Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Can technology win the war in Iraq?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Can technology win the war in Iraq?
    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.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 23:09
I think that sums it up really well.
 
 
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by HEROI - 11-Jul-2007 at 07:36
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
Dan Carkner View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 490
  Quote Dan Carkner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 09:08
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

It's hard for me to believe this because it doesn't make sense in trying to keep the peace. The only I can see it is Reporters spinning a group willing to help the US as only Sunni or Shiitie and using this as saying theres a religious conflict being exploited.


Divide and Conquer, it's the oldest trick in colonial history. 
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:07
Originally posted by hugoestr



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?
 
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.
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 10:12
Originally posted by HEROI
 
 
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.
[/QUOTE


Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 11:12
Originally posted by hugoestr

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?


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.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 12:03
Originally posted by HEROI

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.
 
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.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 12:54
Originally posted by HEROI


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.


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.

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:04
Originally posted by DukeC

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.


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.

Edited by edgewaters - 11-Jul-2007 at 16:19
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 20:15
Originally posted by hugoestr

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.

 
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.
 
 
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 20:37
Divide and Conquer, it's the oldest trick in colonial history. 
Depends on strategy. With putting in a new government that you depend on being successful, it's the worst idea. You need people to be united and with a common goal. Right now getting them to unite isn't exactly working, but dividing them doesn't help the cause at all.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 01:15
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
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. 
 
Excellent post.Clap
 
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.
 
 
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 05:04
Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
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. 
 
Excellent post.Clap
 
 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.
 
 
 HEROI POST.          Thats right,and it is up to the U.S to continue that ,not just for the sake of open world structure or globalization,but for its own economic and up to a degree national survival.You have to understand that the conflict in Iraq has alot to do with American economy,national security,regional influence,global influence,and interior national consensus.A strong America mean a strong global economy,a powerfull America mean a powerfull democratic sistem all over the world.An influential America means respect for human rights.It was almost all the countrys of eastern Europe,Britain,Italy,Spain and a hundred or so countries around the world who understood this clearly,and jumped in suport of the U.S.A even if some of them thought Iraq was an adventure.It is now a duty,towards globalization,its allies,and most importantly a necesity for America itself to fight and win the war in Iraq.I said it a hundred times and i will repeat,i dare not imagine an Iraq in the hands of extremist,Iran armed with nuclear wepons,and middle east showing the middle finger to America,that would mean North Korea as well,France and Russia planin their multi-pole ideology for a new world.it would be total kaos,America would be very vulnerable to attacs and its economy getin worse by the day.Thats what would mean to pull out now,WHICH OF COURSE WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.I think that the democrats will keep Iraq going till the nex election for political points,and then will not act differently.It remains to be  seen.
 


Edited by HEROI - 12-Jul-2007 at 05:06
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.