Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

Apology:

Sorry, guys, a moderator error by me deleted this post.

-andyfox

----------------

Changed thread subject back to its original title.
-Cola

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way. So many things about Vietnam are almost the exact opposite of Iraq.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

You'd think a person who wants to talk about "not winning" something would be a person who actually knows something about not.... oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

<-------- plays fulltime for a very nice living and doesn't quit when the variance gets rough.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

Yes, I'm certain you're quite successful and wealthy and the ladies all flock to you. Aside from that, I was referring to Howard Dean. You know, the guy referred to in the Subject?

"You're so vain, you prob'ly think this song is about you...."

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
<-------- plays fulltime for a very nice living and doesn't quit when the variance gets rough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Admit it, you started this thread to brag about your poker winnings... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

Where does Dean say he has no confidence in the ability of our brave troops? He says he has no confidence in the ability of our president.

I think Dean is a bad party chairman, but I don't see him saying what you says he is.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

"So many things about Vietnam are almost the exact opposite of Iraq."

Explain please? Thanks.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

Vietnam-Started with few soldiers, ended with a full-scale war.
Iraq-Started as a full-scale (sorta) war, ending (will end) with fewer soldiers.
The type of enemy we're fighting, they're goals, etc.
Iraq is not Vietnam.

Aren\'t you keeping up with the news, Victoria ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly Dean has no confidence in the ability of our brave troops, even if he disagrees with the way the administration is conducting the war.

[/ QUOTE ]
The administration itself has already defined its objectives for victory in Iraq as a successful hand-over to the Iraqi military and security forces which will carry on the fight against insurgency. The administration has warned that the fight in Iraq may take years - perhaps go into the next decade. do the math : A military victory is not in the cards any time soon.

In other words, victory for the American troops, henceforth, depends more than anything else on the Iraqis' successful undertakinbg of the counter-insurgency war. Some victory objective!

On an individual level, I guess, victory for the soldier means staying alive until they United States hands over the whole wretched mess to the natives and gets the hell out of Dodge.

Or haven't you heard ?

Doesn\'t take much to smoke out the \"Vietnam experts\" here
 

[ QUOTE ]
[Howard] Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way. So many things about Vietnam are almost the exact opposite of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny but the hawkiest of Vietnam hawks himself, Melvin Laird, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the latter and toughest phase of the Vietnam War thinks different!

That's the gist of his article in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine. One can google it up if one is interested in an insider's opinion.

But, of course, you guys here could be more experienced in that war -- or you could be more hawkish than ...Melvin Laird.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Doesn\'t take much to smoke out the \"Vietnam experts\" here
 

Good call Cyrus. From the article you mentioned:
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is not "another Vietnam."

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that wasn't the ace up your sleeve...

Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good call Cyrus. From the article you mentioned:
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is not "another Vietnam."

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that wasn't the ace up your sleeve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article more carefully. Then you will, perhaps, notice the blatant similarities in the military and political situation between Vietnam and Iraq that Melvin Laird points out. Laird is particularly angry with the prospect of the United States making the same "mistakes" as in Vietnam.

If we were obliged to make an all-or-nothing call, then no, of course "Iraq is not Vietnam".

But then what is ?

Donald Rumsfield agrees with Howard Dean
 

Rummy says they only way the insurgents will be defeated is not by US Troops but by turning over the job to the Iraqis.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vietnam-Started with few soldiers, ended with a full-scale war.
Iraq-Started as a full-scale (sorta) war, ending (will end) with fewer soldiers.
The type of enemy we're fighting, they're goals, etc.
Iraq is not Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one difference followed by several aspects of the wars that are actually similar. The type of enemy we're fighting? In Vietnam, it was the NVA and militant guerrilla fighters. In Iraq it's militant guerrilla fighters (as we defeated the main army). Their goals, in both cases, were to get the U.S. out of the country. You might try to branch this into the goals of terrorists worldwide versus communists in Vietnam, but that's oversimplifying both cases.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

Are Iraq and Vietnam EXACTLY the same battle? Of course not. But there are a host of striking similarities:

