Can technology win the war in Iraq?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20580
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 06:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Can technology win the war in Iraq?
Posted By: Maharbbal
Subject: Can technology win the war in Iraq?
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 18:03
|
On the net there are plenty of articles about new tech the US army could use to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It makes no doubt in my mind that 90% of them are grossly over stating the real impact of their inventions. The trend seems to follow three ways: less-lethal weapons, unmanned vehicles and IT military gadgets. The one thing that struck me was the fact that these were materials that could be used equally by police or the military. Considering the job of the troops is to ensure security (their own and the Iraqis'), their mission looks indeed very close to a police operation. An extreme one, but still. Bagdad is a cop's nightmare alright: it's huge, it's messy and it is overcrowded. But couldn't CCTVs be installed the city over to find suspects or at least track them down once they've committed their action and then see where they were coming from. Similarly, shouldn't road-blocks be controlled via robots while the crew remains safely in bunkers? Finally, tough gunfight is common but very often (at a road block for instance) the troops seem to have little choice if one is behaving weirdly that to shoot at him or do nothing. Police forces in the West are increasingly equipped with tazers and other less-lethal weapons. To a certain extent, the NYPD seems more fit to the mission in Iraq then the USMC or the army. Do you agree or do you think I'm completely wrong? ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 07:33
|
No. The problem in Iraq is the making of Tommy Franks. He misidentified the center of gravity of the enemy, failed to disarm the locals and isolate them from the insurgents. Its not like that the insurgency or at least an insurrcetion of some sorts was not warned against pre-war. If these had been done when the US still had momentum from the initial attack, then the insurgency could have been avoided or mitigated. Somewhere in summer '03, the US lost the initiative.
The problem now is not the use of technology, but strategic. The US is now reacting to the enemy, its the latter not the former who are setting the agenda and choosing the ground. WHile this occurs the US cannot win. Personally I think that Iraq is too far gone, to be savable by any tech (except nukes, but thats anothet story) still Pratreus's new strategy of going after the insurgents could change the strategic outlook. ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 08:04
|
I don't think a way to 'save' Iraq is by nuke, but I agree generally with your opinions, Sparten. Overall, i think there can be no 'victory' per se in Iraq, just a slowdown of activities or phasing out of foreign troops. The robot technology just simply isn't there at the minute to even conceivably be used at road blocks, as it is our ability (whether used or not) to be able to interpret any specific situation and take the appropriate action. So, human control of roadblocks is paramount.
CCTV is not viable either, as not only would they cost billions to install, they would have to be managed by a large amount of police, as well as causing a huge pile-up in terms of enforcement, as law-breakers would have to be tracked down, whether murderers or petty thieves, meaning a further stretching of already dangerously stretched resources. Anyway, what would stop insurgents pulling them down?
Tazers etc are an aspiration, but are employed in the west because their countries are not at civil war, where every family has at least one gun and are very willing to use it, as well as there being active, well armed units determined to kill at any cost. Tazers at the minute are just not enough.
Pulling out slowly, tail firmly placed between legs is the safest option for the foreign troops in Iraq, but of course this will not make the country any safer for the Iraqies. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 08:58
|
Use of technology is not the issue, (and I was being flippant about the nukes). The fact is that even if these techs were used the insurgents would change tactics. They already have done that before. What you need is a new strategy. Prataeus seems to be attempting to do that. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 09:06
|
First, I agree with Maharbbal that technology is not going to save the situation in Iraq. It is ironic that there are claims to this considering how the Bush administration refused to increase the size of the military because they thought that technology would be able to replace many people.
I will disagree with Spartan in talking about an enemy. From what I understand, there isn't an enemy to target, but an ever changing ethnic and nationalistic conflict that the U.S. didn't prepare to deal with, and even then it would be hard for them to handle. So, one week our enemy are the Sunni uprising, but the next week they are out ally against the Shia, only to have the roles reversed a few weeks later. When your allies and enemies keep changing, one cannot focus on any one of them. From what I understand, and please anyone who knows better about the situation correct me here, there is a gun culture in Iraq similar to that found in the U.S. Most households have weapons for self-defense. As violence change and locals are threatened by it, they dust off the gun, and defend themselves. So, general Franks would have had disarmed the whole nation to prevent uprisings, which was just not possible. Doing so would bring the same reaction that doing this in the U.S. would bring: an uprising. Finally, the strategy that the Iraqi are using to get rid of the occupation force is the same one that General Washington conducted to get rid of the English: make the colonies so expensive that the occupying force decides that it is not worth keeping the occupation. Yes, Washington engaged them in battles, but if he had to fight the war today, we would have adopted very similar tactics as those used in Vietnam and Iraq. Quite frankly, I don't know of any ploy that can overcome this strategy against occupation once the insurgency is widespread enough, as it has happened in Iraq. Wars are expensive, both in lives and money, and citizens get sick of never ending wars that produce no concrete results. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 11:39
|
You don't need to disarm the whole nation, you can start with the Iraqi Army, as it was the US just bypassesd them with the result that these people just melted away and became the seeds around which the insurgency. As I said, you need to disarm the populace as well as isolate it from the insurgents. ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 11:42
|
Hugoestr - wasnt maharbbal saying that technology could win the war in Iraq..?
Just an interpretation point ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 12:28
|
Sparten,
One of the actions that the U.S. took which they are now being blamed for is that they disbanded the Iraqi Army during their de-bathization program. The U.S. occupation government also made it impossible for them to get jobs, so that they would revolt wasn't that shocking. Remember, most of these people have a firearms culture similar to the U.S. And in many ways, it is a lot more justified to have it in Iraq. To disarm every potential insurgent means to disarm the whole nation. It is not going to happen. Then there is the problem with the "insurgency." As I said before, the problem is that the "insurgency" is constantly changing. There is no unified insurgency. There is no bad guys that we can focus on. It changes depending on what has happened and whom the U.S. feels is more dangerous at that point. Dolphin, If I misunderstood, Maharbbal, he can correct me, but this sentence seems to say that he doubts that technology is the only solution.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 12:56
|
The thing is when you mean "disarm", you don't mean take a gun from every single person, only that you isolate the organized groups and prevent them from acting effectivly. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 15:06
|
Well, under normal circumstances your definition of disarm is correct, but when you have a firearm culture, you do need to disarm the whole population.
