The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
The failed 'turning points' of the Iraq war
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 27th, 2005 7:51 PM Author: mustard foreskin Here is a list of events in Iraq that were seen as 'turning points' against enemy forces in the war, with a brief summary of why they worked:
-The fall of the Saddam statue (April 9, 2003)
Iraqis finally have control of their own destiny.
-The end of major combat operations (May 2, 2003)
'Mission Accomplished' - surprisingly enough, Bush was right. The Iraq insurgency ended right there and then.
-Operation Peninsula Strike (June 9-12, 2003)
The first big postwar raid netted 400 arrests. Fox News breathlessly reported on this 'crushing blow' to the insurgents. And they were right to do it - it killed the insurgency.
-Operation Desert Scorpion (June 15-29)
If Peninsula Strike didn't get them all, surely operations Sidewinder, Scorpion Sting, and Spartan Scorpion would, right? Operation Rifles Scorpion pacified Fallujah.
-The death of Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 22, 2003)
The insurgency died along with these two evil dudes, who organized the whole insurgency.
-The end of the 'long, hot summer' (September 2003)
People were only insurging because they were hot and bored. Combined with Operation Tiger Clean Sweep, the insurgency was brought to a decisive end.
-The capture of Saddam (December 15, 2003)
This will end the insurgency for damn sure.
-The 'containment' of al-Sadr's propaganda machine (March 28, 2004)
al-Sadr's inciteful newspaper al-Hawaz was shut down, thus ending the insurgency.
-The second pacification of Fallujah (April 2004)
With peace secured in Fallujah, the insurgency withered up and died.
-Pacification of the Sadr militia (April 2004)
Now Sadr has been pacified for sure. So has the insurgency.
-The transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government (June 28, 2004)
People were only insurging because the government wasn't Iraqi.
-The second pacification of the Sadr militia (August 2004)
The first time was just a trial run. Now America got serious, and the insurgency ended.
-The end of the second long, hot summer (September 2004)
If at first you don't succeed...
-The pacification of Samarra (October 1-3, 2004)
Operation Baton Rouge scared the insurgents straight once and for all.
-The third pacification of Fallujah (November 2004)
Every insurgent in Iraq died in this battle.
-The Iraqi election (January 30, 2005)
Once Iraq got control of its government, the insurgents basically just disbanded.
-The formation of the newly-elected Iraqi government (April 3-7, 2005)
Now that all the government posts are filled, there is no reason to insurge.
-Operation Matador (May 7-15, 2005)
Turns out the real problem was the Syrian border. Glad we got that straightened out.
-Operation Lightning (May 23-29, 2005)
Along with Operation Squeeze Play, the new Iraqi Army uprooted all the insurgents from Baghdad - random acts of kindness replaced mortars and carbombs.
-Operation Restoring Rights (August 26-October 29, 2005)
Once we gave the people of Tal Afar their rights back, what need was there for an insurgency?
-The end of the third long, hot summer (September 2005)
Global warming made this one pretty bad. But then all the insurgents melted along with the winter rains.
-Operation Iron Fist (October 1-6, 2005)
Holy shit! With a name like Iron Fist, how can you NOT crush the insurgency? We did, and the earth laughs in flowers.
-Iraqi Constitutional referendum (October 15, 2005)
The problem was that Iraqis didn't have their own constitution. Without one of those, of COURSE you'll have insurgency. But not anymore - the referendum passed; the insurgents passed away.
-The trial of Saddam (October 19, 2005)
The insurgency happened because Saddam needs a trial. Once the proceedings began, people relaxed. What insurgency?
-Operation Steel Curtain (November 10-?, 2005)
The insurgents actually came from several little river towns near Syria. Their destruction gave America a startling Thanksgiving present - the end of combat operations in Iraq.
-Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (November 20, 2005)
The insurgency was like a Jenga tower - yank out the right plank, and the whole thing topples. Zarqawi was the plank. Visit Baghdad.