- Both started with contrived events (Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11)
- In both cases the US Military/Government believed that firepower and military victory were the only issues. In both cases they were completely wrong.
- In both cases there is a substantial portion of the population that didn't want to be "rescued". There is a great bumper sticker being seen more frequently here: Be Nice, or we'll bring Democracy to your country.
- In both cases the Military/Industrial complex had FAR too much influence.
- In both cases the US infantry grunt was woefully unprepared for the type of combat being seen. In Vietnam, it was right up front that the jungle combat was something not prepared for. Armor and airpower accounted for very little, as apposed to Korea, WWII. In the case of Iraq, the soldiers have been woefully mistreated by the Adminstration and their own logistics officers.

The problem in Iraq today is not one of a genocidal dictator or corrupt government that can be replaced either by fiat or by election. Rather it is a deeply rooted religious and societal problem that no amount of military force will be able to contain. Having 100K troops in Iraq or 400K troops won't make a difference. They will still be assalted in twos and fours and tens and die for reachable goal. The Shiites will still hate the Sunnis, and the Kurds will despise and fear them both. There will be decades of backlash from the repressed majority against the minority. The country will continue, despite any 'democratic election' to be run from the mosques rather than from any capital building.

No armed force is going to change any of those things, so why should we ask our soldiers, who have been shafted from day one of this mission, to be picked off, to die in the desert for nothing?

(Thanks BCPVP for allowing me to have a meaningful 500th post)

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the US infantry grunt was woefully unprepared for the type of combat being seen. In Vietnam, it was right up front that the jungle combat was something not prepared for. Armor and airpower accounted for very little, as apposed to Korea, WWII. In the case of Iraq, the soldiers have been woefully mistreated by the Adminstration and their own logistics officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been the case in almost every war we have fought.The problem with the military acquisition process is that it reactionary in nature. Its hard to get the beancounters to spend money on things that might be. Tactics is somewhat the same, although to a lesser degree since we have more control over those at lower levels.

I however would like to hear exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that that American soldiers have been mistreated by their own logistics officers. I will pass on your answer to one of my best friends, who is a Marine Corps Logistics Officer currently on his second tour in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
...meaningful 500th post

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of opinion I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we were obliged to make an all-or-nothing call, then no, of course "Iraq is not Vietnam".

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this what I said? I said Iraq isn't Vietnam, you responded by pointing out an article by a guy who says the same thing yet claim he thinks differently. I'm aware that the U.S. could make similar mistakes, but that does not mean the two wars are equivalent.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
This has been the case in almost every war we have fought.The problem with the military acquisition process is that it reactionary in nature. Its hard to get the beancounters to spend money on things that might be. Tactics is somewhat the same, although to a lesser degree since we have more control over those at lower levels.

[/ QUOTE ]


Folks who, for whatever reason, can't lay claim to military service will never understand this.

Folks who, in spite of their claims otherwise, don't have high regard for the military will never accept this.

Folks who love to scream about troops not having this, that or the other (after the fact), IMO, are the same ones who scream about the gigantious sums being "poured" into the DOD's coffers.

Re: Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this what I said? I said Iraq isn't Vietnam, you responded by pointing out an article by a guy who says the same thing yet claim he thinks differently. I'm aware that the U.S. could make similar mistakes, but that does not mean the two wars are equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell, the sequence of events was this

1) You said that "Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way."

2) Cyrus pointed out that Melvin Laird disagrees with you.

3) Ignoring the whole point of the article, which was to explore in what ways Iraq does and does not meaningfully resemble Vietnam, you lifted one quote from the first page to support the untenable position that the article was simply implying no meaningful resemblance.

4) Cyrus pointed out that obviously no war will be exactly like another and therefore, on some level, it will always be difficult to say X is another Y.

5) You then responded by changing your original point, asserting to have said Iraq is not another Vietnam when you actually said that it bore no meaningufl resemblance. Then you repeated your misreading of the article. Then you attacked Cyrus personally.

Or do I have it wrong?

