Iraq, Did it have to be a miss?

Islam Watch ^ | December 18, 2006 | Mumin Salih

[Northern Alliance]

Who can forget the scenes of jubilant Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad in 2003? Who can forget the cheerful Iraqis around the falling statue of Saddam, symbolising the fall of the dictator’s regime?

Indeed, the majority of Iraqis were supportive to the efforts of liberating Iraq from the tight grip of Iraq’s worst dictator. That includes the vast majority of Kurds (about 20% of the total population) and the Shia (about 60% of the total population) as well as many sunni Arabs (about 20% of the total population). All these groups had suffered badly and sadly at the hands of Saddam’s Baath regime. They considered the war as a liberation war, rather than an occupation of Iraq. The American and British forces fought skilfully and won an easy military victory with minimal losses. Although Saddam and his Baath regime collapsed having provided minimal resistance, the jubilation soon started to fade away as the situation deteriorated rapidly. With so many killed, kidnapped and so many scandals spreading around, even the most sincere supporters of the war had to reconsider their positions and admit that Iraq is in a miss. But did it have to be?

The success or failure of America in Iraq is of significance to both America and Iraq, the final outcome from this war may have a lasting effect on America’s standing in future conflicts. I can take this even further and say that many of the principles of the western civilization may be at stake. Failure in Iraq may signify that the seeds of destruction of the western civilization may be growing faster than had been previously thought. Let us briefly review the most recent history on this.

[panthermom]

I agree with you and ZULU. You can't just go in and expect these people to welcome freedom just like that. They would have to forgo thousands of years of their culture, plus they are muslims. Sorry but islam and freedom are complete opposites. Not all cultures are equal. Maybe with time they will be able to embrace what freedom really is when they are not so isolated, but for now they don't understand it on the same level as we do.

[avacado]

"If America cannot win this war then it is hard to believe it can win any war. America’s failure in Iraq may leave a long lasting scar, but the Americans have can only blame themselves before blaming the others."

That was a good article and I have to agree with the above given the whole analysis of the author.

[Valin]

And of course Colonel Burpee actually being a Muslim wouldn't jnow anything at all about his faith.

[Sam Cree]

"Well, our goal was to install a democracy under which a open and free society could take root..."

Yes, but that only became our goal after we'd been there for a year or two. Sometimes I get the uneasy feeling that Bush has been "winging it."

[Valin]

Does he explain just how this would've changed the middle east?


I missed the part where he showed how this would've changed the arab world (the real reason we went in.). By his logic we should've just bought off Saddam and left the arab world to stew in their own juices, giveing them no hope fora better life and producing more and more people who see their only hope for change was in the jihadi.

Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead.

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
World War II (1940–1945) [Years of U.S. involvement in war[

Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846

Korean War (1950–1953)
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Nonmortal woundings 103,284

100,000s Iraqis dead
site your source please.

Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself.

Says who? The NY Times, Washington Post? jon cary?

Try reading the milbloggers to get another veiw, one by people actually in Iraq

T. F. Boggs
http://boredsoldier.blogspot.com/2006/10/all-you-ever-wanted-to-kno_116193132937069765.html
How does your experience in Iraq comport with U.S. media accounts of the situation over there? What are the gaps in information that we're not getting?

I have written about the media many times and don't have much new to say on the subject but I do not believe the MSM presents the whole picture of Iraq. If the world only sees the carnage in Iraq then the bigger picture certainly is not making it out. There are many cities here that are making great strides and their efforts often go unreported. If the media really want to get the big picture across they do not need to be afraid to report on positive stories. I understand that it can sometimes be hard for them to travel around and accurately gauge the general feel in Iraq but I believe it is their job and if they want to be taken seriously they need to make an effort.

The gaps in info can often be found in the writings of milbloggers like Bill Roggio, Michael Yon, Buck Sargent at American Citizen Soldier, and writers who travel to Iraq like Victor Davis Hanson. Those who come to Iraq in search of the truth will find it and if they don't have stings attached such as many reporters with major companies do, I think it will be easier for them to tell it like it is.


How do you gauge the attitude of the Iraqis toward Americans? Are most of them hostile and uncooperative?


I do not want to pigeonhole all Iraqis so I can only talk about the ones I have come in contact with. The majority of Iraqis I have been around have been hesitant at first in their dealings with Americans but once they come to know us they open up and are mainly friendly with us. Of course some of them will not want to deal with us and will be uncooperative as a result but I don't believe this sentiment runs throughout Iraq. The Iraqis I have been around, Iraqi army, police, and translators have all had a somewhat positive attitude about the direction their country is taking. Of course they probably had a positive attitude towards Americans prior to my meeting them hence their joining in the fight so my view is somewhat skewed.


What is the mindset of our troops in Iraq? Are they disturbed by the naysaying from some quarters about the war? How do they feel about being there and possibly returning later?

