Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can't Win

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[twowords]

[ 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.

[sam h]

[ 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?

[theBruiser500]

You hawks are absolute [censored] retards.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[sam h]

[ 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.

[twowords]

[ 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.

[hetron]

So the idea is to take up arms against anyone in iraq who takes up arms against the US? what if the 30, 40, 50% of the population wants to take up arms against us? do we still fight all of them?

There are a lot of people involved in the insurgency. It is not just one group. A lot of insurgents are iraqis who simply want the foreigners out of iraq. Do we want to shoot and kill as many of those people as possible? What if people continue to take up arms against the US for the next 50 years in Iraq. Should we stay there to fight them, just to win?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of insurgents are iraqis who simply want the foreigners out of iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they want us out so that they can insure a non-democratic government with their group dominating the other ethnic/religious groups. And this isn't a "what if" situation. The majority don't want us out, all though of course they do expect us to leave when their own democratically elected government can handle the security situation. And it's not like we are there to steal their oil or something. The only detriment our presence can have to various factions is preventing them from installing a non-democratic theocracy, run of course by their particular branch of Islam.

And this isn't really extra complicated by there being a widespread insurgency comprised of "various" groups. There are basically only 3 who happen to share the same anti-US and anti-democratic interests: the Saddam loyalist thugs, the Sunnis who wish to impose their will on the Shi'a and Kurds, and those who are Islamic foreign fighters.

Sure would be nice if the situation were even simpler and all Iraqis supported democratic government. But just because it isn't doesn't mean our involvement was wrong to begin with, nor especially since we are there, that we should leave before the job is done. But of course the typical lib viewpoint is that any military action that takes over 3 months must be wrong, epitomized by the views of defeatist and quitter Howard Dean.

[canis582]

"Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can't Win"

Are you sure you arent thinking of George Bush who told Katie Couric on the Today Show that the war was not winnable?

Or maybe you were thinking of the Roman and British commanders who concluded that Iraq was unwinnable after their long, low intensity conflicts that drained their treasuries.