In conclusion: We win! |
 |
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:26 PM Author: electric copper locale This is outstanding. 178. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872834) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:28 PM Author: bipolar fanboi Subject: ditto. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872855) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 4:18 AM Author: ruby aromatic karate I'm going to have this post tatooed on my face. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876452) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2005 11:24 PM Author: provocative maize school A classic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4483369) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: Costumed tanning salon Update please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#6428128) |
Date: May 27th, 2005 7:53 PM Author: transparent hell skinny woman We're making real progress. And don't you forget it! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872659) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 7:54 PM Author: mustard foreskin Bombings are signs of a 2-year-long desperate last gasp. Can you imagine gasping that long? They must be really weak by now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872663) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 7:56 PM Author: transparent hell skinny woman Indeed. Every increase in violence is a sign of their growing desperation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872667) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 7:57 PM Author: mustard foreskin I'm not worried. They're just a collection of dead-enders and Fedayeen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872674) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:15 PM Author: Honey-headed Aggressive Indian Lodge Police Squad I think it's a few years too soon to determine whether all this blood shed and a trillion dollars was a good idea.
But the public grows increasingly skeptical, and, right or wrong policy-wise, that's going to exert increasing pressure on law makers to get us the fuck out of Iraq.
To those who suggest that comparisons to Vietnam are phony and intellectually dishonest, I disagree. In fact, Iraq is far more consequential than Vietnam, since our invasion announces an aggressive new doctrine rather than exists as a small piece of an otherwise prudent doctrine (containment of communism).
Whatever the ultimate consequences of our (it turns out, ill-founded) attack, you'd have to be an idiot to think this administration has carried out occupation with sufficient effectiveness and moral authority to serve as the foundation to realizing neo-con fantasies about reforming the Middle East. Rumsfeld and intelligence chiefs should have long since been fired. Yet the bumbling administration leaders aim their guns at Newsweek. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:21 PM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone Are you and your kind enjoying your decline into political irrelevance? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872798) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:24 PM Author: spectacular cocky party of the first part you know that the more dominant you guys are now, the more dominant we will be when things go completely to shit. in fact, ole Harrison and I will be reviled as out of touch conservatives in the coming order. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872817) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:27 PM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone Good luck with your wait. Its gonna be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872839) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:29 PM Author: spectacular cocky party of the first part enjoy seeing the senate pass stem cell research over bush's veto, fag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2872860) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:11 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone I will actually. But thanks. Do you think that it is the Dems by themselves that are responsible for that? Get your head out of your ass and stop believing that ALL republicans hold the same views as its extremists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876713) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:38 PM Author: mustard foreskin There is one thing that would speed it the hell up:
draft. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:11 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone What level of troops are currently needed in Iraq? Where are they needed and what will they do? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876715) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 4:58 PM Author: mustard foreskin Because of plunging recruitment and the exhaustion of many Guard and Reserve units, if we have to keep 140,000 people in Iraq by the fall of 2006, we will be in some amount of trouble. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878068) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:04 PM Author: Beady-eyed library petro, what are some good blogs on the war? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878099) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:17 PM Author: mustard foreskin I'd look at the following places:
-For pro-war military analysis-
The Belmont Club:
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
-For more critical analysis-
Phil Carter's Intel Dump:
http://philcarter.blogspot.com/
For everything else:
Click through the sidelinks. Kurdo's World and Star from Mosul especially. |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:52 PM Author: electric copper locale Please. It's coming much sooner than you think. Hopefully the right continues with its smug assertions of complete dominance until the midterm elections. All of this overreaching can only help the left.
It's also notable that the above poster said nothing to rebut Petro's OP. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:20 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone That sounds exactly like the crap coming out of the mouths of democrats up and until about 9pm est. on November 2, 2004. Everything is going wrong (according to democrats, at least) and yet they still get their asses kicked at the polls.
There is no point in rebutting anything in petro's OP. Most of it is correct. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:15 PM Author: insecure mauve parlour The last election just proved that scaring people into thinking the left wants to nice little Republican boys and girls into homosexuals and tarring your opponents as traitors still has a lot of oomph. That, and the fact that far too many people are still unclear about the fact that they are voting for theocrats. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878141) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2005 8:36 PM Author: Honey-headed Aggressive Indian Lodge Police Squad What is the point of this post?