In Iraq, a major problem is that security broke down so early. No group is willing to give up their weapons because no one believes that they can be protected by the government or the U.S. People who are not engaged in the civil war are dragged in when one ethnic group attack and kills relatives of these people. ------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 15:34
|
Well, Iraq war has already been won since US reached its goals. Now the problem is Sunnis, Shias and Iran ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 16:26
The civil war is a result of the insurgeny. An armed populace makes it easier to recruit footsoldiers true, but if the US had disarmed the Iraqi army and the militias early on the populace would have had no people to rally around. As it was things got really bad in 2004, and the civil wat started last year as a direct result of the insurgency.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 23:12
|
The objective of the war is to snatch Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi people, so no, the objective hasn't been reached.
Another objective of the war was to transform Iraq into a satellite state of the US. This has definitely not happened. As for military objectives, yes, those are constantly met. One of the problem of the US in Iraq is that it has political objectives but it tries to achieve them through military means. There is only so much that you can do by killing people. As I said before, Sparten, the U.S. disbanded the Iraqi Army and started it from scratch. You cannot blame the U.S. for failing to do this since it did it. For it to take weapons out of all potential recruits, it had to disarmed the whole nation, which you agreed that it wasn't possible. Our greedy, mioptic leaders think that they can still get away with stealing the oil that belongs to the Iraqi people. That is part of their reluctance to leave. They are mistaken. The moment that that oil becomes the property of Exxon, that is the moment that the oil wells go up into flames, and the oil pipes will be destroyed throughout the country. The U.S. has one good strategy left, and that is to leave. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 23:25
The US military, while it advances it's technology, also follows that philosophy you can't rely on technology alone. The Bush adminstration learned that the hard way, and went against what many of our military leaders were saying in that we needed alot more troops before the invasion. Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed and probably screwed us over, atleast more then it could have been. The result of that has been the loss of quite a few of our top military leaders and a few more threatening to leave.
So no, technology won't win the war, atleast alone. It takes alot more then one thing to win anything. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 23:44
|
The short answer is no. I don't know whether this is sad or something else but when I was in 11th grade watching the gathering storm (usually watching CNN in my business class) and we invaded iraq I told family members and friends it would be another vietnam, we would sweep aside the regular forces with ease but our casualties would keep piling up from guerilla warfare. I must say that for once I am disappointed that I was right. Technology can only do so much, it won't help if the people whose country you are occupying are fighting you and each other, not to mention don't for the most part want you there at all. The running joke here is that nixon was the greatest president to ever live in comparison with bush. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 03:25
|
I think one of the main paradox of guerrilla warfare is that to win the heart and mind as they say you have to prove you are on top of the situation, hence be on the winning slide. So to win, you have to win… Besides, Hugo stated that the main problem was that everybody had a weapon at home, but I think it is only a problem when it comes to recognize the bad guys. Most never had to use it and certainly would never use it for anything else than self defense. Because terrorists, militiamen and insurgents blend in the crowd it gives the impression the menace can come from anywhere and anyone but the fact is it doesn't (in other words anyone could be a target but anyone is not a target). I found Spartan's remark very insightful. Indeed it seems that for the last four years or so the US are merely reacting to whatever happen on the ground and basically lost initiative. But I'd disagree with him on one point. If you consider any example of urban warfare (from the Nazis struggle against the Dutch resistance to the fight against the IRA's bombing campaign in London) it has always been won by the strong side (German virtually wept out any form of resistance in the Netherlands) thanks to technological superiority allowing to detect the enemy early on. The German had goniometic system to find the radios of the resistance and the Brits developed the densest CCTV network in the world. So in that sense, technology could help to give the US the initiative again. And hence win the war on terror. Besides, unmanned vehicles would remove from sight the most valuable target their adversaries can find: the US soldiers themselves. We are in a weird war indeed were the objective of one side is merely to make kill after kill till it becomes unbearable. You don't kill a soldier to reach an objective, the soldier is the ultimate objective you can find. So removing the soldiers from the danger is not only important humanely, it is capital strategically. Well that was my two cents point. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 04:33
|
All thats very well sir, but again you seem to be missing the point I made namely that the US has an absence of strategy. The German and IRA analogy is misleading since the Germans did have a strategy and objective; to keep the occupied territories quiet and the way their technical superiority helped them to achieve that by a tactic of basically popping anyone who was or looked threatening.
It is the strategy that decides tactics which are to be used. Only when the US decides what its objectives are in Iraq will they achieve anyheadway and a discussion on the role of technology will be relevent. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 11:51
|
And if your talking about the Germans in World War 2, they didn't bother trying to win hearts and minds, they were using fear as a tool to their best ability. Infact, in some towns they'd post the names of every citizen in order of execution. So if anything wrong happened, the people at the top would be the first to go and so on. Made people think twice before doing anything, because they would know the name of those they'd be responcible for.
I also heard that the KGB were pretty efficient in stopping terrorist. After they found out the terrorist's name, they'd go find their family and shoot them all in cold blood. It stopped the terrorist, thats for sure, but is something against what the US would do.
The US is trying to use a friendly approach by sending aid, building schools and hospitals and supplying them, which has been working, but when a country can't support it's own basic needs, like power and water, then it's a breeding ground for angry vengeful people. Added to the fact that they live in fear and have lost many friends and family, you can give them everything they need, but in those conditions, they're still going to have a huge chance to become radicalized.
There isn't a easy answer, and certantly not a simple one. Going guns ablazing or just trying to win over people won't win this war. There just isn't a single strategy, and there isn't a single one for the Military or a single one for the Diplomats. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 13:23
|
Maharbbal,
One of the ironies of CCTV is that you need a peaceful population to be able to run it successfully. The reality is that electronic equipment is easy to tamper with, and all what you need is scissors, a magnet, or, if everything else fails, a brick. My point about having the population armed is the following: people who are not involved today may get involved tomorrow if they become the victims of violence; for example, relatives died in a mosque attack. Then the guns come out. Remote controlled robots cannot substitute soldiers. Again, these could easily be tampered, and a sort of arms race could start to see who can waste the resources of the enemy faster: the insurgency with cheap roadside bombs or the U.S. with expensive technology. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 13:37
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 13:42
|
With robots, war will lost it's "humanity". The future gets more and more vague..... ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 14:13
|
The US military believes robots will "Never" take the job of a basic infantry man, but will only work together with them. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 21:35
|
Sparten, my point it that technology may help the US to design a new mid-tern strategy (e.g. end bombs and killings in Baghdad). Of course robots won't replace foot soldiers or a good general may they may help both. It would be interesting to see the stats on the number of US troops killed while working on a road block or any other job that could be executed by a robot. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 50%. Concerning the viability of cameras in hostile territory, it makes no doubt that it will be a tough job but it is sure as well that some technique can be thought of (the camera would be small or armored or moving, or set not directly above the street or whatever else they may come up with). ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 23:34
|
The problem in Iraq is lack of realistic objectives, I don't think even cutting edge technology is going to make up for that. Also the local forces the U.S. is trying to set up as a counter to the insurgency and sectarian fighting are so compromised that there's little hope of ending the fighting under the current political structure.It's a political/cultural/religious struggle, IMO there won't be a military solution to the war in Iraq. Any effort to try and control the path of development in Iraq by U.S. forcces is going to cause more resistance not less. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 02:03
|
Frankly if I was a US policy maker I would simply redefine the Iraqi mission as "control of oil" and withraw to the oilfields and surrouding regions. That is a achiveable objective, and one which ties in with US startegic interests.
