Plans for success in the Middle East

The Coffee Shop
1

I’m interrested in honest, non-partisen oppinions. I’m going to try my best to simply pose the question and then back off, as this will likely be an emotional topic.

1st off, I never think the issue is black and white. I do believe that we need strong military involvement in the world, however, think it should have its limits and be used to support diplomacy, not be a replacement for diplomacy. It’s clear to me that both the Taliban and Hussein were “bad guys,” but I don’t necessarily believe that either of their absences necessarily lead to better governments in their place.

More directly to the point, I don’t like war, but sometimes war is necessary. However, if you plan to go to war, make sure it is something that you can win. As Mr. Miagi once said, “Karate do or Karate don’t. Karate maybe…squish like grape.”

Right now I feel as though we are being squished like grapes.

Right now the two campe offer two black and white solutions: 1) Americans in the region are inciting the insurgents. We are in the middle of a civil war. We need to pull out. Or 2) if we pull out things will get a whole lot worse. Better to stay there indefinitely.

As much as I hate this war, I was happy to see a troop surge in lieu of “more of the same.” Will it make a difference? If yes, then great. If no…then at least we know.

So my question is: Why not concentrate more of our forces into smaller controllable regions and pull them completely out of other regions? Those regions would begin to be replaced by the “Iraqi’s that we train.”

What do I propose it would accomplish? Well, maybe it’s just the scientist in me, but then we’ll know how well things go when we have the requisite numbder of troops in an area, yet also know how much better or worse areas become when occupied by Arab military instead of western military.

But, of course, this may already have been answered with the “whack a mole” scenario: Push down the violence here, it pops up over there.

Anyway, I’m no military general. If the idea is crazy, I’d love to hear why.

2

** I’m no military general.**

You don’t say. :wink:

3

There is not enough ignorance and hubris to explain the mess we find ourselves in Iraq. The ‘controlled chaos’ in Iraq is exactly the intended goal - we have created the circumstances to justify a long-term stay ala Korea.

You are looking for a plan - but first we need an honest discussion of goal(s).

Here is where we are heading:
management of Iraqi natural resources (oil) by western global corporations via privatization

it looks like we will pull this off. Is it the right thing to do?

4

The war piece of our efforts in Iraq was a remarkable military feat. It was quick, it was decisive and we lost very few troops.

The reconstruction piece has been much more troublesome. From a mission perspective, the loss of US troops over nearly four years has been de minimus. We lost over thirteen thousand airmen in aircraft training accidents over the same period of time in World War II.

The problem with the war in Iraq is one of initial mission desireability. There were and remain serious challenges to the wisdom of bringing war to Iraq even under the circumstances we thought then existed. I believe those concerns led the US to limit the use of overwhelming destructive force because we were not subduing an enemy, but were liberating a country. Killing those you are trying to subdue is acceptable. Killing those you are trying to liberate is not.

Finally, because the war in Iraq was not seen as a war for our existence or even a war to preserve the existence of our allies, disunity at home was more likely and more prevalent than it would have been otherwise. With each passing day of security and safety at home, the objectors gain more traction. With each tactical error, mistake or failure the criticism mounts. This leads to a call to end the war as it is a percieved, if not actual, diplomatic failure even though it was and continues to be a military success.

5

Meant in all earnestness: are we able to adequately compare and contrast Iraq and WWII operations, specifically with regard to loses of life? Seems to me they are drastically different in scope and type of conflict. But I’m very much not an expert.

6

Meant in all earnestness: are we able to adequately compare and contrast Iraq and WWII operations, specifically with regard to loses of life?

I think so. We invaded a country, destroyed its army and overthrew its government in a matter of weeks with virtually no loss of US life. That is remarkable. The comparison to WWII demonstrates that we are capable of stomaching massive loss of life when we perceive the stakes to be of the highest order. Losing was not an option. Why? Because winning meant preserving the existence of our allies, if not ourselves. Losing is an option in Iraq because many do not think that losing will mean the loss of one or more of our allies or will even pose a threat to the US. Thus, in Iraq, we appear not be be able to stomach relatively miniscule losses because the stakes are not and were not seen to be of the highest order. A similarly appropriate comparison would be to the Civil War. We lost 3,650 Americans in one day at Antietam. The Union was at stake. My point is that if we judge the military success in Iraq by any military measure, it is a remarkable success. Why then is it perceived as a failure? Because the goal was never simply a military one. The goal was a diplomatic or socioeconomic one and armies, at least not moral ones, do not execute such missions well.

7

It doesn’t take much of a military expert to appreciate the difference - - for one thing, Germany and Japan had an army, navy and air force.

8

“Losing (WWII) was not an option.”

Simply not true. We could have easily cut a deal with Hitler and Japan. We lost Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia without more than a few plaintiff whines.

“Losing is an option in Iraq because many do not think that losing will mean the loss of one or more of our allies or will even pose a threat to the US.”

Taking out the many do not think part of the statement makes this untrue. Do you actually think “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordon, Quatar, and the UAE would long survive such a loss? Never mind Israel and the genocide likely to follow in the wake of a loss.

9

Do you recall the commentators (Wesley Clark in particular) who all predicted thousands dead in the first weeks of the war? I suppose not.

Certainly the German and Japanese war machines far exceeded Iraq’s. But then I never contended to the contrary. Very weak effort on your part.

10

even mentioning WWII in the context of Iraq is cool-aid weak
.

11

We could have easily cut a deal with Hitler and Japan.

I am amazed that you believe this. Do you have any sources to support this contention? Do you have any reason to believe that they would have honored any agreement with us when Hitler honored none of his prior agreements with others?

Taking out the many do not think part of the statement makes this untrue.