The mindset of our troops here is probably not what most Americans think it would be. Many soldiers are not politically minded and don't give much thought as to why they are here or what the consequences of their actions are. However, with that said there are still idealistic soldiers who understand the fight they are in and are doing their best to win the fight against terrorists who want to see America fail. I for one am one of those soldiers and know several others who share the same sentiment.

As far as returning later I would say most soldiers have accepted it. Whether or not they are happy about it is a different question but there still are a majority of soldiers reenlisting. There are also soldiers who continually volunteer to come back. For instance there are a couple of soldiers in my unit who will be volunteering for a third tour as soon as they can. These guys might just be war junkies but they do feel that they are doing something positive with their lives so their motivation isn't all bad.
____________________________________

It would direct you to my tagline.

[Popocatapetl]

Never underestimate the power of democracy. That it is a better way of living and doing business is obvious to even illiterate farmers, once they have seen it done. That is why tribalists and Sharia Law advocates hate it so much, is because it supplants their efforts at organization. But it is noteworthy in Iraq, that even the tribal leaders are coming around to the superiority of democracy as a system. They are wise enough to be willing to cede personal power for the benefit of their people. Believers in democracy are revolutionaries, but not obvious ones. They can and do look like everyone, and may be open and direct, or discreet about their beliefs. They may be a member of a royal family, a merchant, a worker, a bureaucrat, anyone. They overtly and subtly inject democratic ideas into what they do, and their beliefs spread like a virus. Even in China, the government is distraught because rural peasants now often say, "Let's vote on it!" And every argument against voting makes you sound like you think everyone else is stupid. So what does the introduction of democracy mean to Iraq? It means that the human drama, and sectarian strife will continue until the Iraqis find their balance point, where the Sunnis behave and the Shiites feel they have gotten their revenge. But surprisingly, they will continue to vote. And Sunnis will have power according to their numbers. Because Iraq has tried democracy, and likes it. Remember that democracy doesn't mean an end to problems, even in the most peace-loving of nations. Even in the United States. But it does spread, again, like a virus. The democratic revolution has been introduced to the Middle East. Every country in the region now has to contend with democrats, and the old paradigms of tribal authority, Sharia Law, and dictatorship running the place are numbered. The war in Iraq ended in 2003. What has existed since is a de facto occupation. But Iraq now has a democratic government that will be very hard to displace; and they now have a very large military and national police, who are getting some very good training to protect and defend their nation. Because of what we have done, Iraq will survive. Now, our task before we leave is to make sure that Iraq will thrive. And that every nation in the ME now must look over their shoulder and wonder if a democrat is behind them.

[Polybius]

The article starts slowly, but the whole thing is worth the read. Basically it proposes that we should have installed a "ruthless" strong man. I think a lot of use now feel, in hindsight, that would have been a better alternative to what has happened .........

But, if we had done that from the beginning, the U.S. would have been bitterly criticized from one end of the political spectrum to the other in both the U.S. and Iraq.

Now that the noble experiment has come up against the sad reality of the dysfunctional Iraqi common man, there is still plenty of time to set up the strongman friendly to the U.S. who will deal with the insurgent threat and the sectarian militia threats in a far less Politically Correct way.

[Polybius]

A returning civilian contractor from Iraq just informed me that only 2% of the people are problematic in Iraq. Of the 14 million, that means less than 300,000 present a problem. Unfortunately, 300,000 is a lot to kill and would make us look worse than Saddam, who killed far less than that number.

On the night of March 9, 1945, 334 B-29s left a death toll in Tokyo of 100,000 after 2 hours of firebombing.

That Tokyo Fire Raid, only one of several, is now only a footnote in history.

[Valin]

STOP IT! You're ruining a perfectly fine doom and gloom kill em all thread for everyone.

[Valin]

Now that the noble experiment has come up against the sad reality of the dysfunctional Iraqi common man

Says who? The BDM?

[melancholy]

# 3 - The way you win a war is by killing those who oppose you as quickly and ruthlessly as possible ................People who don't understand that have no busniess conducting a war and regardless of how sophisticated their weaponry [is],

I agree with you.

If you're in Iraq, do as the Iraqis do......

1- If you're not willing to untie our troops' hands you shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

2- Withdrawal = surrender and utter defeat.

From 1 & 2, you have to finish off the enemy as fast as possible, viciously. Sadr has to be killed, NOT captured.

For starters, Bomb Iran, seal the Iranian, Syrian and Saudi borders to prevent infiltration and closing the escape routes of al Sadr and his Mahdi Army.

If more troops are needed, so be it.

[Nancee]

I agree with every single word of your #31 post!!

I want the President to just do it!! N-O-W!!!

[buck61]

2% of the Iraqis??

We have the finest arsenals of any nation on this planet. we have the fastest bullets, we have the power of the bomb.

What we don't have is a command structure to use these weapons on an enemy. So what good are they doing the USA, are we proposing to frighten the enemy to death with scare tactics???

Until this nation uses its power as it did in"World War Two"
I can't see how we are going to succeed.