I don't mind being in the minority right now, for various reasons.
This past week hardly suggests irrelevance, however. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:23 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone Just to piss off a few liberals, nothing more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876745) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 2:39 AM Author: hairraiser disgusting shrine It's not funny to make fun of our boys in uniform. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876119) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:54 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman But it is funny to make fun of the old men in suits ordering those boys into battle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876581) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:21 AM Author: Know-it-all field famous landscape painting Get a life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876588) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 9:09 AM Author: Frum peach forum the US military isn't there to end the insurgency. everyone knows the given reasons for invasion were false - we're there as part of a strategic opening gambit to secure the dwindling oil reserves. our georgetown cadet tuba leiter can tell you that.
nobody who knows anything - i.e. not fox news, ny times, other propaganda - thinks that pacifying iraq is our primary objective.
so your argument is strong, petro, and your argument is good - but it's an argument against the ignorant. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 9:22 AM Author: charcoal irate plaza this is true (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876614) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:12 PM Author: Frum peach forum valen, what do you foresee happening? do you think the US and russia will go to blows? what do you think about all the US bases in the caspian republics? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878129) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 9:34 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman Those are not two separate issues. The insurgents keep f'ing with the oil infrastructure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876629) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 9:58 AM Author: Frum peach forum good point, i forgot about that. i don't think there's anything we can do, though - pipelines are extremely hard to defend.
we're really fucked, though, if there's a revolution in saudi arabia. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:02 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman Yes. We want to spark democratic revolutions in the Middle East, but not all revolutions would be in our favor. Those darn unintended consequences of war ... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876689) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:08 AM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch "if there's a revolution in saudi arabia."
that's unlikely in the foreseeable future. AQ hates the royal family. Many people are not happy with the royal family. The royal family even has its own army and police that are separate from the national police and army. so, why doesn't AQ attack the royal family? The answer is simple: AQ won't do it because an attack on the royal family would still be hugely unpopular. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:12 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman Things can happen in the Middle East without AQ doing them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876716) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:18 AM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch Obviously. The point is that the royal family, though not well-loved, is still popular enough that an attack on it would be condemned by the population. I don't see any kind of successful or popular revolution in saudi arabia occuring unless the US or another foreign power were to withdraw aid for SA and support the opposition. If the US did that, though, there would be utter chaos as a result - and I mean from all the other Arab and Muslim nations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876733) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:20 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman An external attack on the Royal Family might be condemned, but an internal revolution? That is a different story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876737) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:22 AM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch Internal, you mean a power play from within the house of Saud? I doubt that the leader would dissolve relations with the US, which really helps prop up the house with all kinds of support. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876742) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:27 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman I meant a home-grown Islamic revolution ala Iran. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876752) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:32 AM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch Iran went from a secular regime to an Islamic revolution. SA is already decidedly Islamic. It would only be a matter of groups like AQ that would want a further Islamic revolution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876766) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:56 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman Sure, groups LIKE AQ. But those could be homegrown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876825) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:34 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone Wouldnt you be thrilled if that happened? Maybe we could get Carter to run again... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876771) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:13 AM Author: charcoal irate plaza AQ doesnt have an army or the ability to do anything truly serious. A bunch of allah lovers who cant shoot for shit are not going to defeat the Saudi security forces. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876717) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:16 AM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch Neither would a bunch of civilians who would be even worse with weapons, if we assume that they could even get their hands on weapons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876731) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:28 AM Author: Maniacal Outnumbered Ceo Telephone Right. Trading with Saddam and buying his oil without removing him from power wouldnt have been a more secure and profitable option. Going to war was clearly the best way to get large amounts of cheap oil. The cost in lives and $ is more than offset by the cheap oil we are now receiving from iraq.
I wonder why we didnt just invade SA. They have far more oil than does Iraq. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:31 AM Author: transparent hell skinny woman I'm sure Saudi Arabia is already free and democratic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876764) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 10:38 AM Author: spectacular cocky party of the first part because the saudis are our friends, jim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2876778) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:03 PM Author: mustard foreskin "Going to war was clearly the best way to get large amounts of cheap oil. "
It's not like Saddam was holding out on us.