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

The issue is not whether or not we will be victorious in Iraq. The issue is that the problem in Iraq is not fundamentally a military one to begin with, and that all of the administration's idiotic rhetoric about "victory" just obscures the reality that it is really a sociopolitical problem of building a democratic regime with the worst ingredients possible. The insurgency exacerbates this problem, but the problem is much bigger than the insurgency and has no clear solutions.

The Bush administration is either too stupid to understand this or just unwilling to admit it.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration is either too stupid to understand this or just unwilling to admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I'll only add that these are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

unless your friend is in the DOD or at the top levels of the procurement circle, I doubt he has any issue with my statement.

We are nearly three years into combat operations in Iraq, and the troops still don't have the equipment, namely top flight body armor and heavily armored transport vehicles (Hummers) that they need to survive IED attacks. Halliburton and the CPA have enough cash to go around, hell they LOST $8 billion. But the average grunt, especially if he is part of an NG unit, doesn't have the body armor necessary and is scrounging for scrap metal in his spare time to improvise armor for his truck.

Buzzer
 

[ QUOTE ]
I ... would like to hear exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that that American soldiers have been mistreated by their own logistics officers. I will pass on your answer to one of my best friends, who is a Marine Corps Logistics Officer currently on his second tour in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]Focus on the former.

When the grapevine has it that the customers are complaining about product quality, do you wanna be asking the opinion of the customer or the production manager?

Re: Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) You said that "Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and my belief is reaffirmed by the article Cyrus mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Cyrus pointed out that Melvin Laird disagrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's where I think Cyrus is wrong. I agreed with pretty much the entire article. I don't quite see how Cyrus understood the gist of the article to be anything but supportive of what I said. Here's the article I believe Cyrus is talking about. To me, the gist of it is Iraq is not another Vietnam but could become similar if we do or don't do x, y, and z (some of which are suggested by the anti-war crowd). This doesn't contradict what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Ignoring the whole point of the article, which was to explore in what ways Iraq does and does not meaningfully resemble Vietnam, you lifted one quote from the first page to support the untenable position that the article was simply implying no meaningful resemblance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should have said significant instead of meaningful. There may be an event or small piece that is comparable, but Iraq is not Vietnam in the sense that the anti-war crowd makes it out to be.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Cyrus pointed out that obviously no war will be exactly like another and therefore, on some level, it will always be difficult to say X is another Y.

[/ QUOTE ]
The comparison sure does come easy to people like Ted Kennedy et al. My point, I guess that there are many meaninful or significant ways that Iraq does not resemble Vietnam and the ones that do, if any, are dwarfed by the larger picture.

[ QUOTE ]
5) You then responded by changing your original point, asserting to have said Iraq is not another Vietnam when you actually said that it bore no meaningufl resemblance.

[/ QUOTE ]
I call it clarifying sense andyfox asked what I meant by the statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you repeated your misreading of the article. Then you attacked Cyrus personally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we reading the same article? I read the entire thing and to me, the theme was Iraq is not Vietnam and here are some lessons from Vietnam to make sure Iraq doesn't turn into Vietnam.

Re: Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are we reading the same article? I read the entire thing and to me, the theme was Iraq is not Vietnam and here are some lessons from Vietnam to make sure Iraq doesn't turn into Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theme to me seems to be that there are a variety of very clear parallels between the two wars and that we can learn from both the mistakes and success stories in Vietnam. I don't see how you could possibly interpret the theme of the article to be the lack of meaningful resemblance between the two wars.

Summarizing the points underneath each header...

1) We should have stayed the course in Vietnam but did not. Facing a similar situation today, we should stay the course.

2) Vietnamization should have been implemented from the beginning, and was a good idea. Iraqification should have been implemented from the beginning, and is a good idea.

3) Both wars got off to bad starts because they were based on faulty intelligence assessments.

4) In both wars, the administrations did poor jobs at "marekting the war" to the public. Bush can learn from the mistakes of Vietnam in this respect.

5) In both wars, one of the most difficult tasks was "building a new society from the ground up." The societies intended were different but some general lessons can be drawn.

Etc.

