Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well if Harry Reid has told the American people that the "war is lost," they don't seem terribly perturbed about it.

If you lose a war and yet the result of that loss means nothing to you materially and changes nothing of significance in your life, the use of the word "lost" is recognized as meaningless.

Perception is everything. That's where we are at.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 26, 2007 04:31 PM

Of course Bush said the War was won in May 2003.
What Bush lost was the Peace.

Posted by anonymous at April 26, 2007 04:58 PM

Answer? Tehran

Posted by at April 26, 2007 05:12 PM

Retreating from Somalia didn't affect us, either... until 9/11. You do remember that he said it convinced him we could be defeated, right?

Posted by Big D at April 26, 2007 05:21 PM

Of course it's lost. It has to be lost. If it isn't, Reid and his friends could be in big trouble in 2008, assuming the mainstream media could report that they're in trouble.

Watch, if a Democrat wins the White House, we will turn a corner, and suddenly things will be all right.

Posted by Bruce B. at April 26, 2007 06:10 PM

In my opinion, this is relevant to the discussion:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/the_white_lie_o.html

The whole problem with this "war" at this time, is a lack of clarity. That lack of clarity should be terrifying.

The hypothetical fear mongering embedded in the statement that we will face a "worse than 9/11" if we leave Iraq isn't a good enough reason to stay. No one has been able to connect the dots in any logical manner to show me how this happens.

The only folks who will ever defeat Al-Qaeda in any manner that matters in the long term are the Iraqis themselves. They have no reason to want Al-Qaeda any more than we do.

As to the "Tehran" wins theory, the Iranians have enough on their plate already. They may be good at stirring the pot right now, but they are hardly going to control an Arab state. In fact we will be leaving THEM the problem of stabilizing Iraq which is a fitting gift back to the nut Ahmedenijad. They have much more of an interest in a stable Iraq for the obvious reason that they are right next door.

"Win" and "Lose" are words with little real meaning in this strange and surreal setting.

AND, we can always hang out very close by should overwhelming force be needed for whatever reason.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 26, 2007 06:41 PM

What other things does Iran have on its plate, TnT? It doesn't look to me like they have anything major going on now that would distract them from a military adventure in Iraq.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 26, 2007 07:07 PM

If we pull the army out of Iraq, it may be considered to lose the war

If we leave the army in Iraq, we will lose the Army.

Churchill was man enough to evacuate at Dunkirk.

Bush would have left forces there.

Posted by at April 26, 2007 07:50 PM

If we leave the army in Iraq, we will lose the Army.

Churchill was man enough to evacuate at Dunkirk.

"Man enough"? His choice was to summon every freakin' seaworthy barge and boat to pull soldiers (sans equipment or small arms or supplies) out of the Dunkirk pocket, or have Germany take 400,000 extra prisoners.

What is "man enough" about that? For that matter, how does our position in Iraq compare with the BEF in May 1940? Whoever you are, can you compare and contrast the two?

Comments like these convince me that BDS is a particular example of a larger problem of fantastic thinking. You know, the kind of thinking about warfare that Hitler had.

Posted by MG at April 26, 2007 09:34 PM

TnT,

Win and lose do have very real meanings here. If we win, Iraq is reasonably stable. If we lose, Iraq falls to the Islamists or Syria and Iran and attacks on American interests will increase because resources being spent in Iraq can be turned to other targets. There is nothing "hypothetical" about it. Do you think terror groups have stopped probing for weaknesses or trying to aquire WMD?
Do you have any concept of the logistics involved in transorting and supplying an "overwhelming" force?
As far as Sullivan goes, we are training a new army and police force pretty much from scratch. In doing so, those agents provocateurs that would do the bidding of others have to be weeded out. This is time-consuming but vital to the mission. Iraqi units are put into the field as they become ready. One rarely hears about this.

Posted by Bill Maron at April 27, 2007 12:14 AM

Bill Maron:

Actually, I have. Logistics? A few radio messages, a few orders given and a few keys being turned.

Not much of a logistic problem at all, if you want REALLY overwhelming force.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 27, 2007 01:53 AM

"Actually, I have. Logistics? A few radio messages, a few orders given and a few keys being turned.

Not much of a logistic problem at all, if you want REALLY overwhelming force."

That's it? That's "logistics" to you?

My god.

I dunno where to start. Maybe with the simple stuff: fuel, food, clothing, staging, ammo, getting stuff in the pipeline... G4...

Posted by Norm at April 27, 2007 04:03 AM

FC,
if that's your idea of logistics I'm glad I'm too old to go back into the military. Although, I've already served under a CinC who thought that way. A CinC who thought people would reenlist while losing money every year with inflation running 12%, giving 3% raises. Expecting the job to get done, while cutting fuel allotments, cutting parts allotments, cutting new weapons programs. A CinC who should have known better, because he was ex-Navy.

Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Steve at April 27, 2007 04:34 AM

"A few keys being turned."

