And with our having over 800 military bases around the world, and with our military being larger than the next TWELVE military powers combined, how is it we are unable to do better in the Iraqi theatre?

No bashing here... I'm genuinely puzzled. The Tragedy of 911 was done at an estimated cost to Al Quaida of less than half a million dollars, and a cost of 3 thousand human lives and hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars to the US and international economies.

With all our vaunted might, and the vast sums of money spent annually on the military, why are we floundering?

Don't give me Rumsfeld, don't give me Clinton, don't give me oil corruption. I mean MILITARILY! We should be able to just whip total butt with scalpal-like precision with the technology we have, and the training that can be provided.  

So why didn't we?

A serious explanation devoid of partisan rancor and rhetoric would be most welcome. Thank you.

when you consider how fast we moved through Afghanistan and the actual "Iraq War", the only limiting factor to our progress was the top speed of our tanks.

I'm kinda stating the obvious now, but what we are dealing with now is not a war, but an occupation with active terrorist cells. Our intelligence in the Middle East is weak because of many of the moves made during the Carter administration (not getting political here, suffice it to say no POTUS since then has done enough to rectify this problem). We will adapt to this new type of warfare and improve our intelligence sources as we have always done in the past.

The over-simplified answer is that we are fighting a terrorist enemy who uses unrestricted warfare, while we restrict the operations of our combat forces.

The terrorist and Baathist fighters rarely engage US forces in direct combat. They lose every time they do. They instead focus on soft targets such as murdering Iraqi civilians, car bombing police stations and hit-and-run mortar attacks against US bases.

Take some time to visit and read the below listed links to learn about the reality of what's going on.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/076blgjq.asp
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/12/good-news-from-iraq-part-17.html
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqelectionwire.blogspot.com/

RLTW

... Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (income transfer programs) are larger.

That aside, you ask a reasonable question.   I think the reason is that we are geared to fighting wars with nations and we are involved in asymmetric warfare.  

There are people better versed in military history than I am on the board.  Other countries have had success in this area.  I hope some of them will help with a disscussion of how they were successful.

Google "asymmetric warfare" -- there are lots of discussions on the net.

Harry

-- Modified on 1/5/2005 6:42:03 AM

As a moral people, we do everything in our power to not kill or injure innocent people!

Everyone of the terrorist/baathists strongholds could easily been destroyed by non-nuclear missile attacks, leveling everything and killing everyone in a few short hours.

The restraint our government and military are unknown to the terrorists/baathists, using your example, 9/11!   Radical Islam's targets are mainly the innocents.

Also, IMHO, Bush went a little pussy because of the election and the results of our war dead on the outcome..  Since the election, we have been allot more proactive and I think it will continue.

However, winning this quickly will be very difficult with our reluctance for civilian casualties.  What will help is the Iraqi people outing the terrorists, and that is starting to happen, slowly, but it is happening.  A few strategic missiles aimed at al-Jazeera would be a help in my humble opinion.

PS:  Half our annual budget?  Where did that tidbit of brilliance come from, the same newsource as your "floundering" comment?

dude- you are smoking my stash!

THIS is the Iraq War!  The race to Bagdad was just the preamble.  THIS is how I would be fighting if I were Saddam(he was not smart enough-but most real soldiers forsaw this)- and our stupid lack of force encourages it!

And can you please stop referring to the opposition as Terrorists- that is a POLITICAL designation.  They are insurgents or resistors- only getting into the Terr class when they target innocent civilians.  ALL collaborators(who work with us) are FAIR GAME in a war of resistance, be they govt workers or actual soldiery and be they carrying a gun on a mission or sitting on the can.  Those are the rules we set out in WWII, and they remain that to this day.

I hope this war ends, and I hope we win it politically/militarily - but there is not doubt that we are playing the role the Germans did in Europe and Russia, even though we are not Fascists (well not ALL of us)!  We ARE an OCCUPYING power, WITHOUT a POLITICAL MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE!

In this case, I happen to think we are the good side, but I recognize Iraqis right to disagree and think we are the aggressors!  To do toehrwise is to live the Pollyanna Admin line that got us into this stupid situation.

If you don't recognise that the toll in this war has probably far surpassed the damage Saddam might have done to American with his wildest dreams of attacks- you are still livin' the dream!

We are still in the Op Torch phase of this war to parralel with WWII- where the US ARMY was downright shitty-  poorly fought and execrebly led!  I also hope we figure it out- but right now the lack of allies is crippling.  