Re: Ace in the hole
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) We should have stayed the course in Vietnam but did not. Facing a similar situation today, we should stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to support my assertion, no?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Vietnamization should have been implemented from the beginning, and was a good idea. Iraqification should have been implemented from the beginning, and is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But in Vietnam, it went from being a Vietnamese war to being an American one and then us leaving. In Iraq it's the opposite. It started as an American war and the plan is to make it an Iraqi one.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Both wars got off to bad starts because they were based on faulty intelligence assessments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't argue with this one, but the circumstances surrounding the starts are different. One could say that WWII should be comparable because it got started because of faulty intelligence. But many a lib has balked when Iraq is compared to WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
4) In both wars, the administrations did poor jobs at "marekting the war" to the public. Bush can learn from the mistakes of Vietnam in this respect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll concede this one, but I don't feel it's of major significance. By that I mean, you can't point to that and say "Aha! Iraq is another Vietnam!"

[ QUOTE ]
5) In both wars, one of the most difficult tasks was "building a new society from the ground up." The societies intended were different but some general lessons can be drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]
While certainly a difficult task in Iraq, I think the comparison is weak at best for Vietnam.

Napoleon quote
 

[ QUOTE ]
the plan is ... the circumstances ... one could say ... many a lib ... I don't feel it's of major significance ... the comparison is weak at best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. Knock yourself out arguing there's no similarity. I'll go with the Vietnam hawks on this one, if you don't mind.

"Can't argue with a confident man!"

Nationalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are a variety of very clear parallels between the two wars and that we can learn from both the mistakes and success stories in Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

Here's what to me is the most important statement in Melvin Laird's article -- and let's remind ourselves once more that Melvin Laird is among the strongest anti-communists around. Laird writes that "the United States underestimated the nationalism of the Ho Chi Minh followers".

This is an amazing, extraordinary statement. It brings crashing down the whole edifice about the communist conspiracy, the domino effect, etcetera. Whoa, Melvin, the hawks here will have you fried.

Laird goes on to proclaim that, had the United States understood in time the strong, underlying nationalism among the Ho Chi Minh people, in the North and the South, they could have worked with him! Hey, they could've taken a hint when, on September 5, 1945, Ho Chi Minh spoke at a ceremony heralding an independent Vietnam and in his speech he cited the US Declaration of Independence while a band played "The Star Spangled Banner!"..

The ex-Defense Secretary is also critical of the administration's (and his) omission to grasp the importance of the region's nationalist undercurrents in the conflict, implying the historical hostility between China and Vietnam, the enmity between Cambodia and Vietnam, and so on.

Is there a lesson to be drawn from these remarks, that would help the US in the Iraq mess?

You bet your tush there is. And you don't have to change practically any word from what Laird said about the underlying nationalist dynamic.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is not whether or not we will be victorious in Iraq. The issue is that the problem in Iraq is not fundamentally a military one to begin with, and that all of the administration's idiotic rhetoric about "victory" just obscures the reality that it is really a sociopolitical problem of building a democratic regime with the worst ingredients possible. The insurgency exacerbates this problem, but the problem is much bigger than the insurgency and has no clear solutions.

The Bush administration is either too stupid to understand this or just unwilling to admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't have a clue yourself do you?

We are facing insurgents using military weapons and tactics yet it isn't a military problem. Sure it's not the conventional military scenario of pitched battles between large combat units, but it is military nonetheless. Unless you are so dim like Cyrus and can't see that low intensity guerilla type warfare is still a subset of warfare.

And if it isn't a conventional military situation, and since the insurgents have shown that they are not willing to allow the democratic process to determine the outcome then what do you have? A police matter? Well if it is then then the SWAT team is needed.