And now that WE manage the oil, we have to deal with this shit:
http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm
Furthermore, we are LOSING the war against IEDs:
http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:04 PM Author: Frum peach forum the point was to set up a police station because we can't trust the israelis to do it all on their own. we're there not just for iraqi oil but for the whole region. we're gearing up for a big fight coming - who knows how it will play out, but certainly europe, israel, russia, china, the arabs, and probably india will be involved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878101) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:09 PM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch As soon as Israel is involved, you gotta get Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the other OPEC nations involved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878121) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:26 PM Author: Frum peach forum well maybe not venezuela, but yeah, that's what i meant by 'the arabs'. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878193) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:28 PM Author: Stirring Yapping Halford Brunch Those other nations, especially the Muslim nations, are not all Arabic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878200) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:36 PM Author: Frum peach forum close enough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878251) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:21 PM Author: mustard foreskin 'the US military isn't there to end the insurgency.'
However, before we can 'leave with honor,' we ARE going to have to bring the insurgency down to a much lower level, one which the new Iraqi security forces can manage. Otherwise, we will be repeating Israel's experience in its 2000 Lebanon withdrawl - which is to say, handing the insurgents a decisive victory.
Our goal was to conquer Iraq in a couple months and then have a large strategic footprint from which to pressure Iran, Syria, etc.
Instead, that has been turned on its head. Those nations are no longer afriad of US ground intervention as long as US forces are mired in Iraq. They have successfully shown their own populations that the price of democracy may be unbearable.
That's too bad, since Afghanistan is doing a lot better.
Any victory in Iraq now will be seen as one snatched from the jaws of defeat. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:26 PM Author: Frum peach forum we're not going to 'leave with honor'. we're going to stay as long as feasible in order to protect our very consumptive way of life.
when this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/) happens, all hell is going to break loose. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:28 PM Author: mustard foreskin We are not going to keep 138,000 troops in Iraq. Most of them will have to 'leave with honor,' leaving behind a small footprint of firebases.
The main problem is that Iraq isn't even a very important war. It's just a distraction in a sandbox, when the real action will take place in PACOM's domain.
That being said, if there actually is a severe oil crisis, I will do my part by molotoving as many SUVs as I can find. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:31 PM Author: Frum peach forum PACOM?
yes, there actually is going to be a severe oil crisis, probably within a year. look into it.
lifeaftertheoilcrash.net |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:32 PM Author: mustard foreskin Pacific Command.
Once China begins deploying thier deisel subs, we will have a lot more on our hands in that theater. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:36 PM Author: Frum peach forum over what, taiwan?
i don't think we're going to go to war over the south china sea, and japan can take care of itself. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:38 PM Author: mustard foreskin Over the fact that they can shadow our forces around. You should read Kagan's article in the Atlantic this month. He goes into some detail about all of this. The threat isn't war, it's the slow displacement of American influence from that theater. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878254) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 5:51 PM Author: Frum peach forum in a couple years i don't think that that's going to be a huge priority for us any more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878326) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 6:40 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state A. what oil revenues are we collecting out of Iraq? What shows that this money is coming to us?
B. if we open up more oil wells and we don't get the profits from it, this brings down the cost of oil. It would hurt our companies.
C. if this isn't a move by Bush and Cheney for their own personal gain, but just a war to improve the US position vis a vis oil - the entire GDP of Iraq, much less the benefits the country gets (and we would snatch) from drilling for oil, is a fraction of the cost of going to war.
D. I still haven't received my share of the loot yet. Who the f's welching on me? |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 6:10 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state Attacks by terrorists demonstrate a failure in Iraq to the same extent the Baader Meinhof Gang and werewolves demonstrated failures in West Germany.
if you want to argue that, I'll buy the argument against Iraq. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:16 PM Author: mustard foreskin What the fuck? How many US troops did those groups kill?
Go get yourself a Baghdad apartment, drive around, and live there like a normal person.
If it's as stable as West Germany was, this won't be a problem. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:22 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state Petro, unless you didn't notice the terrorists are focusing on killing other Iraqis.