As for robots for IED's well they have a use certainly, but recent insurgent tactics seem to be that the IED's are covered by an MG or a motar team. A robot takes its time and the humans are exposed. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 10:52
+1 ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 11:24
That's basically what the original mission was, and why things went so wrong. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 12:27
|
Thats the mission the US Army planned for and had forces for. Not the grand "remake Iraq" strategy that caused things to go wrong. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 12:28
Exactly. What do you think the original mission was? Find the WMD? Bring democracy to the towelheads?
The mission is ALWAYS to protect American INTERESTS. That is what the CIA reports talk about, never democracy, liberty or such propaganda. When applied to a country full of oil, it becomes to protect the oil.
However it will never work, because the age of military imperialism is over. You just can't move into a country with your military and steal their resources. Without local support, you can't just build crusader castles around oil production sites and hold them. That never worked in the past, doesn't work now, and won't work in the future.
Your electorate can be dumb enough to buy the WMD or democracy story, but the natives will never buy it, eventually you must kill all of them. America even tried doing that in Vietnam (they carpet bombed the countryside with more explosives than used in World War II), but it didn't work (other than killing a few millions). ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 12:29
|
Ah yes you can. The US in Iraq is trying to hold the whole country rather then specific areas. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 13:28
The focus has always been on oil and not rebuilding Iraq, which is the core of the problem there. The Oil ministry was at the bottom of the list of facilities Jay Garner and his group wanted to protect after the invasion, but it was the only one which was protected. Most of the remaining government infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed by looting after the fall of Saddam making reconstruction almost impossible. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 12:03
|
When I was reading the Afghanistan War topic, it reminded me of one technology that has helped tremendously and has put the odds of winning every fire fight over the top favoring the US. Thats Night Vision. They also use flares that radiat Infer-Red and makes the area light up like day with Nightvison on. They said they basicly just pop one off at a time til they give up because they have no idea where they're getting shot from. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 16:19
|
Technology is irrelvent in Afghanistan due to the nature of the terrain. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 20:08
|
I think whats been done so far says the total opposite. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 20:46
Depends what you mean by 'specific areas'. If they are oil production sites, it is impossible.
If they are satellite micro-states such as Kurdistan, maybe. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 01:31
How so? The US is unable to project its power any further than Kabul and the surrounding areas. The terrain has played a big role in that. Its thye Nam all oevr again, the US is forced to rely on Helicopters. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 02:07
|
The topography and climate of Afghanistan definitely favor the locals. Very cold in the winter and equally hot in the summer, it's a challenge for any armed force whatever the level of technology. The mountainous terrain limits the routes units can take effectively channelling them into ambush sites. Last week Canada suffered its worst single incident loss of the conflict when six soldiers were killed by an IED that demolished the armoured vehicle they were in. The Nyalas have been effective up till this point, but the Taliban has changed tactics to compensate, using such a large charge there was no hope of survival. Technology cuts both ways and the Iraq war has been a laboratory for insurgency techniques.
Unless NATO takes the approach the Soviets did and depopulates large areas of Afghanistan, it's forces are going to be contiually hit by guerrillas hiding among the local popualtion. Considering we're supposed to be there to help the people, that's not going to happen.
This map of Canadian casualties illistrates the point of how the geography limits the battlefield.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/afghanistan/ - http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/afghanistan/ ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 04:25
|
Thing is you should read David Hackworth, probably the most successful commander in Vietnam. As he points out at the end of the day it was a man with a rifle vs another man with a rifle. All he high tech did not mean anything at all. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 09:41
UAVs the most as we are in the Information Age. The whole US Military is working on systems that all interact with each other and allow ease of Communication. It works with these UAV, and also UGVs which are coming on the seen with greater numbers. Not only does the US military have hand held versons of each that allow you to look over the hillside or scope out a building before entering it, they also have larger UAVs and someday UGVs that not only do reconnaissance, but will and do attack targets also allowing the option of not putting a human in harms way. So far, it's been successful, a number of high targets have been killed by UAVs with the operator being hundreds of miles away.
Also, if they are not looking to hit a target(which they usually have that option even if it's not apart of the plan) They can send it out on it's own and have it take reconaissance photo's in any number of spots, then have it return where it'll land itself and turn it's engines off, allowing personnal to attend other flights and not have to worry about that one.
Technology has only made it easier, without it, casualties would probably be upwards towards what we saw with the Soviets fight there, which is numbered around 14,000.