Every casualty we suffer- we deserve.  Someday, I hope to see GW imprisoned for this.  As if the decay to Texas infrastructer were not grounds enough for his immediate execution!

Sounds like the US revolution.  You fight a war with the army you have.  And the way you can win.

We'd be fighting a war that way too if a much stronger conventional force was occupying us.  Wait until the Chinese get here.  But they will probably not make the same stupid mistakes we have- and will send over several Million soldiers-perhaps tens of millions- to make sure they have force protection capability.

BTW- the ambush is a classic form of direct combat and they do those and sometimes win- although we usually get the better of it there too.

First, like RLTW says, it's not a conventional "war" - and the enemy is not stupid.  

I make the assumption that the military wasn't caught totally by surprise - they would have considered the way a terrorist force would behave, as the way this is happening is an utterly rational response from the insurgents' point of view.

The thing about terror is that a) it's cheap, b) it need not kill everyone, just unsettle everyone, and c) a commited few can do a lot.  It doesn't take much to disrupt an election. But Powell warned about this.  

I think they underestimated the resolve and the breadth of opposition - they said, and I assume they believed that we would be greated as liberators.  And let's assume we are seen this way by the majority, but not all, of the Iraqis. However, I wonder how able these people are to assert themselves after decades of brutality.  If they really had the desire and the confidence to oppose the insurgency and create an environment of unwelcome to them, things would change.  I assume they are either scared or ambivalent, or a little of both.

The fact that we're essentially isolated rather than a part of a global coalition makes it easier to focus regional anger - although I think a global coaltion would face some of the same circustance.

Maybe the bottom line is, we can't kill them fast enough to keep the regional reinforcements from continuing the effort.  Meanwhile, the meter is running.  

And one more thing.  To win in some environments means acting more atrociously than the enemy.  War is won when the will to wage it is sapped.  We may be in a circumstance where truly uncivil behavior is needed, but we can't behave that way for a million good reasons.  Catch-22.  

So, the logic my mind takes me back to the arguments of the election, and I continue to believe it was poor judgement to take this action, although I agree with its objectives.



-- Modified on 1/5/2005 4:24:20 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head.  

Interestingly, I've always thought this schizophrenia is what has screwed up Israel's position.  On one hand, they will never win a war with their neighbors without resorting to the unconventional rules.  But, their funding - namely 1st world countries and the jewish 1st world diaspora, would never approve.  So they live life in between which isn't all that effective or fun.  And I can't say if I had to choose one path vs. the other that I can say with confidence which one I'd prefer.

Man, if I'm smoking something, than you must have needle tracks all up and down your arms after the rant I just read...

"we are playing the role the Germans did in Europe"...Sully

Very nice, you just compared our forces to Nazi Germany. So tell me, where did we set up our concentration camps? You make these types of statements and still can't figure out how Bush could win a second term. That's just amazing.

"WITHOUT a POLITICAL MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE"...Sully
Well, based on this we never should have gone into Germany but instead have stopped at the border, becuase we sure didn't have a political mandate there either. So I guess what you are saying is that if we do not have a mandate we should take no action against a country. Please feel free to pass that sentiment along to all of the survivors from the concentration camps. Thinking like yours would have left them in there, but at least we wouldn't be acting against the political will of the German people.

...  I can't think of something we could do that would make us more effective as a combat force in Iraq.  Please enlighten us on your tactical ideas.  What are you going to do?  Bomb the terrorist headquarters (wherever the fuck that is)?  Use better interrogation techniques to get intellegence quicker?   Drop the big one?

Wars are always fought under restrictions.  All of these ideas have been tried in other venues and don't ever seem to be a magic bullet.  

We're stuck.  The mission isn't accomplished.  Our aspirations rest on the courage and good sense of the Iraqi people.    Lets hope they come through for us.





 



-- Modified on 1/6/2005 6:44:20 AM

The whole point of the Iraq War, from the beginning, has been to remove Saddam and the Baathists from power and help the Iraqi people establish a representative government. The incredible amount of restraint that has been used by Coalition Forces is truly amazing when you sit back and think about it. It's necessary in order to achieve the goal.

As far as what levels of restraint are to be used, I'll leave that up to smart people like General John Abazaid and others who are actually involved in the process.