That's why I find the idea of this as an insurgency against US troops hard to back up. If every soldier leaves tomorrow, that won't make them happy. If every soldier stayed, but the Baathists were put back in power, attacks would plummet. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:23 PM Author: mustard foreskin They focused enough so far to kill 72 troops this month alone.
That means we can't reduce troop levels anytime soon.
That is not good news no matter how you look at it. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:29 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state >They focused enough so far to kill 72 troops this month alone.<
Which does nothing to change what I wrote - other Iraqis are getting attacked in far greater numbers than US soldiers are.
The Baathists don't like getting kicked out of power and losing the perks they got from it.
They don't like US soldiers there only to the extent that we keep them from intimidating everybody and coming back into power. The same was true for the werewolves.
If you want to call one a failure, you better prepared to say the same thing of another (at least until we stopped those terrorist attacks). |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:32 PM Author: mustard foreskin 'other Iraqis are getting attacked in far greater numbers than US soldiers are.'
Actually, though more Iraqis in total get killed, remember that there are only 138,000 US troops in Iraq.
If insurgents killed ordinary Iraqis at the same rate they killed US troops, they'd be killing 15,000 Iraqis per month instead of 800. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:40 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state Make it the rate of policemen, army recruits, politicians getting killed. You only need to intimidate anybody thinking of collaborating. If you're going to get killed no matter what you do, it loses its effect. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878958) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 7:42 PM Author: mustard foreskin Right. That doesn't change the fact that our military posture is fucked unless we can draw down forces by the end of 2006 without having that look like a defeat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2878972) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:00 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state Because of that, if you consider a victory as only happening if there are no more terrorist attacks there's no way we would ever win.
Everybody on this board would consider Iraq a success if we made it as stable as W Germany in the 60s. Toss in a group that decides they can't get what they want without violence, though, and you have Baader Meinhof terrorizing everbody for a decade. Even with US troops stationed there.
If we're waiting just for the other side to give up and get demoralized/if we say that the only way they can lose is if they decide not to attack us - then we're using the same strategy we used in Vietnam and we'll get the same result.
Our goal isn't just to stop terrorist attacks, it's to keep the terrorists from getting what they want. The terrorists want the new government out of power. They want the Baathists back in control. If we stop that from happening, if free elections keep taking place, and it at least is stable enough that life in general around the country improves, then we win. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:04 PM Author: mustard foreskin ' Baader Meinhof terrorizing everbody for a decade.'
No they didn't. How many people did they kill in their entire run? Probably fewer than die on a good day in Iraq. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:08 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state "How many people did they kill in their entire run?"
no clue
either way, I said terrorizing not killing 'em all. I'll stick with it.
I would match up werewolf numbers with Iraq, but the history of that has become so politicized in the past couple years I'm sure someone could find a site to argue whatever I include. The total was less, but it was a lot. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:11 PM Author: mustard foreskin A lot?
We're talking about 800-1200 PER MONTH in Iraq. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:15 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state gee no kidding (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879145) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:12 PM Author: electric copper locale "The terrorists want the new government out of power. They want the Baathists back in control. If we stop that from happening, if free elections keep taking place, and it at least is stable enough that life in general around the country improves, then we win."
I think this doesn't fully encompass their objectives. There are those who would like to reestablish Sunni dominance, but probably more whose primary motivation is Iraqi nationalism/hatred of America and the west. I don't see much that would quell this motivation for insurgency, short of leaving. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:15 PM Author: mustard foreskin 'They want the Baathists back in control.'
That's probably not true of all insurgents, either.
A lot of them just want to show that, even without a proper army, you can defeat America if you are persistent and trust in Allah. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:16 PM Author: electric copper locale That's exactly what I was saying. Which for me, is the most telling analogue between Iraq and Vietnam: it's tough to fight an opponent of nationalist motivations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879150) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:17 PM Author: mustard foreskin ' I don't see much that would quell this motivation for insurgency, short of leaving.'