Your attitude is more of the same-o lib inability to see the nuances in military/geo-political situations and apply an appropriate, even if not perfect, strategy. Any military action that lasts more than 3 months obviously must be wrong. Tell that to the insurgents whose objective is to allow us to defeat ourselves by losing our will and withdrawing before the Iraqi government is capable of handling the situation on its own so that they can impose a non-democratic government on their fellow Iraqis.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your attitude is more of the same-o lib inability to see the nuances in military/geo-political situations and apply an appropriate, even if not perfect, strategy. Any military action that lasts more than 3 months obviously must be wrong. Tell that to the insurgents whose objective is to allow us to defeat ourselves by losing our will and withdrawing before the Iraqi government is capable of handling the situation on its own so that they can impose a non-democratic government on their fellow Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that "the insurgency" will impose a non-democracy on Iraq if we leave is incredibly simplistic and ignorant. The insurgency is made up of many, many different groups. Some Shiite islamists, some sunni saddamists, and a small minority of outside terrorists (these are the suicide bombers). Their fight has been waged under the banner of "resistance" to an occupation and they have often worked together in this fight.

Do you seriously suggest that these diverse groups, ideologically different in many ways, will manage to stay cohesive following a full US withdraw next year AND mount a coup over a government which according to Bush controls 100+ army batalions? EVEN with an over the horizon marine presense left in Kuwait?

The idea is so ridiculous. The presence of the US keeps the insurgency together. The absense of the US will be different for every insurgency group, its hard to say what they will do:
A) Saddamists might shift to trying to take over the government (gl with that) or actaully negotiate with them,
B) Shiites may try to cooperate with the Shiite lead gov which now appears much less collaborative with no US troops around (hard to believe that many of these guys will continue to attack the government),
C) the outsider terrorists may either declare the Iraqi govornment is still colaberating with the US and continue to fight the government with suicide bombing OR they may declare victory in expusion of US troops and try to gain a foothold in Iraq via negotiation (gl with that)

Once we withdraw, there is no doubt the terrorists will declare victory. I hate to break it to them: our goal of regime change was achieved; our goal was never to control the country indefinitely or secure dominance of their oil. Of course, this is assuming we do withdraw and these are not in fact our goals!

What scares me is the talk of "victory" which almost implies that we need to stay until the insurgency is completely subdued. Clearly, this is impossible with the US there and killing terrorists and insurgents itself is not reasonable justification for sticking around if withdrawing will marginalize them. This implies our goals has not been achieved since Bush has some other goals in mind, perhaps to draw this out and secure our interests in the Middle East with a few garrisons in Iraq. This is where comments like "we can't win" (Dean) and "we can't do much more in Iraq" (Mertha) come from, they respond to Bush statements that we will "stay the course", "stay till the job is done" etc. Because if our goal is to completely subsue the insurgency, then I agree with Dean: "we can't win!"

We are almost at the point where our presence is not enhancing the Iraqi governement prospects for stability and legitimacy. If we stay until 2008, will the Iraqi government really have a better chance of sucess than if we withdraw in 2006? I don't think so, the governemnt will be older of course but on the other hand every day of US troops about worsens the perception that they are collaborating with western imperialism. Two, three, or five more years of US presence will lead to: more insurgents dead, more terrorists dead, more innocent Iraqis dead, and more Americans dead. Doesn't seem worth it when our goal is achieved (right?) and withdraw clearly spells the end for the insurgency as we know it.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
You really don't have a clue yourself do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know more than you can probably imagine about the historical difficulties of building democracies in the developing world, the variables that lend themselves toward making democratic development difficult, and thus the immense challenges faced by the administration in keeping the country together under a democratic regime. This is at its core an issue of political and social development, not military victory. Since internal violence is one of the obstacles to political and social development, a security component is needed. But security is not the larger problem, and "victory" in the military conflict is not going to achieve our overall objectives nor is it likely even to occur without a much better answer to the political/social problem, about which the administration is clueless.

[ QUOTE ]
Your attitude is more of the same-o lib inability to see the nuances in military/geo-political situations and apply an appropriate, even if not perfect, strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh. Where is the nuance demonstrated by the Bush's administrations "strategy" in Iraq?

[ QUOTE ]
Tell that to the insurgents whose objective is to allow us to defeat ourselves by losing our will and withdrawing before the Iraqi government is capable of handling the situation on its own so that they can impose a non-democratic government on their fellow Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Losing our will" - I love it when people adopt the same language and talking points of the administration. Truly revealing in many respects. BTW, do you think the Shiites really want a truly democratic regime in a unified Iraq?

