I kneejerk only in response to the utter depths of stupidity I see around me constantly. If I didn’t, I would quickly become covered in a pile of bullshit.
No, it is just stupid.
Like I said, go leg-hump McCarthy or get a pep talk from al-Sahaf. That seems to be the extent of critical thinking you are capable of.
Would you think life was just fine if you had to get permission to leave your house?
Regarding the OP: These insurgents may be replaced with more insurgents coming from across the borders of Iraq. And when civilians are allowed back into Fallujah, the insurgents will return with them.
Just wild speculation, but it seems reasonable to me.
Let’s go back to the initial point of ignorance.
Republicans: Warning, truth ahead. Divert your eyes from the monitor.
Sorry that it your stance makes you uncomfortable…I seem to have struck a nerve. BTW, I never said you were evil.
As to the fucking time machine (what, you think its necessary to type fing or f me? grow up) to leg hump McCarthy, you might have a point…if this conflict was like Vietnam in any but your own mind (and granted, some other posters on this board of course).
Lets take a quick look, shall we? Where is the North Vietnam equivenent soveriegn state keeping the insurgency going? Where are the safe havens in the Cambodian equivelent? Where is the support by a super power (oh, like China and the Soviet Union)? Where is the corrupt and bankrupt government we are proping up? Sure there IS something similar…there are insurgents and terrorist types in both struggles. Gots anything else Zag? Doesn’t seem much like Vietnam to ME bro.
So, I dont think I’m some crazed McCarthy leg humping right wing wack job for thinking that Fallujah WAS a major base of operations, and that it IS going to hurt the insurgency badly us taking such a base, us capturing that level of supplies, and us killing off that number of insurgents. Call me crazy if you will, but I think its YOU that is playing the wishful thinking game here, HOPING it will be like Vietnam despite the major differences that really change at a fundamental level this conflict from that one.
But by all means, keep the insults coming…it covers for your lack of substance in your posts nicely (well, to you perhaps).
-XT
Yep. I’m a devoted humanitarian. I’m not about to let you come along and try to make me look like a terrorist supporter.
You don’t think terrorists are evil?
There are many ways to express displeasure with someone. I prefer the short, direct method. Instead of your method, you know, lying and calling them a terrorist.
Who the hell said anything about Viet Nam? You are aware of the time period of McCarthyism and Viet Nam, correct? You sure have a lot of words, but they mean nothing. I would have settled for a “F* you too”
Quite right, that was Sam.
So you go from calling me a terrorist to… calling me a terrorist war hawk?
I’m a humanitarian. I’m HOPING that no one dies.
Right, you keep going along and calling everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist. It fits right into your party line. I’m sure they’ll give you a ribbon for it.
Well, if you really think your posts show that you are balanced in your views and that they don’t show a leaning towards supporting the insurgents in Iraq…well, then I’ll just say sorry for misunderstanding your myriad posts and leave it at that.
This isn’t the pit Zag. And I didn’t call you a terrorist. You need to calm down a bit. As to lieing…again, it would only be a lie if I didn’t believe it. I do. Again, doesn’t necessarily mean I’m right…but, I see a definite leaning on your part.
Ya, I know when McCarthism was well enough…and Vietnam too. I figured you were playing some strange communist angle, and as we are talking about insurgents I figured it tied back into Vietnam somehow. You are jumping to the conclusion that I though YOU knew when McCarthism and Vietnam were, and that I knew what the hell you were talking about with the whole leg humping rant.
BTW, I don’t think Sam humps McCarthy’s leg either. 
Zag, I never called you a terrorist. I implied (and came right out and said it in this post) that you LEAN towards them…doesn’t mean you are a terrorist. Doesn’t mean I’m right either…maybe I’m totally misreading your myriad posts.
I actually think you ARE a humanitarian (and a closet communist of the ‘good’ communist school)…and I believe you really don’t want anyone to die there. You would probably be surprised, but I don’t either…nor do I REALLY want the US to be in Iraq.
I also, however, think you tend to knee jerk against the US and knee jerk towards anyone against them without really thinking things through sometimes. But again, this is merely my opinion.
Zag, I haven’t called anyone a terrorist…well, ok, I did call Bin Laden a terrorist once. And Arafat too, I suppose. I don’t however, as a rule, go around calling ‘everone who disagrees with’ me a terrorist though. I certainly haven’t called YOU a terrorist.
BTW, what’s my party Zag?
-XT
shrugs Fine. You get an “A” for insulting people without saying it. I’ll take a C-. I missed a few weeks of my doublespeak course.
Let’s get back to the premise of this thread.
A marine general said they have, ““broken the back of the insurgency.”
This is a stupid lie- oh, wait, its only a lie if they don’t believe it or something. Whatever. It is stupid.