In the Information Age, terrain is only a problem when it's difficult to get there. But when even Satellites have the ability to watch you at night, information is going to be more valuable then strategic points. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 10:09
|
Sparten I slightly disagree with you on that as it seems to me me that the US troops in Iraq are not in a men-with-guns-v-men-with-guns situation as most US troops are killed by IEDs, snipers and other stuff that they just can't see coming. Similarly they say it requires six times more IEDs now to do the job of one IED before (i.e. if in 2004 one soldier was killed every three bombs it now requires 18 bombs to kill that soldier). Knowhow may have a role here but technology too (do you imagine the US would still be in Iraq if the losses in 2006 had been six times higher?). Then when you see how and when US soldiers are killed you realize that logically it mostly is when they are on the move or when that are static and away from cover and reinforcement. In that sense an unmanned road block that could be safely managed from a bunker a few yards away sounds like a good idea. If unmanned material allows to reduce the number of moves the soldiers have to do out of their base, even better as it offers less targets to the enemy and allows the military to concentrate their resources on the few remaining (the day each patrol will be babysitted by a Predator attacking US troops may become a very unpleasant job. Obviously the American public cares less about the money than about the losses, reduce significantly these losses and you'll win the war on the long run, keep them at 100+ a month and you gonna have to move out soon. I (a great armchair general) don't think technology can win the war but it can help it greatly ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 10:32
|
I another armchair general must point this, insurgent tactics have been changing immensly over the last few years. The goal however remains the same, to cause the US so many casulties that it throws in tne towel. In '03 attacks by small groups on US posts were the order of the day, in '04 and '05 the aim was to have insurgent sancturies such as Falluja or for a time Mosul or Tal Afar. Now its attacks with IED (yes at any time all three seem to be in use , but the predominate tactics seems to be the last). The US destroyed the small attacking teams and captured the areas, eventually after being initially surprised an suffering casulties. I am sure they will eventually lick the IED problem as well. But the insurgents will simply move on to another tactic. THis will continuen unless the US (as I said earlier and you agreed) wrests back the strategic initiative from the insurgents. Preatreus seems to be attempting it, but I don' think he quite has the resources. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 10:45
You make very good points, and I agree with what you say. And I will always be for sending a RC vehicle to detonate road side bombs rather than have human lives at risk. However, they are not a substitute to soldiers, and we cannot afford it as a long term strategy. Unless these robots are as cheap as road side bombs, going down this route will put is in a losing position. It boils down to money, if it costs them $5 to destroy equipment that costs $20--and I doubt a robot can be this cheap, but let's assume this for argument sake--$500 can destroy $2000 of U.S. equipment. It is not sustainable. :) ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 10:47
This is one of the best ways of describing the situation. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 11:01
There is a growing number of people who are upset with the monetary cost of the war. Why? Because this war is making it impossible to properly fund any socially redeeming program in the U.S. The war debt is so huge, that just paying it off will take a long time. And Bush decided to wage a war and drive up a huge debt just as the biggest population segment of the U.S. is about to retire. The reality is that a huge number of boomers will get ill or fired, will quickly go through their savings, and end up in poverty. The only real solution to this will be the U.S. government bailing them out. We will end up having to do so. And as we are walking into what may be the greatest social crisis of the U.S. since the Great Depression, the U.S. government is burning millions of dollars a minute in Iraq. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 11:19
|
Hugo don't get me wrong. I am in favour of a cut and run policy, I think that there are huge incentive for the US to pull back. The human cost for the West of the war is way beyond 9/11's (3000 dead counting, plus the wounded, plus those that could have been saved in New Orlean, plus the terrorist attacks it triggered the world over, plus the spread of the better insurgency practices it involved from Algeria to Afghanistan), not even mentioning the losses on the Iraqi side (but arguably the retreat of the US forces may not better the situation there). Financially, as you mentioned the war in Iraq costs several 9/11 per year, not even talking about the fact that with #1, #2 and #3 oil reserve in their hands the radical islamists would look so threatening that the whole world would switch on greentechs (hopefully). BUT considering that a quick pull out of Iraq is unlikely for domestic political reasons, I'd say the best option is an American success a.s.a.p. and I hope technology may help them on that. edit: and I forgot to mention that based on almost every insurgency and terrorist campaigns in history, it is evident that what the force don't get you, you may have thanks to diplomacy and it seems to me that the US lack this dramatically. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 11:24
|
is not only political-cultural and religious strugle,without the military sucses none of them counts as important.The problem is the enemy,or rather the type of enemy,is a new enemy,thats the problem,a new enemy that the modern or even clasic armies have no experience in fighting,but there is a war and a enemy to fight there none the less.On the political-cultural and religious aspects the war in Iraq is all but won since the day the people of Iraq went out voting.And yes technology can win the war in Iraq.there is a war,and it can be won only by US ARMY,the most technologicaly advanced army n the world. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 13:30
On top of that, the Robots are the cheapest option, it's either them, or a vehicle which will cost more. But I have seen these bots take a good deal of punishment. The important components for this type of bot are pretty low to the ground and are built to take punishment. The marines that use them to clear buildings just throw through them threw windows, they're made to withstand explosives, etc... So they're doing what they are made for, and we definitly have the money to support those operations until the day this country doesn't exist. Money right now is no where an issue so long as the War is funded. Our economy is going up everyday, and we are miles ahead of everyone economically anyways. We have a thread showing how some of our States could be top nations themselves alone. Besides, have you looked at our military budget. It's atleast 360 billion, the next one is China at 60 billion.
The problem is only support at home, which is continually going down and will lead to funds being cut. I don't agree with this war at all, but I'd feel to horrible to leave after what we did to the Iraqis. If we leave, there'll be little to no hope for them being stable.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 14:36
|
Well, I must say that I like to hear that the bots can handle rough treatment, although with technology, there is always a way to break them.
And we are really out of money. Our military budget is huge, but that is thanks to credit. And as we all know, we can only support ourselves through credit for so long. As for Iraq, I think that our presence there doesn't really matter that much. The forces that our leaders set in motion will have to play themselves out, and our staying is just delaying this. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 17:18
The conflict in Iraq is as old as warfare itself, one group is in anothers territory and the locals are using whatever means at hand to resist them.
It doesn't matter if the U.S. had invincible robots that could teleport around the battelfield at will(just joking here) it still comes down to the fact that much of the hostilities are fueled by the mere presense of U.S. forces. What are the objectives here, if it's truly to build a peaceful and secure state in Iraq, using violent means is counter-productive. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 17:29
The thing is though, money always has to be approved to go over there which can be a slow process due to popularity.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 17:42
|
SearchAndDestroy,
I want to make clear that I believe that the U.S. army is probably the best one in the world. From what I understand, the U.S. military is successful at most of its operations, if not at all. The problem that I see is that we may be trying to apply a military solution to a problem which cannot be solved this way. Let me make an analogy: if you give Gary Kasparov an unsolvable chess puzzle, it doesn't really matter if he is the best player of chess in history, he is not going to solve it. I find that our leaders have done just that with Iraq and the military. they expect them to solve a problem that they cannot solve because, in just military terms, it is unsolvable. And I know that our Congress keeps authorizing spending, but we really don't have the money. That money that they are authorizing is all borrowed. The ballooning deficit is mostly the result of this war, together with the idiotic tax cuts during war times. Most of us don't think of the money because the human loss is so horrible, it doesn't allow us to think about anything else. But the reality is that we cannot afford Iraq. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 18:29
|
And I know that our Congress keeps authorizing spending, but we really don't have the money. That money that they are authorizing is all borrowed. The ballooning deficit is mostly the result of this war, together with the idiotic tax cuts during war times.
