto. When I search on Wikepedia, I get this…

Wehrwolf

which ends with the following:

…Nonetheless, Werwolf was far weaker than many other historically significant guerrilla insurgencies, e.g., those in Vietnam and Iraq…

How very odd, indeed.

[elucidator]

If I act quickly enough, I may be the first to say that I find Moto’s insinuations repulsive in the extreme.

[Mr.Moto]

Sorry. I relied on the passage from Wikipedia that I had quoted some weeks ago. It seems that the page has beed updated.

Still, it is clear that Werwolf was an issue to the Allies, especially in occupied German territory in the period before the fall of Berlin.

Also, here is the video I mentioned earlier.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr. Moto

Are those insurgents capable of beating the entire U.S. military force currently in Iraq? I don’t believe they are. Do you?

That does seem to be what’s happening, yes.

What they can do is harass our military and the Iraqi population, in order to make us war weary and allow them to step into the power vacuum.

And that’s how.

There are plenty of defeatists in America, prevalent especially on this board, that are an integral part of the insurgent strategy, in much the same way as any hope for victory by the North Vietnamese rested on the domestic antiwar movement.

Dear Og, you believe that old chestnut, despite the lack of any factual support for it. You just want to keep kicking their asses until they learn to love us. Try this: You claim not to be a defeatist, but what for you constitutes victory, and how is there any *realistic * hope of achieving it? If you don’t have an answer, then you’re demanding that more of us get killed just so you can postpone admitting a mistake. Is that it? That’s the main lesson of Vietnam. You know which “side” turned out to have the best grasp of the reality there, and it wasn’t your “light at the end of the tunnel” crowd.

I’m not saying that a person who is antiwar is a traitor, mind.

But that’s the effect, innit? Unless you’re calling us fools instead.

But this is the reality of the situation. The insurgents are even putting out videos designed to undermine morale on the home front.

How many people on the home front have seen any? Are you suggesting that they’re having an effect? NB: This is the first I’ve heard of it - got a cite?

[Mr.Moto]

@elucidator

If I act quickly enough, I may be the first to say that I find Moto’s insinuations repulsive in the extreme.

I’m not insinuating anything. I was clear that someone can be honorably anti-war.

I don’t think there is any doubt, though, that the strategy of the insurgents is to make as many Americans anti-war as they can, to force a withdrawal of troops.

I don’t think for a second most anti-war folks are interested in helping the enemy. That won’t stop the insurgents, however, from using the movement for their own ends.

Hope this clarifies things.

[elucidator]

OK, I’ll buy it. No hurt, no foul.

Be that as it may, by what expertise do you speak on the strategy and tactics of the “insurgency” with such authority? Do they have a central, unifying command, and you get their newsletter?

[John_Mace]

@sevastopol

The moment it costs votes and tugs TexCorp petroleum towards the red, then the occupation will end.

Torture etc of Iraqis won’t do it. Enough of the US population is indifferent to or approves of those activities. No, it will take a sufficiency of maimed and dead US service people from the red states & a media prepared to report those statistics, before there is an influence on the polls.

Otherwise, the US will be there until the oil runs out.

Other than the part about red states/blue states (which is a media construct, not reality), I pretty much agree with you. And the sad fact is that Americans seem to have become more or less insensitive to the current death rate in Iraq-- both US servicemen and Iraqi civiliians. And the oil ain’t gonna run out for a long time. Which means that we’d have to see a dramatic increase in US servicemen deaths for there to be a political shift in the electorate.