Another report said, "The recapture of Fallujah has not broken the insurgents’ will to fight and may not pay the big dividend U.S. planners had hoped — to improve security enough to hold national elections in Sunni Muslim areas of central Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi assessments.
…
Those grim assessments, expressed privately by some U.S. military officials and by some private experts on Iraq, raise doubts as to whether the January election will produce a government with sufficient legitimacy, especially in the eyes of the country’s powerful Sunni Muslim minority.
…
Even before the battle for Fallujah began Nov. 8, U.S. planners understood that capturing the city, where U.S. troops are still fighting pockets of resistance, was only the first step in building enough security to allow the election to take place in the volatile Sunni areas north and west of Baghdad."
Which is correct.
I stand by that original assessment, and I also stand by Sam’s assessment that things are as peechy keen in Iraq as they are in Afghanistan, which translates to FUBAR.
Just east of Iraq. It’s called “Iran.”
Same place. But, really, it’s a big country, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to point out. The rebels can hide in plenty of places in Iraq.
Who needs a superpower to keep an insurgency going?
It’s based in Baghdad. Here’s its puppet leader.
WHY is it a ‘stupid lie’…leaving aside the if they don’t believe it thing? You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that ‘breaking the back of the insurgency’ is equal to ‘all insurgents won’t fight on’…in other words you are calling someone a liar without really understanding the deeper issues going on here. Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote earlier instead of going off you would have picked up a few things.
Yes? Another report said “The recapture of Fallujah has not broken the insurgents’ will to fight”…the two positions are exactly mutually exclusive you know? Further “and may not pay the big dividend U.S. planners had hoped — to improve security enough to hold national elections in Sunni Muslim areas of central Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi assessments”. Check the bolded MAY…in other words, said “marine general” hasn’t lied at all Zag…it MAY not pay as big dividend as US planners had thought…but then again, it may. They MAY not be able to improve security enough to hold elections…but then again, they MAY. Again, the two positions (i.e. they may not be able to improve security enough to old elcetions and the insurgency’s back is broke) aren’t mutually exclusive.
Again, you seen to think that ‘breaking the back of the insurgency’ means that the folks saying that think the insurgency is over, or that they won’t continue to fight on. I seriously doubt they think that…and I certainly don’t think that and I made a similar statement.
They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Well, I think your assessment of the situation in Iraq is flawed by your appearent lack of understanding of the deeper issues, but thats fine…thats why its a debate. I actually more agree with your thoughts on Afghanistan…I think that situation is far from stable, and I think that the factors for a longer termed and sustainable insurgency actually DO reside there. Its going to be a long hard slog in Afghanistan IMO.
-XT
I was unaware that Iran was openly supporting the insurgents. Wow, you learn something new every day. Oh wait…do you have a cite for this incredible statement?
There are safe havens in Iran? Again, I didn’t know that. Could you perhaps also give me a cite for that?
BTW, its not a matter of hiding out somewhere. You are quite correct, there are plenty of places to hide out in Iraq. The problem is logistics. Where are they going to cache the supplies, weapons, ammo, etc that are necessary for a hot insurgency?
Well, the Vietnamese did…and the Afghani’s did as well. When you are FIGHTING a superpower, you need a superpower to support you for the long haul…especially in todays day and age. Or, perhaps you can tell me how this insurgency will continue to be supplied without a base of operation and without money and supplies in the long term Rick…I would really like to know because I can’t think of a way it could.
Perhaps it will eventually evolve into something similar to the corrupt and bankrupt South Vietnam government of the early 60’s…time will tell. However, no way is it similar NOW…and they haven’t even had their elections yet. This is merely a caretaker government until then.
-XT
Teach me, O great one, of what I don’t understand
Zagadka said:
You didn’t read your own link, did you? I said that your number (150,000 civilians killed) was off by an order of magnitude. So what do you do? You get all snotty, and refer me to IraqBodyCount.net, which, in big bold letters on the front page, shows the civilian body count to be:
14,429 to 16,579
You know, if you’re going to get all snotty and in someone’s face about something, you might just want to make sure that you don’t link them to a site that makes you look foolish.
Similarities to Vietnam ?
A US officer said retaking Fallujah was like retaking Hue … :smack:
The US continues to push a military victory where it solves nothing + body counts
Tonking Gulf Resolution was false and got all the senate votes… Iraq War premises were false and got all but one vote
Both are guerrila wars but the US wants a conventional win. etc… etc…
Xtsime… no one is saying that Vietnam and Iraq are 100% copies and totally similar. Its just the quagmire feeling of it… the american public denial about it… it stinks the same way. Times are different of course but the US reaction and politics seem awfully similar to what led to a very long war in Vietnam.