That is precisely where bots are meant to come into action. They are by any means cheaper than any soldier and very often more efficient. Lets take a simple example: in Afghanistan, millions of mines spoil the land, if mine specialist where to come in great numbers it would take ages and it would cost millions. On the contrary, it is easy to ship unmanned minesweepers that typically cost less to produce that a specialist to form, work faster and cost less once on the ground. Moreover if something goes wrong and the Talibans counter-attack or use a mine particularly nasty, well you would lose 100 robots… no biggy! Most of us don't think of the money because the human loss is so horrible, it doesn't allow us to think about anything else. But the reality is that we cannot afford Iraq. That's once more where technology comes into action. Technology can be used as a force-multiplier. I don't know how many US troops are in Baghdad right now but I'm ready to bet that with enough CCTVs and bots and whatever else would be needed this number could be significantly reduced. I know Rumsfeld's initial mistake had been to trust too much special ops and technology, but one of the advantages of technology is also something the US weren't thinking about in 2003: it is much more difficult to fill the US's retreat if you still have the CCTVs and the bots because they could be managed both by an American or an Iraqi without anybody noticing the difference. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 18:35
|
lol, 'Bad guys'? Baghdad is not Gotham city! ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 18:48
There's several different levels of conflict going on and the roots go back to poor choices made right after the invasion. The army was disbanded and many former Iraqi soldiers formed the nucleus of the growing insurgency. It was Iraqis mad about lack of jobs, power, food etc... that started the resistance. The U.S. also used Shiite paramilitaries to eliminate Sunni leaders and now it's trying the reverse, I doubt the outcome is going to be any better.
Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before the war and only makes up a small part of the problem, the best way to defeat it is to eliminate the environment of chaos which it's taking advantage of.
Military strategy is the problem, the only only way to unravel the mess in Iraq is to lower the level of conflict. That probably means the removal of all U.S. forces.
------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 19:00
One of the big problems in the early days of Coalition control was its isolation from Iraqi society and the resulting poor choices made in policy. Having a large number of military robots in action may look good from a strictly military viewpoint, but it's going to cause even more resentment with the Iraqi populace and a further detachment by U.S. commanders and leaders. Unless we want to create a Terminator type scenario in Iraq with heartless killing machines hunting bands of insurgents through the ruble then I think another approach is called for. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 20:25
|
One of the big problems in the early days of Coalition control was its isolation from Iraqi society and the resulting poor choices made in policy. Having a large number of military robots in action may look good from a strictly military viewpoint, but it's going to cause even more resentment with the Iraqi populace and a further detachment by U.S. commanders and leaders. Unless we want to create a Terminator type scenario in Iraq with heartless killing machines hunting bands of insurgents through the ruble then I think another approach is called for. I get your point but I don't see how CCTVs and bots checking your passports and the inside of your car could decrease the grip the US military have on the Iragi reality. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 21:28
Right now, I believe there are 18 groups, all with differing names under the tag of Al Qaida.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 23:04
I also heard about how the U.S. used Shiite to fight Sunni, and using Sunni to fight Shiite. I heard it on the radio, either on NPR or Democracy Now. I can't remember. The latest version that I heard was extremely crazy: that our policy was to help within Iraq the Shiite to bring down the Sunni insurgency, and to help the Sunni outside of Iraq to control the Shiite. If our world were a cheesy action novel, this would work. But in the real world, everyone just gets pissed off at you, and the U.S. is, in fact, arming and encouraging both sides to fight.
Wise words. If the Bush administration only listened, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. So many analysts in the CIA, the Pentagon, and academics predicted what happened. I just heard today that Powell told Bush that this would happen if we went into the Middle East. But Bush and his team are smarter than everyone. It should have been a bad sign when the administration fired the general asking for more soldiers. And what bothers me the most is that the politicians, especially Bush, who is already hinting at this, is going to blame the military for what is really his fault. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 23:51
Bremer used the Shiite Badr Brigade to eliminate high ranking Baathists who were mostly Sunnis, this helped kick the sectarian warfare off. Now apparently the U.S. is supporting some Sunni groups in attacking Shiite factions that aren't friendly.
I think it's a mistake to treat the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror, the insurgency there is based on a desire to force the Coalition out of the country.
It's the use of force period that's the problem, many Iraqis only know the U.S. through the negative effect it's had on their lives. Whether that was from the first Gulf War, the hard sanctions that followed or the mess made from the occupation of the country. They're striking out at the people they blame for their situation, the only solution I see is getting U.S troops out of line of fire.
------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 05:47
|
guys,are we gona talk about the origines of war (the last gulf war) or wether it can be won technologicaly?
1- Blair and Bush made it clear that they were going to war in the light of 9/11.There was only one country that did not condemn the horrific attacs,that country was Iraq,let me quote what Sadam Husein said after the attacs.*THIS ATTACS WERE THE FRUIT OF USA CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY* Now unless one is anti-american would understand the desire of this regime to inflict other such attacs on the USA.Lately the former secular Husain had become incresingly religious.And he did posses wepons destructive enough to cause damage biger then 9/11.And many of them.And he had all his state aparatus to work towards that.Just a few months before 9/11 after a bombing campaign on Iraq military facilities (which were common) Saddam Husain said quote* (WE WILL ATTAC BY SEA,LAND AND AIR)
2-The war was inevitable,Saddam was asked to comply with regards to his wepons 100% with the wepons inspectors,no ifs no buts ,this was not a joke,president Bush made it very clear that he wanted Iraq to complitely open up its wepons arsenal,to dismantle all wepons of mass destruction.(in the light of 9/11 wepons of mass destruction are not necesarily atomic bombs,or any nuclear arsenal,it can be much lower then that,and in Iraq plenty were easely availeble,that is what Colin Powel try to explain in the UN).Now put yourself in the shooos of the US president,would you risk another attac or would you attac?
3- The US army won the war and is continuing to win,but as i said in my last post,is a new enemy,and the army has no experience in fighting,is an enemy that scores victory by placing suicide car bombs in market places,that runs when he see the US army coming to the village and springs up in another village puting the fear of god into the local populations,an enemy that is instrumental in preparing attacs that can reach out anywhere in the globe.We have to understand this.Is not somebody that one can catch or an army that one can destroy in order to finish this war,it takes time,there is no progress but a slow progress in this war.General Petreaus yesterday said that it will take at least 10 years to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.The question i think is,WILL THEY (the terrorist) DEFEAT THE WILL OF THE US CONGRESS TO FIGHT THEM?