That might empower rather than quell them. |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:27 PM Author: electric copper locale Very true, like Afghanistan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879198) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:26 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state >I think this doesn't fully encompass their objectives. There are those who would like to reestablish Sunni dominance, but probably more whose primary motivation is Iraqi nationalism/hatred of America and the west. I don't see much that would quell this motivation for insurgency, short of leaving.<
>That's probably not true of all insurgents, either. A lot of them just want to show that, even without a proper army, you can defeat America if you are persistent and trust in Allah.<
That’s the thing I mentioned-if it’s just hatred of the West, they ought to be doing this differently. People are obviously carrying out attacks for more than one reason, though.
It's a hunch of mine I'll never see a policy expert argue, but when you get away from the people who are ordering attacks and coordinating it and just focus on a lower class Iraqi who places a bomb somewhere - I'd be willing to bet the biggest motivating factor is money. They can receive a bounty which is a hell of lot of money considering the average Iraqi's income. The people carrying out these attacks can be completely indifferent to the goals. If you tossed all the political factors aside, but a few people who don't like the new government were still paying that bounty, you'll still get attacks.
|
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:29 PM Author: mustard foreskin Of course. But Bush and his administration knew all of this would happen going in. So presumably they had a plan ready to deal with it. Now they need to deploy that plan, because we need to draw down troop levels soon. No more joking around like they have been since May 2003. That was fun, but let's be serious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879203) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:31 PM Author: electric copper locale That's a hell of a presumption! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879218) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:36 PM Author: Ruddy rebellious state damn I wish - I think Iraq's winnable, I think it's better off, I don't think Bush launched this whole war to benefit Halliburton - my objections may be different than your objections, but my confidence in 'em leaves something to be desired (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#2879236) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:42 PM Author: mustard foreskin I don't think Halliburton had much to do with anything.
I think this was meant to be Afghanistan Part Deux. The plan was for the US military to come in from the south, through the port of Umm Qasr up into Basra toward Baghdad, then from the north from Turkey through Dohuk and Mosul down the now-notorious Tikrit Highway. With the help of the Kurds and anti-Saddam Shia, the plan was to quickly crumble the government then use Chalabi and other figures to help set up a new one that would become a stable democracy.
I think think the plan was shamefully naive.
|
|
Date: May 28th, 2005 8:30 PM Author: electric copper locale "It's a hunch of mine I'll never see a policy expert argue, but when you get away from the people who ordering attacks and coordinating it and just focus on a lower class Iraqi who places a bomb somewhere - I'd be willing to bet the biggest motivating factor is money. They can receive a bounty which is a hell of lot of money considering the average Iraqi's income. If you tossed all the political factors aside, but a few people who don't like the new government were still paying that bounty, you'll still get attacks. "
Very true. For example, when people were turning in their countrymen to the US military during the Afghanistan invasion, they weren't doing it out of some love for the US. It was for the cash rewards being offered for capture of Taliban members. This had its own effect of imprisoning many innocent goatherders in the shadowy constellation of prisons the CIA maintains worldwide. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2005 11:30 PM Author: spectacular cocky party of the first part see bombing of the police station today. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4483434) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 3:25 PM Author: mustard foreskin Zarqawibump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4339902) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 3:27 PM Author: carnelian vengeful stag film pistol did you type out that original post or find it at some blog? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4339924) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: mustard foreskin It is my original work. I should probably update it to include all the other operations out near Syria that have happened since May. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4339937) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: Sepia big liquid oxygen nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4339934) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 3:26 PM Author: cordovan angry university gaping Please make this into a T-shirt (like one of those Band tour t-shirts) on http://www.cafepress.com/ and I will buy it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4339919) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 4:09 PM Author: mustard foreskin Would it fit? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4340237) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2005 4:10 PM Author: Jet effete fortuitous meteor You're doin' a heckuva job, Petrie. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4340241) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2005 11:27 PM Author: concupiscible cuck Beautiful (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#4483387) |
|
Date: July 27th, 2006 12:24 AM Author: Spruce meetinghouse immigrant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#6310516) |
|
Date: December 28th, 2006 8:38 PM Author: laughsome toilet seat Saddam's upcoming execution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#7308737) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2007 12:19 PM Author: Citrine death wish This deserves an update. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=188886&forum_id=2#8666724) |