The man is talking about multiple buckets of instant sunshine.

Posted by Zoe Brain at April 27, 2007 06:33 AM

Fletcher is a civilian, of course he doesn't understand
logistics, of course, he would be fully qualified to serve
as a Bush DoD appointee.

I used to roll my eyes when Bush officials would tell me their
plans to Invade Iran in 2004.

None of them had ever heard of a 1000 mile supply line
through indian country.

Posted by anonymous at April 27, 2007 06:36 AM

No 1000 mile supply line needed as Fletcher's proposal is to use ICBMs. There will be no logistics to worry about if we simply incinerate many tens of millions of Persians with H-bombs.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your comment, Mr. Christian?

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 07:00 AM

Back to the big picture, The following quote strikes me as being quite accurate:

We had a war. It was relatively brief and it took place in the spring of 2003. The critical event is what happened in the three to six months after the conventional war ended. The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves with the US.
Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate.

That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. Not crazy about a secular government, certainly not wild about one aligned with Israel and just generally not ready to be America's new proxy in the region. Most importantly, those early months showed clear signs that anti-Americanism (not surprisingly) rose with the duration of the occupation.

Did we win? Depends on the objectives.

(a) Saddam never came to possess nuclear weapons. Yup we've won. Game over. Mission Accomplished.

Harry Reid wasn't talking about that war.

(b) Remove Saddam from power (regime change). Yup, we've won that one also. Game over. Mission Accomplished.

Harry Reid wasn't talking about that war.

(c) Create an Ieaqi nation-state that will proudly fly a blue/white flag, normalize relations with Israel and ally with Washington against the Iranians?

Nope. We cannot win that war and hoping to win that war is kinda like my hoping to date Victoria Secret models. Ain't going to happen.

(d) Drive al Qaeda from Iraq?

Sure "we" can win that but letting the Iraqis do it themselves would be more efficient.

First, the Iraqis speak local langauges and can better spot the bad guys. All Arabs look alike to most US infantrymen. That said, we can and should leave SOCOM in Iraq. Our special forces DO speak Arabic and wear mustaches and are very very talented.

Having US regular forces convoy around Iraq in "shoot me" or "IED me" parades is simply not helpful in terms of our final obejctive.

Second, bin Laden and AQ hates the Shia more than they hate the West. We are infidels but the Shia are apostates, Muslims who have turned away.

Long term, AQ and Iran cannot ally. Short term they can ally in Iraq against the US (recall Churchill & Stalin versus Hitler) but once we leave Iraq (except for SOCOM which stays) then the natural animosity between AQ and Iran will emerge.

Churchill and Stalin were allies until Hitler was defeated then they became enemies again.

(e) Iran

Lets go back to WW2, again. Stalin was racing FDR & Churchill for control of Germany even as we all were seemingly allies.

The Sunni will not permit Iran to dominate Iraq.

Therefore our policy should be to promote balance of power between the Shia and the Sunni and play them off against each other. But we cannot do that if we have 150,000 troops in theater trying to build a pro-Israeli pro-western secular state in Iraq.

That will cause Sunni and Shia to ally against us.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 08:25 AM

Good analysis Bill.

Except for your lack of optimism about the Victoria's Secret babes.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 27, 2007 09:10 AM

Go back to Gulf War 1 when the objective was simply kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Who howled at not finishing the job and ridding the world of Saddam? When the US suddenly 'left' the Iraqis holding the bag and Saddam went on a kill fest...who howled about leading those people to a slaughter?

Back to the present. WHY we invaded Iraq is no longer relevant...it's happened, get over it. The problem now is an Iraq in chaos. That idiot Reid declares the war is lost...again and again and again despite the obvious successes on the ground. Lots of other Democrats say there cannot be a military solution...they're probably right. However, it is inconceivable to believe there can be a political solution without a military presence. Also, when did it become US policy to negotiate with terrorists? If another attack occurs on US soil...who will Reid blame then? Bush? Does anybody seriously believe that either Reid or Pelosi and other like minded politicos will step up for that responsibility if that happened? Are they going to cater to Mr Magoo Ahm-a-madmani and his nuke dukes? Looks to me like the Dems are going to try that ol' Western mindset negotiating strategy with the Eastern minded values...and it NEVER works.

Posted by CJ at April 27, 2007 10:55 AM

Removing Saddam was a dirty messy necessary job.

Bush 43 did it in a manner that maximized the geopolitical costs paid by the United States.

Had Bush 41 gone to Baghdad and thereafter made Iraq a UN protectorate, the situation between the Shia and Sunni would be much the same however the screams of protest would not be directed at the United States.

If we had partitioned Iraq a few years back we'd be better off today.

If we had removed Saddam and told Sistani "here are the keys to Iraq" (whether he wanted them or not) and came home we'd be better off today.