4- Somebody told me above that the war in Iraq is CLASICAL ,*U INVADE MY COUNTRY,AND I FIGHT YOU*i m sorry to say that that is not the case here,the market car bombs,the blowing up of mosks,the execution of normaly dressed up women etc,are not actions of freedom fighters wantin indipendence for their country.Iraq has an government and an army ,if the Iraqis want to they can join their own countrys institutions that are working for a better Iraq,*AND THEY ARE DOING THIS,EVEN THOU BEING BLOWN UP BY SUICIDE BOMBERS FOR DOING IT*,even the sunny insurgent would have given up,had they seen an economicaly nice enviroment to live in,and freedom of religion etc,which would have been possible with American help for much less resourses that have been spent on the war so far.But the problem is,and i say time and again this,the new enemy,the terrorists and other extremist joining them.
So is not the Iaqi people who are fighting ,the same people who are joinin the government institutions in their thousends, the same people who went to vote.And is not a mistake to fight this war,is very crucial that is fought and won,and is very good that USA understood this threat the right way.
5-The only mistake made was the refusal that Donald Rumsweld made to the strategy of then Pentagon elite,to send in 100 thousend troops to keep the security situation and help rebuild Iraq ,and the economy to recover very quickly.Rumsweld thought he could win the war with 25 thousend troops only,and ignored the opinion of top generals.(i cant remember the name of the top pentagon general that was fired,or resigned,after his idea of having 100 thousend soldiers in Iraq was rejected).Had this strategy (that was to late accepted to be the only realistic one) given the go ahead then,today we would have a different Iraq,but sadly a different batlefield on the war against Islamo-fashists.
All the best. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:17
|
Hero,
Saddam wasn't a threat. Most military analysts say that. Bush and his gang were lusty for Iraqi oil, and had been plotting invading Iraq since the 1990s. Bush announced plans of his interest in Iraq before 9-11. I am sorry, but I don't give any benefit of the doubt to Bush and his team, who have repeatedly lied to Americans, broken our laws, stripped our civil liberties, wasted our money in welfare for the Paris Hiltons of the world, and killed American soldiers for oil. Enemies of the U.S. rejoice in dragging the United States into a trap. While they spend little money close to home, the U.S. is flushing its financial future on the other side of the world. The U.S. is engaged in a classic gambling con: since it has spent so much money already, it wants to keep staying on the slot machines to win the money back. Never mind that the slot machines are rigged so that you will lose more money the longer you stay there. The right thing to do, to stop a greater loss, is to get up and leave the machine. The casino owner--this is, the terrorists--keep prodding the gambler to stay: hey, are you not courages enough to keep playing? Are you afraid? Will the machine defeat you? No! Keep playing. So, who benefits from sticking to playing longer on the machine, the gambler or the casino owner? So, who benefits the most from having the U.S. in Iraq, the U.S. or the terrorists? ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:30
|
hugoestr You yourself are sain that USA is fighting the terrorist,are you sugesting that USA should now willingly lose this batle,because that how i understand cut and run policy.I have made in my previous post 5 points which can not be thrown away by comparin the present situation in Iraq with a slot machine and its victim.Be more rational. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:58
This isn't about cutting and running, it's about fighting the right battle. You don't win by wasting your resources on a hopeless cause and that's exactly what the Iraq War has become. Even General Pattraous admit that things are at a low point there and the U.S. could be in Iraq for 20 more years. The real fight is with Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq has made it stronger at the same time the U.S. is bleeding itself dry.
Bush has had his chance to prove his competence, I think it's time for other views to come to the front. ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 11:11
|
DukeC
You are wrong,this has become the right batle to fight,you have on one side the people of Iraq with Iraqi army,and security forces and the Iraqi government voted by the Iraqi people,and on the other side the islamo-fashist causing suicide bombing campaigns.On which side would you stand?Just leaving Iraq now at the mercy of destiny ,it means giving this country on the plate to islamo-fashist movements including Al-qaida.The Iraqi government has repetedly said that it wants the coalition to stay,because it can not defeat the enemy alone and put under control the security situation,besides leaving now would mean that is-fash movements would clam victory,giving them a big propaganda boost.imagin Iraq at the hands of the Islamo-fashist movements with operatives in almost all countrys of the world?imagine all this resourses,economical as well as military resourses at their hands,can you imagine what would hapen? ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 11:54
No, you have many different factions all working for their own interests, some are siding with the U.S. for the short term. The Iraqi army is penetrated by members of the militias and often works against the U.S.. The elections have hardly been democratic with unnamed candidates, no supervision and widespread vote buying. Few people think they were credible.
I'm on the side of a strong America, and I don't think that's what Bush is creating. I believe in respecting international law and setting a positive example for other nations to follow, the Iraq War has created more enemies not less.
Leaving Iraq now means the local peoples will decide it's fate, it's become clear that a U.S. imposed solution is never going to happen.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:52
|
I second your position, DukeC. Iraq is the wrong battle, a battle that makes the U.S. weaker. Although most of the damage so far as been financial and strategic, it is starting to hurt the institution of the military itself.
Today I heard on the radio that the Army missed recruitment goals for the second month in a row. And this is after they have been opening the military to more and more people. Also, I refuse the idea that this is a military defeat for the U.S. army. This is the Bush administration cowardly shedding of their personal responsibility to the military. We don't claim that a hammer is a bad tool because it was incapable to pump water out a flooded basement. It simply is the wrong tool for the job. Iraq needs a diplomatic and political solution for its problems. The military will never solve that because it is not designed to do that job. It is the wrong tool for the job. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 13:06
|
Bush and Cheney beat the drum to get the whole thing started then told the experts how to do it, let them take the responsibility. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 13:44
Here is footage of the glorious Americans saving the Iraqi towelheads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6Fd9iCIvQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6Fd9iCIvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qs71TYwoM&mode=related&search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qs71TYwoM&mode=related&search =
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ-bVDjBaXE&mode=related&search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ-bVDjBaXE&mode=related&search =
Helped by their highly civilised British allies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyuPgkZ5OAk&NR=1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyuPgkZ5OAk&NR=1
By the way, this is also an example of how technology helps the Iraqis. Americans can write any lies they like and get it on the TV everyday. But just get a handycam and you can publish the truth in youtube, or other internet networks.
People will recognise the truth when they see it. Technology allows Iraqis to win the propaganda war.
Anyway, the truth is Iraq war has already been won by the Iraqis. The world is waiting for the Americans to wake up.