RLTW

Right now we ARE a occupying power without a political mandate.  Can't escape that FACT.  THAT was the role I was referring to- with almost 80% of MY FAMILY lost in the Death Camps- I DO understand the ways we are NOT like the Boche!

Germans at the end of WWII had realized that a LOSING WAR  that OBLITERATED thier country was not what they wanted.  They KNEW they had started it- and our soldiers (with their materialshlacht(sp?) were WELCOME- unlike the russians with their rape and destruction.

It occurs to me that a good couple of days wrapped up in a couple of real history books(no Ambrose shite-fun to read -largely trollop) would do you a world of goods.

Otherwise- touchy touchy- perhaps the move to the long pants was premature?

-- Modified on 1/6/2005 5:54:38 PM

Hmmm.  I THOUGHT it was to remove a clear and present danger... oh, right- THERE WAS NONE!  I fell for that one, but a relativley smart guy like you falling for the present line of TOTAL BS sold by the admin is pretty sad.

I guess we are on schedule to attack Russia to remove Putin and restore Democracy to them?  The Congo?  Sudan?  N. Korea? France?

You ARE right about having to show the difference between us and the  Insurgents though.  War is only politics taken to extremes- I assume we ALL have read Clausewitz?  And Sun Tzu?

"However, winning this quickly will be very difficult with our reluctance for civilian casualties"


100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed and there is a reluctance for civilian casualties?

"The whole point of the Iraq War, from the beginning, has been to remove Saddam and the Baathists from power and help the Iraqi people establish a representative government."


Nope, that wasn't the point of the war from the beginning.  That was the rationalization Bush came up with after they failed to find the WMDs that posed an imminent threat to the national security of America.

the phrase "we are fighting a terrorist enemy who uses unrestricted warfare, while we restrict the operations of our combat forces".



-- Modified on 1/6/2005 12:43:09 PM

Removal of Saddam = removal of WMD threat.

And the goals were indeed laid out. It's easily Googled. The problem is the Bush Administration didn't get the message across very well.

RLTW

how the hell do you think we were supposed to get a political mandate? That would have been like asking Hitler if it was ok for us to cross his borders and take over his country. Your argument here makes no sense.

BTW, if you lost 80% of your family in the death camps, I am suprised you would menialize this evil by using this for other comparisons.

BTW, I just finished "The Fall of Berlin" by Anthony Read and David Fisher. You are mistaken about the German population, they didn't "welcome us", they just wanted the war over and not to fall under the Russians. If you are going to statr throwing history around, you better do some more reading first...

Anybody who believes that we spend 50% of the annual federal budget on the military has his head so far up his ass as to be too ill-informed to be allowed to vote.

I presume that you have support for the 100,000+ number killed by Coalition forces in Iraq?

I think you may be confused with the known dead at the hands of Saddam and his two sons during 2002 and 2003!

I usally keep a line between Germany and Nazis.  A lot of Germans were not total Nazis- just a little drunk with the idea of being top nation- sort of like we are now.  OF COURSE real Nazism was an abomination- but I do tar the whole people with that brush.

And I have read a lot of books where the Germans DID welcome any end to the war, as long as it did not bring more evil as it did on the Russky side.  We are not able to see what true war exhaustion is like, now, here-- but then for many germans it was pretty complete.  Whole units of previously strong German soldiers were melting away, and civilians were actually beginning to blow off Nazi directives.  Of course in the Berlin Pocket the central control was strongest- it was the centre!  But on the fringes the system was breaking down.  You had a lot of die hards, but a lot of antis too.

The only evil worse than the Nazis were the Soviets, so Germans were cohesive against them, but in the west, the situation was pretty fluid.  And this is from book AND personal memories, as  am old enough to have spoken to a lot of vets in my family and parents' circles.

In WWII we had a political mandate from all the countries under the heel who clearly wanted the Germans out and those on the borders of the German empire who clearly felt threatened. Note that we did not enter the war until AFTER Germany turned on their best ally (pity for them they did not realise it) Russia.  Here we HAVE NO SUCH MANDATE.  Even the Saudis thought we were/are stupid (think about that- when world opinion thinks your country is dumber than an Arab monarchy-does it even register with you?)!

One last point.  We threaten other countries ALL THE TIME.  And we are saying we will attack and destroy any country that threatens back?  Eventually you are gonna see how bad this is and what a betrayal of our true nature as a democracy this is.  I used to wish there was a stronger country to keep us in line- and then I realised that there is.  China Waits.