Now if you think they are so awfully different do point out… but the consequences seem to be the same. A war with no end in sight…
As for “the broken back”… its silly. The US just captured a devastated city and killed a few hundred lunatics. Congrats. When will more Fallujahs be enough ? Wait until the Sunnis get back to their devasted city, they will be so “thankful”. A phyric victory at best…
(unless the US is punishing Sunnis and wants to ally to Shi’ites… a difficult thing to beleive)
Zagadka
[Moderator Hat ON]
Zag, don’t call people “asses” in GD. And I think you need to cool down in general in this thread, or take it to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
The problem to me RM is that on the really key issues, those that I think directly made it possible for the Vietnamese to continue the fight as long and as hard as they did (or the Afghani’s against the Soviets for that matter) are missing in this situation…so at its core, it ISN’T remotely like Vietnam IMO…people are just trying to MAKE it like Vietnam for their own reasons.
The one similarity I see is perhaps a waverying US public support for continued operations in Iraq…and I really do think that this wavering support is a direct result of folks undermining public confidence in our efforts there. The situation just isn’t that bad…certainly not as bad as folks on this board make it out to be IMO.
In comparison to Vietnam (or Afghanistan) the casualties on BOTH sides are miniscule. The situation is far from flying out of control, and there are some indications (like Fallujah itself) of improvement. I’ve seen some tentitive indications that the Iraqi people might be getting sick of the insurgency. Granted this won’t make them OUR friends either, but perhaps it will make them come down off the fence.
As I’ve said before, this doesn’t mean that the insurgents aren’t continueing to fight hard…they most certainly are. Doesn’t mean they won’t continue to fight hard either…my guess is they will fight hard until at least after the elections, and probably step up their efforts in an effort to subvert them.
What we are buying for the Iraqi’s is time RM…time to get their feet under them. The more time we give them, the better chance they will have to come out of this with something worth all this effort. Whether they will take that time and build somthing that makes all this worth it in the long run or not remains to be seen. Whether the majority will get off the fence and come down on the side of Iraqi nationalism or not also remains to be seen…they have to do this for it to work of course.
Its still up in the air. But by no means is this situation a ‘quagmire’…yet. I’d want to see the results of the elections first. I’d want to see how badly taking Fallujah away from the insurgents (and all that equipment and supply) has hurt them…or not hurt them. I want to see whether the US/UK and the Iraqi’s allow or not allow the insurgents to set up another base of operations in another city. All these things factor in.
My own opinion is that the grip is tightening on the insurgency in Iraq and they are being squeezed. I don’t think that a long term insurgency is in the cards for Iraq because I don’t think the elements to support it are there (as I’ve pointed ot before). This isn’t wishful thinking on my part…its my own analysis of the situation. I, of course, could be wrong. But its not a knee jerk ‘Rah rah Bush…rah rah US military!’ reaction but my assessment from all the reading I’ve done, from my own military service and reading of military history.
-XT
hhmm… I still I think your being way to optimistic Xtisme… and I’m not talking from a “hate Bush perspective” (which might make my point seem biased)
The insurgency seems to be getting momentum for some time… not losing… Iraqis might be getting tired of the foreign fighters… but they are getting tired of the Americans as well. I think the insurgency won’t die out or weaken due to lack of supplies… and their neighbors have ample reasons to supply these insurgents for their own security and for political sponsorship. The day the insurgency will stop… is the day it becomes a civil war probably.
Naturally if Allawi becomes a Saddam like strong arm things will be put under control... but I don't venture that you would call that a victory of any sort. Americans just want to get out of Iraq... and I doubt American pride and moral will last longer in this so called fight of wills against Iraqi nationalism and religious pride. Iraqi factions have more to gain and to lose from this fighting than americans.
How do you venture can there be an Iraqi state without some safety and security is beyond me… unless the insurgents become organized crime and quiet things down in order to profit from kidnappings, etc… Fallujah just seems like the stuff Nazis did in various countries and that never stopped resistance movements. Like I said elsewhere… either americans are pandering to Shias in a way… or they are “making an example”. In either case its going to have consequences.
With the Battle of Brooklyn and the capture of New York and the occupation of New Jersey the British figured that the back of the American colonial insurrection had been broken. Then came Trenton and Princeton.
Don’t count on it.
Completely different situation. For one thing it was a pretty general uprising…which hasn’t been the case in Iraq so far. In addition, during the war of independence the Americans had multiple bases of operations…and the logistical problems were mostly all on the British side. Finally, the French (a major power) supported the American’s. I don’t see how you can base whats happening in Iraq on this revolution/insurgency either.