Petreaus said recently that the war will last for decades. Does anyone really think that US will be there for decades? Where is the money? Where is the political will? ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 16:09
And those 18 I spoke about, they are the War on Terror. The US has split up the insurgents in multiple groups, one of them being Al Qaeda and are made up of 18 seperate groups. There is one group considered now as "Freedom Fighters" or those who just want the US out. That group they deem as one they will negogiate with and try to solve the problem. I believe there is a third grouping and possibly a fourth. This was part of the new strategy and is set to not treat all insurgents as one group as they did in the past Strategies that they had tried.
Being Diplomatic with the new Iraqi Government, which would be the only option without a military force, will be pointless. And sending them any kind of Aid would be pointless because whoever manages to throw out the new government will now have all we given the last.
So we either stay, or leave and allow a State that will be hostile towards and odds are befriend Iran if the current one some how manages to stay in power or the Shia finally get in who will most likely be the successors. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 17:26
It wasn't a good idea, but things were chaotic from the start of the operation due to lack of adequate forces and desperate measures have become SOP.
My thinking is the war was lost in the first few weeks when instead of giving jobs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and professionals who were members of the Baath party, they were made redundant. The situation is so chaotic now I see little hope in the U.S. being able to negotiate successfully with anyone. If any one group starts to gain an advantage it will be attacked by rivals. All the U.S. is doing in Iraq is keeping the top from completely blowing off the country. It doesn't have the strength to impose order and it's keeping anyone else from doing the same. This could go on forever if another approach isn't taken, one that involves bringing in all the effected groups and nations. I don't think this is a job for the U.S. anymore, we still have a U.N., it's time to use it.
Iraq is a failed state under U.S. influence, that's not a relfection on the quality of the thousands of Americans who've given their lives or health or just time. It's the result of very poor leadership, I have almost no faith that the current U.S. administration knows what it's doing. Things will probably get worse in the short term in Iraq with the removal of U.S. forces but at least there will be a chance for some sort of settlement of the conflict. It's probably not going to be a settlement that will please many in the U.S., but the current situation is even less pleasant. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 17:54
|
I wonder what would happen if Iraq's Shiat Ali launched a cohesive and wide spread insurgency (of which it is fully capable). I know why it has not, the US's currently engaged against its less intelligent and more fanatic rivals. It will be ready to step in and take control once the US finally does throw in the towel. ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:53
|
I think u missing the point.leaving Iraq in the present situation means that very quickly it will end up in the hands of the extremist who will claim victory.The international comunity and specially the US cant aford that.It will mean also that Iran speds up the nuclear armament in confidence.And it will also mean that the Islamo-Fashist will concentrate all their resourses in helpin the Taleban come back to power.It will mean that they will be free to prepare their terrorist atacs against USA and her alies.It would mean that Al-qaeda and others would recruit in massive numbers.
and many other things. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:58
|
"Islamo-Fascists"... And who may they be exactly? ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:28
Everyone considers one thing, and thats disbanding it. But if we discussed every possibility of that issue, I think there'd be so many "What-ifs" it wouldn't be worth discussing.
That shows there is alot of hope so long as we have sufficient numbers to implement our strategies. And thats the key. And it only gets brighter as long as Iraq's army keeps progressing, as slow as it is...
But if thats whats believed to be the best situation to make sure Iraqi's have a strong future, I'm for it. But I'd rather see how this new strategy works out before judging it on past failures when it has already shown hope.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:38
|
You could be right S&D, but this reminded me of Vietnam too much. Westmorland was talking about seeing the light at the end of the tunnel right up to Tet, when 80,000 guerrillas made coordinated attacks all over the country. It's the nature of such conflicts that it's very difficult to get an objective take on the situation. From what I see there's all the signs of a disaster looming, I'd say get out sooner rather than later. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:55
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:07
|
As I said , you could be right, it would be nice if all the effort was worth something. Like Vietnam, there's a credibility gap and I don't think things are as rosy as some paint it. Petraous just said the conflict could go on for several decades, that doesn't sound too optimistic to me. Things can get worse if the conflict widens into Syria and Iran as some in the White House would like to do.
------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:14
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:18
|
It was on CBC radio and TV news, I'll see if I can find a link.
Some in the current administration have been doing thier best to build a case for the invasion of Iran, the same as it was done for Iraq. I have no doubt that if they get a chance, it'll happen, there's been a lot of bad blood between the U.S. and Iran. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:35
And with attacking Iran, I think that died out. I don't even hear Bush mention them anymore. I believe there was to many whistle blowers saying the same as you. Whether that was the plan or not, any kind of discussion on Iran by the Busm Admin. seemed to reflect badly on them. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:41
|
No luck on the Petraous story, it was just a short 20 second or so segment.
I hope you're right about Iran, but I imagine all the plans for the operation are in one of those huge documents safes Cheney is supposed to have in his office, just waiting for an opportunity to dust off and put into action. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 20:54
|
Well, hopefully that bastard will be out of office before such papers ever see the light of day. You know it was him who told Bush to do it the night that Bush was to make the decision, and it was him and Rumsfeld who came up with the idea that the number of troops they agreed on would work fine because they were going to be treated as "Liberators" in Iraq and were easily going to place in a democratic government...
I thinkl Bush is a clueless puppet. Bill Mahr said it best about Bush, he isn't someone you want as a politician, but someone you wouldn't mind going out and having a few drinks with as a drinking buddy. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 23:09
|
I think that sums it up really well.
------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 07:33
|
Petrauos spoke for the BBC and you can find it at bbc.co.uk He said that the latest ofensive is having sucses but that to win the war it would take about 10 years.Will the congress have the will for that?And if they pull out the troops and as they have been warned Iraq falls into the hands of extremist (as it surely will in that case) and Iran sucsefully builds up the nuclear arsenal,can you imagin the consecuences?
Could you please imagine the consecuences of such an ill thought act?What acording to you would hapen?
Put the blame on Bush at the point of no return would not be very wise when he is in fact warning now about what might happen in case of a pull out.The democrats should not capitalise on a few mistakes made by the administration just for the sake of political points.There is alot at stake,and simply putin the blame on the Bush admin when there is nothing one can do to powerfull Iran and terrorist heaven in Iraq (as it surely will be in very near future in case of a pull out by the democrats) wont do.This war has to be fought and won.is as simple as that. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:08
Divide and Conquer, it's the oldest trick in colonial history. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:16
|
He said that the latest ofensive is having sucses but that to win the war it would take about 10 years.Will the congress have the will for that?