[Valin]

If you're not willing to untie our troops' hands you shouldn't have gone there in the first place

Exactly how have the troops hands been tied?

[Valin]

We have the finest arsenals of any nation on this planet. we have the fastest bullets, we have the power of the bomb.

What dies this have too do with fighting a counter-insurgency?

Until this nation uses its power as it did in"World War Two"

Don't think WWII, think Cold War.

[Polybius]

Now that the noble experiment has come up against the sad reality of the dysfunctional Iraqi common man

Says who? The BDM?

Says a 2006-era American electorate that has given control of Congress to the Democrats because they do not have the stomach to wage war like the 1945 generation did to establish democracy in Germany and Japan.

See Post 28. Now the American electorate is shocked, SHOCKED, over panties on heads.

Right now, the Ethiopians are taking care of business in Mogadishu for us. The same Mogadishu that the Democrats that will control Congress next month evacuated after a few U.S. casualties.

Until the majority of the American electorate gets back the stomach that it used to have in 1945, it is better to allow proxies to do the job for us rather than have the Democrats declare victory, bug out and allow Iran and al Qaeda to inherit Iraq.

[melancholy]

Exactly how have the troops hands been tied?

PC policies, the hearts & minds crap, acceding to Maliki (Sadr's proxy) "orders" by releasing a captured Mahdi army commander and taking down the US check points around Sadr City, etc.

Our troops are being murdered because they are restrained; worrying about the hearts & minds of Iraqis and the world at large.

[Valin]

What you term "Hearts & Minds crap" is a vital part of winning a guerilla war'
Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam
University of Chicago Press ^ | John A. Nagl

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600263/posts
Posted on 03/21/2006 8:40:22 AM CST by Valin


Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam John A. Nagl

Preface to the Paperback Edition Spilling Soup on Myself
_____________________________________________

For more on this must read (at least "must read" for those who take this stuff seriously)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Eating+soup+with+a+knife%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

For those who don't take it seriously I'd recommend
www.dumberthanapost.

[ZULU]

"Nothing much, just 3,000 servicemen dead. 10,000? 20,000? I don't know - how many badly wounded. 100,000s Iraqis dead."

Wars are costly in lives and money and should consequently be undertaken only if no other option remains. But if the conclusion is no other option remains, the casualties, which are inevitable, become secondary factors.

The loss of life of any one American soldier is regrettable and a tragedy. But we lost far more than 3,000 servicemen in WW2 and yet this did not deter us. The reason was the consequences of losing that war were more dire than the regrettable loss of our troops. I believe the same situation applies here. There were many reasons for attacking Saddam and taken together, justified our invasion. The loss of 3,000 servicemen over several years is regrettable especially in light of the REASON so many have died recently - trying to conduct a social experiment in a fractionated sheikdom that was doomed to failure, while IGNORING the continued menace of Iran and Syria the destruction of which should have been our next objectives.

As for the number of enemy dead, civilian and military, unfortunate, but irrelevant. Our interests and our lives must come first or we have no business operating as a nation or maintaining a military establishment.

"Loss of US prestige abroad. "

We didn't loose prestige abroad because we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. We are losing prestige abroad because we continue to fight a defensive war and allow third and fourth rate military powers like Iran and Syria to kill Americans in Iraq by proxy with total impunity.

"Loss of the House. 2008 presidential chances badly damaged."

The Congress was lost for many reasons. I believe a good part of it had to do with alienating the Republican base and independent Americans with an insane border policy and amnesty programs for illegal invaders. The mismanagement of the Iraqi war was also a factor, but I believe it was the MISMANAGEMENT of the war, rather than the war ITSELF which was the cause. If indeed the American public was unable to connect the dots as to why we were there in the first place, either the average American is infinitesimally ignorant, or the administration infinitesimally inept at communicating, or perhaps both.

"Iraq apparently still a long way from the stated goal of being a friendly power able to sustain itself. "
Iraq will never be able to sustain itself with hostile neighbors like Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia on its borders stirring the pot. But in the final analysis, the state of affairs in Iraq should only concern us from the perspective of using it as a springboard to launch destructive attacks on our other enemies to either side of it - Iran and Syria.

"Syria and Iran gained a huge amount of face and power in the Arab world by their success in fighting a proxy war in Iraq."

EXACTLY. And this is why it is essential we do NOT pull out of the Middle East militarily until we destroy the current regimes in Iran and Syria as we did the regime in Iraq. Once THAT is accomplished, we should simply pull out.

Leave them to their fates and let them stew in their primitive religion and cultural backwardness. We should only concern ourselves there militarily again if another lesson needs to be delivered.

[melancholy]

For those who don't take it seriously I'd recommend www.dumberthanapost.

So, you pound on the "hearts & minds" point but you don't acknowledge the other points in my post. On top of that, you provide what I think is a "dumb" link that translates to name-calling.

Your link is so dumb it doesn't work!

Wise up, sir. When you disagree on an answer to your question, try to be fair in totality not picking and choosing.

This is what this forum is for, FRiend!