Today we cannot withdraw fully HOWEVER to reduce our presence to SOCOM assets with airmobile infantry available over the horizon as needed (i.e. folks know how to fight the war we are in) we will be in a position to better our interests.

There are many overlaping wars in Iraq. Some of those we have won. Others we have lost.

We simply cannot persuade the average Iraqi to accept a blue/white flag and western secular values within the immediate future. Give it a few generations and yes maybe that is possible.

In the meantime the presence of 150,000 US troops is hurting our interests rather than helping our interests.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 11:30 AM

There are many overlapping wars in Iraq. Some of those we have won. Others we have lost.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 11:30 AM

That's right. There are MANY wars going on. It's truly F***ing surreal.

That's why I said that the terms "won" and "lost" have no clear meaning when applied to Iraq. They are only being used for cheerleading by both political factions over here; whether it is the dementor Reid or the evil Cheney.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 27, 2007 11:53 AM

And what to make of this?

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

Posted by at April 27, 2007 12:52 PM

One man's opinion. And he, not a general, though probably wants to be. Granted, warfare changes, he's right there, but to spread the whole gloom and doom, we've lost and our generals are stupid is just his opinion.

Posted by Mac at April 27, 2007 12:58 PM

Ah, fur Chrissake!

Mr. White,

Your hand-wavy and alt. history claims ignore events and history. Not taking out Saddam in 1991 gave him a dozen years to build and refine the state terror apparati that regressed Iraqi society from its relatively functional 1991 state.

Had Saddam gone in 1991, Iran would have had a dozen fewer years in which to build their networks in Iraq. And, yes, they DID build their networks -- among people who exiled themselves because of Saddam, just for starters.

"We simply cannot persuade the average Iraqi to accept a blue/white flag and western secular values within the immediate future. "

WTF? Who is proposing this with any seriousness? Do you have any quotes from, say, the past year?

"to reduce our presence to SOCOM assets with airmobile infantry available over the horizon "

WTF? So how do the SOCOM people develop reliable intelligence? Iraqis give intel when they believe they can do so without being killed. That requires the continuing, visible presence of trustworthy (i.e. US, and to a developing degree, Iraqi) security forces. "Over the horizon" just doesn't cut it.

Mr. White, we are "in it", and up to our eyeballs.

We can walk away.

If we do so, we will tell Al Qaeda that they were correct, that the US has no stomach for fighting them.

If we do so, we will tell all liberalizing people of the benighted Islamic world that we will betray them once a few TV images upset us.

If we do so, we will tell all thug regimes, now and into the future, that a few graphic images will shut us down.

If we do so, the "strong horse" of Osama Bin Laden's famous quote will no longer be perceived as the US, but as the head-slicers.

If we do so, the bloodbath in Iraq will rival the killing fields of Cambodia, or the imagery of the boat people of Vietnam.

If we do so, the stain on our national conscience will be more crippling than Vietnam was. In an internet age, we will have NO excuse for betraying our values on the most public and weighty of endeavors -- the battlefield.

Mr. White, you may get the actions you say you want. The consequences will not be what you say.

Posted by MG at April 27, 2007 01:35 PM

Yes, Bush 41 should have gone to Baghdad.

MG, after reading your post I am inclined to suggest that instead of "staying the course" maybe we need to send 250,000 more soldiers and win this thing once and for all.

Of course, the GOP strategy seems not to be about winning but to prevent obvious defeat until January 2009 and then blame the Democrats.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 02:56 PM

"Of course, the GOP strategy seems not to be about winning but to prevent obvious defeat until January 2009 and then blame the Democrats."

How is that going to help President Thompson?

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 27, 2007 04:43 PM

Fred Thompson?

Mike, whatever you've been drinking, I want some.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 09:35 PM

Mr. White,

I am delighted to see that my post has brought you to a more realistic opinion.

I agree with your suggestion of 250,000 more soldiers. Fortunately, we have them. They are indigenous forces. Their numbers and capability grow daily. The best part is that they are permanently assigned to Iraq -- no rotation to CONUS.

Posted by MG at April 27, 2007 11:52 PM

Mr. White:

Yup. Precisely that.

What I described is going to happen anyway, when (not if, when) extremists get hold of Pakistan's stockpile and proceed to use it.

The difference between doing it now and doing it after that event is that a few million westerners, probably Americans, won't have to die first.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 28, 2007 04:11 AM

There are no real winners in modern warfare, only survivors. Two world wars, and three decades of fighting between the US and Soviet union in proxy wars should be proof enough of this.

Still, if nukes are about to be thrown around I'd rather that we were the survivors than them. For any definition of them.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 10:13 AM

Another point here; France has nuclear weapons, too; in fact they have a small-scale, by American standards, but complete nuclear triad.

What is America going to do, if it doesn't stop the spread of radical Islam once and for all, when the Moslems in France out-breed ethnic French and democratically (one time only, of course) turn France into a Moslem theocracy?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 29, 2007 04:46 PM

Post a comment