Ten years?!!! Is he out of his mind? Let me see, how long did it take the allies to beat the Nazis... six years to beat one of the most efficient war machines in the history of the world. But to defeat little gangs that build glorified molotov cocktail will take at least 15 years? Iran is not as powerful as our leaders make it sound. Don't you remember that they made the same lies about Saddam, and they all were false? North Korea, another boogeyman of the administration, got nukes, and nothing horrible has happened. On the contrary, the U.S. has learned good manners when they deal with them. And how afraid are we supposed to be? Republican leaders, starting with Bush, asks nothing but fear from Americans since day one. To this day, he keeps trying to make people afraid so that we will go along with his reckless plans. Remember that the Soviet Union fell because they ran up such a high tab on their military spending that they had to go bankrupt. If we get caught up on the fear mongering of Bush and his people, the US may end up crumbling through financial pressure. Bush, his gang, and those who become frighted by their stories have been playing into the trap of Osama Bin Laden. The question is, will be have the courage of admitting this mistake and leave, or is the US still going to be drawn into the trap that Iraq is? ------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:07
I never said there were no mistakes made,there were and the bigest mistake was made by Donald Rumsweld when he did not accept the strategy of top comanders of pentagon that they neded 100 thousend troops in Iraq,he thought he could do with 25 thousend.But,what you have to understand is that leaving now and simply blamin Bush wont do,the danger will increase much more if there is a pull out, thats what i try to explain. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:12
------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 11:12
15 years? It will never be done. Period. It took the Soviets only 3 years to take everything the Nazi war machine had to dish out, withstand it, and push them all the way back to Berlin. Forty years later they wandered into Afghanistan and got slaughtered by some hill tribes. Conventional warfare is one thing, pacification is another, and not always easy or even possible. Pacifying Germany was a walk in the park - as soon as the conventional forces surrendered that was it, zero resistance for all practical intents. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 12:03
Ten years is forever in military terms, the fog of war makes it almost impossible to forsee what's coming in the future. By making that statement Petraous is admitting he sees no chance of the U.S. military operations succeeding in realistic terms. The U.S. would be bankrupt in the timeframe he's talking about.
Bush has had more than enough chance to prove what kind of leader he is. Under him we've had 9/11, loss of freedoms in the U.S., violation of international human rights, the Iraq War, Katrina etc... at what point do people finally clue in and realize he's not competent to run the country. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 12:54
I personally see a greater danger in the US staying in Iraq and destroying itself financially than whatever threat that arises in Iraq. This is not theory: major world forces have collapsed after they exhausted their money, with the Soviet Union being the most recent case. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 13:40
|
Include the Spanish Empire in that catagory, even with the massive amounts of silver and gold mined in the Americas it eventually collapsed under the weight of its equally massive military.
From what I undertand George W. drove most of the companies he ran into the ground, it sure looks like he's doing the same with the entire country now. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 14:07
|
Aside from that, the takeover of Iraq by extremist elements is already a de facto reality outside of the Green Zone - this was foreseeable (and foreseen) before Iraq was even invaded.
It isn't likely to change whether the US stays or goes. The US can only buy time, but in so doing, they also provide them with purpose, galvanize their support, and help create veteran operators. The laws of selection are not in abeyance in Iraq; the longer the US is there, the more the extremists are building a hardened, experienced core that they can use in actions in the region. Sooner or later, the reality of defeat will have to be faced. It's probably better if that's sooner, if the fiction is ended. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 15:56
|
Since when is ending the huge cost in both lives and resources a defeat?
IMO rhetoric like that only prolongs the war by making peace seem like a failure. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:04
Anytime the objectives of a military campaign are not reached, it is defeat. That's not rhetoric, it's just the word that describes a situation where military force is applied but fails to achieve political goals (whether it's because the army was wiped out or not). This is certainly a decisive strategic defeat for US power in the Middle East. In terms of saving lives and resources, it is also a defeat, whether they withdraw now or later. Remember that the original idea was supposed to be to make things better for Iraqis (or so we're told). The lives have already been lost; nothing can change that. Withdrawal would simply be an admission of a defeat that is already a de facto reality, whether it is admitted or not. I do not imagine bloodshed would end at all with withdrawal; it will probably get worse. Once the US leaves, not only will ethnic factions war for control of the country, but private business that is in there now will continue to employ - will probably even employ in greater numbers - private mercenary forces to secure their interests in Iraq. Even if, somehow, Iraq became quiet, that would only mean thousands of armed young men with nothing to do would spread into the rest of the region. That's essentially what happened with the Soviet war in Afghanistan. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 17:51
|
Edgewater,
We must be fair to the U.S. military and the coalition. They do reach most, if not all, the military goals that they are given. The military was the wrong tool to achieve political goals in this context. The role of the military should have been to remove Saddam to allow diplomats and politicians to work out a peaceful Iraq. The military did this part efficiently. Yes, you are right by calling this a defeat, but this is a political defeat of the political leaders of the U.S., not a defeat of the military. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 20:15
Technology was the topic, but it is not now. Tactics and strategy win wars. Technology can be neither a tactic nor a strategy. Technology is a force multiplier, but as Mr. Rumsfeld now knows (I think) it is not a substitute for adequate troops. He read too many academic military transformation articles.
The war-fighting problem since 1950 has been that the only way to win against overwhelming firepower and logistical mass is by conducting attritional warfare by asymmetrical means. It worked in prototype in Korea. It worked in IndoChina (twice), it worked in Algeria, and it is working again in Iraq. It is being waged to a degree against Israel.
Generals have yet to find a solution; politicians never have a clue, so I guess the trick is to stay away from your adversaries if you can. The US could do it if we got our heads on straight, since there is plenty of navy to protect the sea lanes...commerce is what it is always about anyway. The Middle East has to sell oil since it has nothing else of interest.
The attainment of military goals has never been an insurmountable problem for US armed forces. The understood asymmetrical approach is to wear out the American public's patience (which has never been a strong point here), and declare every setback a victory. It seems to work, so I have no solution.
Anyway, no, technology cannot win the war in Iraq.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 20:37
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 01:15
Excellent post.
 Let's not forget that one of the reasons the U.S. is in this postiton is the role it was forced into by default at the end of WW II. The world was faced with the choice of the (mostly) free market system represented by the west, and the U.S. in particular, or the centrally controlled communist model. While many people are highly critical of U.S. policy and actions over the last half century, it's been largely due to U.S. efforts that a much more open world structure exists both culturally and economically.
The U.S. can go back to a more continental based defence structure, but this mean that other nations will have to pick up the slack when it comes to protecting free trade of commerce and ideas.
------------- |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 05:04
------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |