Posted on 03/19/2006 8:18:36 AM PST by SmithL
When the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq three years ago, the Bush administration was brimming with confidence that this would be a war only in the sense that a lot of bombs would be dropped and the military would seize, temporarily, a foreign capital. It was going to be swift, high-tech, clean.
Six weeks later, President Bush spoke in the past tense about Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanking the Iraqis who welcomed the U.S. troops and promising that democratic change would sweep the region.
Now, with sectarian violence roaring and casualties rising, the White House increasingly is talking, in the present tense, about a long war, meaning the old-fashioned kind -- "the crucible with the blood and the dust and the gore," as Gen. Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last fall.
Three years on, experts from the left and the right say, the costly Iraq war has barely begun, and if there are to be broad benefits, as the president still promises, they could be years away.
William Odom, a retired lieutenant general who ran Army intelligence and later the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, has called the Iraqi adventure "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."
"What we've learned is that you cannot impose a Pax Americana solution," said Conrad Crane, a Middle East expert at the Army War College who is leading a crash rewriting of the military's counterinsurgency manual in response to the unanticipated tenacity of the resistance. "You are not going to have a Western-style democracy, and you're not going to have a market economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Do you consider the enemy blowing up women and children in the market as "winning"? Do you see evidence that 25 million Iraqis agree with this kind of "winning"? Are they siding up with this kind of "winning"?
More lies from the failed media. NO ONE, out side of bunch of ex Clinton talking heads in the Junk Media, promised anyone this would be either quick or easy.
And that's wonderful. I'm so happy for you both.
Please tell him I think he and the others are doing a fantastic job and to please ignore the media and their loyal, sheeplike followers.
The days of two opposing armies clashing in the field are virtually over.
The Muslims learned their lesson about clashing with Western armies in the field in Khartoum, 1898.
"....oh. We didn't call them that." He laughed heartily.
Iraqis have great senses of humor.
Maybe you could offer, the "First American War," and the "Last American War."
Typical Treason Media bullshiite. Deaths in this action have averaged two per day for US forces. In three years we have not lost as many men as were killed in a DAY in some Civil War battles. Loses of the degree we have had hardly qualify even as a war.
Thank you for posting!
Aw, they're our friends now. I don't tease them about how we kicked their butts twice.
Well, I don't tease them too much about it anyway. ;-)
Stop sounding like a Liberal Chicken Little. "It's Vietnam! It's Vietnam!" So far with less losses in 3 years then what we lost in 2 hours of 9/11, this war will go down as one of the greatest successes in comparison with the other wars we have had ground troups fighting in the same amount of time!
Iraq has basically degraded into the religious/ethnic conflict that a lot of us predicted it would become. Calling the U.S. involvement in what is basically a civil war a "global crusade against terrorism" is a misleading characterization of what is going on over there.
We have done this successfully before. We did it in El Salvador. I suggest the Armchair Generals shut up on a topic they CLEARLY know nothing about. HERE is what we are doing in Iraq.
For the Neo-isolationists, HERE is what we are up to in Iraq.
Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943
Here in a nutshell, is the MILTIARY reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.
He is going to expand his blog, and try to use it as a sounding board in his own way. Hope you get a chance to read his earlier stuff....leave a comment if you do.....
Read post 71. Amazing how arrogantly ignorant the Whine All the Time Choir is. You have been told why your opinions on Iraq are nonsense multiple times. When dozens of people tell you you are being foolish, it would be wise for you to listen rather then cling to your emotion based opinions about Iraq.
Technically he was probably correct about that, since he didn't say exactly how many people in Iraq would actually look upon the U.S. as "liberators."
Who cares what you think?
Had to do it...the devil made me do that...that comment was begging for that...
You have copied and pasted this on a number of different threads, and I have challenged you repeatedly to provide a single source (pre-2003, that is) that supports your contention that the "strategy" you've presented here was ever part of the U.S. plan in Iraq.
A majority of them do.
You really need to turn off that TV for a while. It can warp your brain, you know.
I disagree. He/she/it stated ...
Good American men are dying in the 1000's because we are afraid of killing civilians and worried what the world thinks of us.
There have been 1822 hostile casualties in Iraq to date. While each life is precious and is mourned, that is not 1000's.
Also, we are not at war with a hostile country, but a group of hostile individuals that do not represent a country, but an ideology.
It fits him perfectly, doesn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.