BTW-  have you ever heard of Tom Lehrer?  Listen to his song "Send the Marines!" if you want it spelled out in a simpler format you can digest.  Even the Brits at the height of their Empire were more intelligently led and more subtle in their actions.

I think we actually agree that most of the German population wanted an end to the war, and no, I do not lump all Germans in with the Nazis. I DO BELIEVE, however, that a country's citizenry is liable for the actions of that government if that government is duly elected (which Adolf Hitler was). This is why I will tend to lump the German population, not intending to claim them as as evel, but responsible.

The Soviet vs. German on the evil scale is pretty close to call. Stalin definately killed more than his fair share, but Hitler did as well, so I will not argue that either way.

My point on the mandate was not freeing the occupied contries, but entering Germany itself, so your analogy here is wrong.

Bottom line, if you are seeking approval from the Saudis or any other nation before taking action that the POTUS (not you) feels is in the best interest and security of our nation, then you are basically saying the same thing Kerry did. "We need to pass an international litmus test". Well, the majority of Americans heard that as well and that is why Kerry will remain in the Senate. The people have spoken

The last point is why we are deservedly in the wrong on this issue and earning our casualties.  The American people- a well known group of spoiled brats and baby hueys- have spoken and made another bad choice- like when thery rejected the league of nations and voted in prohibition, voted to rejects asian immigration, and took so long to give women the vote.  

When we abdicate world leadership- it often blows up in our faces.  Note the rush to help in Iraq after we returned Bush to office.

Try to remember that the Germans voted Hitler in.  The People CAN make mistakes.

Stalin Vs. Hitler.  Stalin the worst- hands down.  Killed way more people, lasted way longer, ruled much larger area with less acumen.

There are part of German society that thrived under hitler and innovated progressively.  Hate to say it but true.  All of Soviet and "Warsaw Pact" society was rotten- with the possible exception of scientific education (and even that was spotty).

Hitler may have wiped out my family- but Stalin hurt more poeple for a longer time and kept a whole huge section of the globe's living standard down- the effects lasting to this day.  While the immediate effects of Hitler have been cleared from Western Europe with astonishing speed.  And of course I recognise the Marshal plan's part in the "Miracle".

You point out bad decisions by the American people, but you can find bad choices in ANY countries history. You make us sound so self-centered, and yet it was the United States that defeated Japan and the Germans in the West. It is the United States that is the #1 donor to the UN. It is the United States that sends more aid to more nations than any other contry. The united states has liberated more people in its short 230 years (not including Iraq since the board is still fighting this one) than any other nation. I think you referring to the US as self-centered is really short sited. Yes we like our big cars and our big TVs, and yes we have been hyprcritical on some issues, but your characterization of the American people I believe is way off base.

I believe that is more the classic struggle of the haves and have nots. If it were not the US, but another nation that was the richest in the world and had the strongest military, it would be the target of the world's animosity.

I'll have to concur with your Stalin argument, he was more cunning and that made him more dangersous. Hitler ws evil, but also stupid.

England fought WWII altruistically knowing it was already bankrupted by WWI!  Did not have to. Could have been left alone by Hitler.  Theirs was the sacrifice.  We gained supremacy with it.

And percapita we are LESS giving than the Western Euros- look it up in the Economist.  We also have the most to gain by the stability the UN brings (weak- but it does), so SHOULD pay for it.

We are also the only people rules by our people all throughout our history, so our mistakes are more glaring ones of democracy.  most other countries had strong men govts until WWII.

I love this country-  just saying when our shit stinks- it stinks just as badly as others- sometimes more so!

that we too were still in the great depression. It's not like we were flush with cash and everything was great. The New Deal had done some things, but were still far from out of the woods.

How do you figure WE have the most to gain by the UN stability. Our own economic strength and military strength are what keeps us teh safeest and GOD HELP US if we have to rely on the UN for our security. BTW, if you haven't noticed, the UN is one of the biggest anti-american organizations out there. My vote is to get the hell out. I do not see why we should support any organization so anti-american.

"Most of governments had strong men governments until WWII"..SULLY

WHAT?? What year did the French revoultion take place? Last I checked it was not in the nineteen hundreds. When did Englands parlaiment actually assume governing power? When did the Germans start having elections? You need to crack the history books...

When out shit stinks, yes it does, but this is not the case here...

-- Modified on 1/12/2005 7:03:20 AM