How do you figure this RM? Based on the number of attacks alone? Based on growing popular support? What? Afaik popular support isn’t growing for the insurgency. Certainly here have been more attacks lately, but a lot of that is because the US/UK/Iraqi’s have become more active as well. Also, more attacks doesn’t necessarily mean the insurgency is gaining momentum…in fact it could signal just the opposite. So, how are you judging that its gaining momentum?
I think the Iraqi’s aren’t getting tired of the US…they were ‘tired’ of the US from the moment we invaded. I don’t think this has really increased. What has increased (well, I think so anyway) is that they are getting increasingly ‘tired’ of the insurgents…and increasingly pissed off over their antics.
Their neighbors have to walk a pretty fine line in supporting the insurgency. I have no doubt that SOME covert supplies will get through. But to maintain a certain level of insurgency you need quite a bit of supplies. Look at all the antics the North Vietnamese went through to keep bringing in supplies into South Vietnam…then think about how that level of logistics support is going to be maintained in Iraq, especially when they have now lost their major base of operations.
Not saying I’m right here btw…just that this is my own opinion.
I call it a victory if Iraq gets a stable government and they at least have a chance to pick it initially. What they do after that is their own affair frankly, and if they decide to put another strongman in place to tell them what to do my only hope is they at least pick a non-psychopathic one. If they choose to eventually go the Iran route then at least it will be their own decision. Right now I just want to buy them time so that they at least have a chance to choose something…as opposed to having the choice made for them by these insurgents (if the insurgent even WANT to take over as a long term goal).
I don’t…you are putting words in my mouth. I think there HAS to be safety and security for there to be a viable Iraqi state. I think there WILL be both safety and security (of some form) if/when the Iraqi people come down off the fence, and when the insurgents drop below the background noise (as I feel they eventually will…especially if the people are on board with an Iraq government).
As far as your Fallujah assessment I think you are just wrong. We were neither pandering to Shi’ite sentiment, nor necessarily making an example. We were eliminating a major base of operation and bringing a major city back into the Iraqi fold. Why does it have to be more than that RM??
One thing we are agreed on is there will be consequences of our actions. What we obviously disagree on is WHAT those consequences will be, whether they will all be bad or whether there will be good with the bad.
-XT
This is probably not like Vietnam. It could be more like Lebanon.
Thank goodness the Iraqi insurgents aren’t as effective as Hezbollah were.
Ok Xtisme… lets see some of the stuff we don’t see the same and understand better.
Supplies. This one I haven’t thought about as much. In your comparison you talk about the amount… and I guess you are refering to the Ho Chi Minh (sp?) trail. Why did the Vietnamese need so much supply ? How much of it was simple survival stuff ? Food, medicine and clothing ? I guess most insurgents can just buy these as “common” civilians. So they need mostly military stuff… ammo and explosives. Ammo is abundant… ?
I think the sheer amount of stuff that has already been used by insurgents isn’t compatible with just simple plundering of military stocks. There was a concerted effort. The explosives probably in good part came from that depot. I think that they purposely took their time to hide caches… and that these will last way too long.
If re-supply is happening is hard to tell… haven’t seen reports of smuggling being intercepted. I bet some rogue elements in Syria and Iran probably are doing it despite their governments. The Iraqi army is probably a source of stuff too. Not sure if the insurgency needs as much supply as you think they do… I guess explosives must be harder to come by eventually. Still there is no lack of car bombs lately.
How do we evaluate insurgency supply needs ?
Momentum. When I mentioned the momentum… I was comparing to the beggining and half a year ago. For the first months there was very little… and even if this is media thing… the insurgency seems to have become more widespread, daring and creative. Certainly US casualties per day seem to be bigger than many months ago. We have just finished the Ramadan… so things might quieten. The US election is over… but things still are hot. Some seemed to think the insurgency wouldn’t be as active once the election was over… but that hasn’t happen.
Popular Support. Its hard to measure… especially since that support might have been forced or coerced lately. I think its impossible to have these levels of insurgency without solid support or widespread apathy. Not so sure Iraqis are as tired as we would make them appear. Lack of trust in the US helps the insurgency. BTW Foreign fighters it seems were very few of those killed in Fallujah… and so that “meme” about the insurgency being foreign fueled isn’t true. I think the problem is how the population spreads the blame… and I bet americans get the worse even when they aren’t the nastiest. Naturally they won’t accept the insurgency forever… but will the US stay long enough for that ? Will these insurgent groups become more organized and become civil war factions ?
Elections. Do you think they will manage to pull off a fair election without excluding too many areas ? I’m pessimistic on this. Sunnis especially will want to disrupt things. Even if things are done well and fair… extremists would spin stories otherwise and would easily be believed. The label of “US puppet” is hard to remove from any government during a military occupation. Even an elected president that goes dictatorial isn’t a “victory” either…
( I mentioned the pandering to the Shia… only because the US seems to be hitting the Sunni much more these weeks… )