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

You hawks are absolute [censored] retards.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

No I don't think the Shiites left to themselves really want democracy. All the factions except the Kurds would like to dominate the country. But if we leave, we risk another chaotic situation occurring there like in Somalia, or 1 of the factions installing a non-democratic theocratic state like in Iran.

And TwoWords: your use of the term "western imperialism" just shows you to be another liberal tool/fool.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think the Shiites left to themselves really want democracy. All the factions except the Kurds would like to dominate the country. But if we leave, we risk another chaotic situation occurring there like in Somalia, or 1 of the factions installing a non-democratic theocratic state like in Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. There are no good options in Iraq right now and that is the result of massive policy failure on the part of the Bush administration. The only thing we can do is stick around and keep up hope for a bit longer, but the situation is very, very likely just to deteriorate and eventually implode. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi people would have been better off with Saddam, in that it depends on what kind of regime eventually takes power, but it is pretty clear that the American people, in so far as our security interests are concerned, would have been a lot better served if we had stayed out to begin with.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

It should in fact be clear that the Iraqi people can do no worse than if Saddam had been left in. The torture and use of chemical weapons on his own people showed that.

And our security interests cannnot be served by allowing such regimes to exist when they have shown a willingness to develop WMDs whether we found any or not, and which also had previously caused us to have to honor defense committments to a neighboring country of theirs at great cost.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
TwoWords: your use of the term "western imperialism" just shows you to be another liberal tool/fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear. Nice removal from all context!

The insurgency, some other Iraqis, and much of the Arab world percieve our occupation as western imperialism and the current Iraqi government as collaborationist a la Vichy France. Would you seriously argue with that analysis?

It would take a massive breakdown of the Iraqi government and army for any insurgent group to take power after we leave. That's where Mertha's over-the-horizon force comes in, to ensure stability and protect the regime.

Of course, the government could indeed fall apart, but how will that be different than if we withdraw in 3 years? In 3 years we would have an even better trained Iraqi army if we stayed, but how can you change allegiences and force nationalism on the army? If they fracture and fall apart next year when we leave, won't this happen when we leave in 3 years? What can we do to stop this if it will happen.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
It should in fact be clear that the Iraqi people can do no worse than if Saddam had been left in. The torture and use of chemical weapons on his own people showed that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't defend Saddam. But his enormous crimes against his people peaked in the 1980s and tapered off drastically afterwards. The recent revelations about the Badr militia indicate that its entirely within the realm of possibility for a regime to emerge that would approximate the level of human rights abuse in Iraq circa 2001.

[ QUOTE ]
And our security interests cannnot be served by allowing such regimes to exist when they have shown a willingness to develop WMDs whether we found any or not, and which also had previously caused us to have to honor defense committments to a neighboring country of theirs at great cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the Bush administration line. The other interpretation, forwarded by most Iraqi and Middle East experts, is that Saddam lost his appetite for foreign aggression after the Gulf War, was a die-hard secularist at heart who hated the Wahabbis, and was having substantial trouble maintaining internal order, all adding up to him being content to rule his little fiefdom and not attempting to restart the weapons program in earnest or posing a stubstantial external security threat anymore.

Would you rather have Saddam puttering around in his little fiefdom or have part of that fiefdom turn into a stateless and uncontrollable breeding/training ground for Al-Qaeda? Because that almost describes the present, and is a very realistic future, for the Sunni provinces in a divided Iraq.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

By your same logic, a serial killer who has spent 5 years in prison should be considered no danger and eligible for parole since he hasn't killed anyone lately. A snake is still a snake even if it isn't rattling as loud as it used to.

Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win
 

[ QUOTE ]
By your same logic, a serial killer who has spent 5 years in prison should be considered no danger and eligible for parole since he hasn't killed anyone lately. A snake is still a snake even if it isn't rattling as loud as it used to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, the goals and strategies of leaders and states never change.