I am not sure what this means but I think it is fair to say that many in the US think we should leave Iraq forthwith. These same people think we should leave not because we have won but because they think we can not win and they think that our departure will not cause the US or its allies significant harm. Thus, I think it is fair to say that because so many believe this to be true and are ringing the bell in this regard on a daily basis in television and print media and the halls of our federal governemnt that losing is an option.

Do you actually think “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordon, Quatar, and the UAE would long survive such a loss? Never mind Israel and the genocide likely to follow in the wake of a loss.

This possibility concerns me however every dire prediction about uprisings in the Arab street, etc. have been mistaken. I do not know that what you posit will transpire.

12

even mentioning WWII in the context of Iraq is cool-aid weak

Explain.

13

even mentioning WWII in the context of Iraq is cool-aid weak

Explain.
In these wars, who exactly attacked whom?

14

Are you really wondering if I know? I think my point is the same as yours. A preemptive war is far different from a war in which you are attacked. A war to subdue an enemy who has attacked you is far different than a war to effect regime change or some diplomatic or socioeconomic change. Witness the Gulf War.

15

Thanks everyone for the replies. They were thoughtlful and valid, yet nothing I hadn’t heard before (though it might be new to some readers).

I was looking more for an answer to military strategy. I’ve read a lot already on the reasons for the mess, but not much on a strategy of what to do about it. So far we have a “troop surge” or a pull out, but not much else.

What exactly IS our goal there? Is it simply to manage chaos? Really? For how long? (like the Korea example above, I suppose).

I guess what bugs me is just the failure to commit. I’ve heard many politicians say that we must “win,” but not one has asked our people to make a commitment for it. We are offered a deal that includes victory with no plan other than stay until the job is finished…and tax cuts at the same time.

I don’t necessarily blame the politicians for this. To ask for more money and resources to support the war effort would be political suicide. It just seems like people wanted this, but they wanted it done on the cheap.

16

Hitler’s track record at honoring agreements was pretty poor. Once the tide began to turn prior to or shortly after D day, he would have likely seen the handwritting on the wall and cut a deal leaving him in control of Europe except Great Britian and satisified himself with Russia. He would have likely honored such an agreement, but the unlikelihood of getting an agreement honored has never stopped us from making such an agreement. Just look at Vietnam.

Japan had no interest in US territory, only in expansion through Asia which we were making and had the ability to make impossible. They would have loved a free hand there, and would have cut and honored that deal.

It is no point in arguing about what people think. If you want that ground, you can be secure since there are certainly plenty who think that way. Discussing whether something is true or not is potentially productive.

“This possibility concerns me however every dire prediction about uprisings in the Arab street, etc. have been mistaken. I do not know that what you posit will transpire.”

Again, you are on firm ground, since no one “knows.” No one “knew” that 2,000,000 would be killed in the aftermath of our loss in Vietnam either, but plenty of people predicted serious repercussions. Of course, the NY Times can always rewrite its old article titled “Indochina without Americans – For most, a better life” for the current situation.

17

From a mission perspective, the loss of US troops over nearly four years has been de minimus. We lost over thirteen thousand airmen in aircraft training accidents over the same period of time in World War II.

You want me to explain why your statement above is absurdly weak - - -

it would like if I said “The loss of life from failure to wear life jackets to prevent accidental drowning is minimal because more people die from smoking related deaths each year”

18

What exactly IS our goal there? Is it simply to manage chaos? Really? For how long? (like the Korea example above, I suppose).

I think this is the question that needs answering. The strategy will depend upon the goal.

If the goal is to eradicate the violent elements and kill as many of the terrorists or potential
terrorists as possible, then we close off the avenues of escape and begin bombing. The killing will be widespread and fairly indiscriminate.

If the goal is to establish some form of democratically, non-secular representative form of government on an apathetic or even resistant population, then I don’t know that there is a strategy other than controlling chaos as long as it takes for such a thing to happen. This goal is a goal for which an invading army is extremely poorly suited.

19

shortly after D day, he would have likely seen the handwritting on the wall and cut a deal leaving him in control of Europe except Great Britian and satisified himself with Russia. He would have likely honored such an agreement

I have never heard this presented as even a remote possibility and do not agree with your assessment.

Japan had no interest in US territory, only in expansion through Asia which we were making and had the ability to make impossible. They would have loved a free hand there, and would have cut and honored that deal.

That is quite possible and would have left us exactly where? How long do you think they would have honored it? Do you suppose that if we let Japan have its way in China that we would be at peace? I don’t.

It is no point in arguing about what people think. If you want that ground, you can be secure since there are certainly plenty who think that way. Discussing whether something is true or not is potentially productive.

I could not disagree more. What people think is paramount. If the war is perceived as necessary and just, we are willing to sacrifice our very lives. If the war is perceived as something other than necessary and just, we have the current situation. Ultimately it will not matter to the success of the war whether it was in fact necessary and just if it is perceived not to be.

Again, you are on firm ground, since no one “knows.” No one “knew” that 2,000,000 would be killed in the aftermath of our loss in Vietnam either, but plenty of people predicted serious repercussions.

Agreed. The difference however is that in the current situation, we have at least a short course of dealing or experience that tends to argue against the type of scourge that happened post-US withdrawal from Viet Nam. For better or worse any Iraq troop withdrawals will likely be redeployed such that re-insertion could be quick in the event things go sour.

20

The middle east is a cancer we are going to have to contend with forever. It’s such a diffrent time and place that we have no way of winning or changing anything. Look at the relegion and morals. They fight dirty. They fight for god. They pull no punches and have no moral lines to fight by. We do not have the ability to be as ruthless as they are and so we will always loose and hope for a very short breaks in fighting at best.