I’m trying to discuss if the insurgency in Iraq was inevitable… which would kind of “exempt” Bush from incompetence in post war planning for Iraq. He just made the inevitable insurgency come to life faster and meaner.
hhmmm… well the US is depending on force of arms to take down Saddam, stabilize the situation, impose laws, protect a puppet govt. and avoid civil war. I call that using force of arms to change a country. What do you call it ?
As for US tactics… its irrelevant to the Iraqi political process. (although it reduces casualties) Either you get the political part right or not. The military power seems like a complete side show to creating a so called democratic Iraq.
Afghanistan is already showing signs of trouble… much due to neo-con reluctance at nation building. Still it worked way better than Iraq… and why that is so was part of my question in the OP. There are many possibilites and some include Special Forces working with Afghans to liberate Afghans. Not reservists and common troops invading another country.
Yeah yeah, and we only need to hold out long enough for the South Vietnamese to be able to adequately defend themselves.
If you’re going to complain about 'nam comparisons, don’t beg them.
Of course it’s not unwinnable (or maybe I should say it wasn’t unwinnable). A miracle can always happen. But tell me what makes you think that things are getting better. Since you’re not Sam Stone I imagine I can expect you to understand and admit that things are currently ‘not so good’.
What have you seen that makes you think things are getting better or that they will get better in the future?
You’re right. But then again, US soldiers could safely walk through Saigon throughout pretty much the entire war. That can’t be said for Baghdad - not even the ‘green zones’.
I think having to wait another three and a half years seems a bit unfair. After all, this thread will be long dead and forgotten by then. And even if it’s not, then we’ll probably have to argue semantics about whether or not it was a “win”.
So, let’s pick something else. Pick an accomplishment that the Iraqi government has managed or will manage soon. Pretty much anything. And then we’ll see if they can hold onto it.
Unless, of course, you’d like to define ‘winning’ and ‘not winning’. Just because the current administration can’t doesn’t mean a Doper can’t.
Disarming and bringing in the Sadr militia. I personally am happy there have been no troop increases, it forces the Iraqis and the American governments to rely on each other for maintaining and spreading order moreso than in South Vietnam.
Plenty of people state that Afghanistan is effectively unwinnable (assuming winning = creating a friendly, fairly democratic, non-fundamentalist regime ijn effective control of the country), including myself.
So whats the point in doing anything then if the only effective government they can have is something that relfects back on their society, e.g Taliban.
Plenty of people in the US probably had doubts about the long term in Japan and Germany too…in the early 40’s. Plenty of folks probably thought a long term peace in Europe was ‘unwinnable’.
Look, its cool to have doubts, to be uncertain. No problem, I’m uncertain too how all this will fall out in the end. However we simply have too little data at this time to determine what the future will hold. At THIS point the situation is certainly not ‘unwinnable’, and will only become unwinnable (IMO) IF the US loses the political will to stay the course and make this work.
You failed to read what I wrote earlier about Vietnam. There would have been no long term solution (except that America commit to staying in South Vietnam indefinitely as we are in South Korea…something that was POLITICALLY unacceptable) unless North Vietnam was taken out of the equation…one way or the other. I look at South Korea as an example of the US sticking it out and giving the South Koreans a chance to get on their feet. South Vietnam could have been exactly the same except the US tried to maintain the status quo in a situation where that wasn’t a viable alternative.
I’ve yet to see any comparisons that stand up to scrutiny (i.e. that aren’t broad enough to encompass ANY war or insurgency)…do you have any?
I never said things were great there, or that it wasn’t tough. But the situation is FAR from desperate at this time. It won’t require a ‘miracle’ for the situation to stabilize over there…just the US finding the will to stick it out when things get tough.
What makes you think things are getting worse? Probably what you’ve read in the papers. Well, same here. I see the Iraqi’s willing to take up the fight themselves…in spite of some sever setbacks. I see their infrastructure being repaired…again, in spite of some sever setbacks and continued attacks. I THINK I see indications that the population might be getting sick of the constant terror type bombings and coming down off the fence. They may not be coming down on OUR side, but they aren’t coming down on the insurgents side either…I THINK they are coming down on the side of an Iraqi nation. Those are my impressions.
On the other side, I see an all out insurgency that has cost the US…less than 2k troops in nearly two years of fighting…much of it insurgency type fighting which generally is quite costly in terms of troops by the occupying force. It HAS been pretty costly in terns of the insurgents…disproportionately so when you look at US/UK casualties. I see an insurgency that has moved on to more ‘soft’ targets…and I interpret that as being because tangling with the US/UK forces is a net negative proposition. I see power being transferred to Iraqi’s directly, and I HOPE to see real elections in Iraq sometime early next year. I don’t know what the final Iraqi government will be, but I think it will be better than the previous one…and I think it will have the strength to defend itself.
I think Iraq will continue to bubble for years to come (sort of like what we see in Israel today with periodic attacks by Palestinian insurgents), but I think that the really hot insurgency we’ve seen in the last few months will burn itself out within 6 months or so…its simply not sustainable, especially if I’m right and the population is starting to turn against the insurgents…especially the foreign contingents that I feel are the leadership of this thing.
Not sure that is an apt comparison… the Taliban came over from Pakistan and took over after many years of infighting between the victorious Mujadeen. The Taliban were welcomed by many countries including the US as a stabilizing force… but to say they reflect Afghan society isn’t accurate. If the US were like the Bush administration it would be ultra conservative and backward in many ways… and its way more diverse than that.
hhhmm... how do we know Iraq isn't a similar situation ? Is the current Status Quo viable ? Your arguments rest quite a lot on the insurgents pettering out... which depends a lot on a more positive view of the american occupation occuring... something that won't change a lot IMO.
Even if your right about the insurgent activity pettering out... its still a victory by the slowest and most bullheaded of means... in a country that is nothing but a distraction from terrorism. Hardly a victory to praise.
Xtisme… check out this article… doesn’t bode well when the only reason these guys see is kicking americans out. Until insurgents start fighting among themselves I don’t see a repreive for the US.