Why Would Any Historically Informed Person Believe the War in Iraq Can

[Spamma]

The more and more I study the current war in Iraq, and the wars within this war, the more it seems apparent to me why the American public seems so ready to call it quits, pack up, and leave it all behind. I mean, why not? We did it in Vietnam, we did it in Somalia, and so far as most appear to believe the consequences due to those withdrawals were negligible and not worth discussing or hearing. The U.S government left behind South Vietnam and 1.1 million anti-Communist ARVN soldiers in 1973 and it doomed a small, poverty stricken nation on the Horn of Africa to over a decade of anarchy and civil war. But few seem to care honestly as those are all distant memories or some lonely sliver of text in a history textbook. One would think by the effusive dribble our new Congressmen and women blurt out on almost a daily basis that such betrayals and vile acts of cowardice would be desirable. I've heard things like how we must take our involvement in Iraq 'in a new direction', how this war is 'unwinnable', how it's simply the 'Sunni vs. the Shia and the Shia vs. the Sunni' and how we as a nation should have no part in resolving what we created. But what really astounds me are the large quantities of gullible voters willing to believe wild anti-war rhetoric enough to vote for some of the people they did. Voting for a balance of power is just in the sense that one party will not have total control, but voting based solely on what one has heard on our news outlets here on the War in Iraq (numerous polls were showing as the top issue of the 2006 Congressional elections), which undoubtedly is eight out of ten times negative news, is ridiculously blind. If one is willing to call what is happening in Iraq a civil war, as I have since August of last year, then take a look at how these problems have been solved in similar situations, and here's a hint, none were pretty solutions and none involved leaving a massive security vacuum like our newly elected politicians plan to do.

Past and Current Civil Wars Similar to the One in Iraq

Current Iraq Civil War (August 2005-????)

(www.icasualties.org)

Death Count: 50,000-150,000 (updated)

Average Dead per Day: About 45

Average Dead per Year: About 16,499

Probable Cause(s): Lack of security following 2003 invasion, al-Qaeda in Iraq's civilian killing strategies, militias dividing Baghdad along sectarian lines, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Samarra mosque bombing).

Combatants: al-Qaeda in Iraq, Shi'a militias (Mahdi Army), Sunni insurgents, Iraqi Police Death Squads.

Algerian Civil War (1992-2002)

(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0593A19899.htm)

Death Count: 150,000+

Average Dead per Day: 41+

Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 33+

Average Dead per Year: 15,000+

Average Dead per Year (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 12,195

Probable Cause(s): Cancellation of elections by Algerian government due to FIS support, Islamic fundamentalists arrested by the thousands and revolt.

Combatants: Algerian government forces, GIA (Armed Islamic Group), FIS.

Results: National reconciliation process coupled with crushing military blows to the GIA grind the civil war to a near halt.

Now doesn't that sound similar to President Nouri al-Maliki's reconciliation process? Certainly this war is different, but the tactics to bring down these insurgencies worked over time. Let’s look at another recent civil war.

Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990)

Death Count: 100,000+

Average Dead per Day: 11

Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 76

Average Dead per Year: 4,000

Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 27,652

Probable Cause: Rival Christian and Islamic militias, outside interference in Lebanese politics.

Combatants: Lebanese government forces, Israeli Defense Force, Syrian Government Forces, Hezbollah, Phalange, Fatah, and other militias.

Results: Israel driven out of central Lebanon, Taif Agreement orders expulsion of Syrian forces from Lebanon, violence stalls.

Had a war of this intensity erupted in Iraq like it did in Lebanon, the situation would be much more hopeless than it is now. Algeria is the closest comparison, as it represented what will have to happen. An Arab government defeating powerful militias and insurgencies on its own, Israel wasn’t able to stop the violence. Syria was able to, when they continued the occupation. How Iraq goes by these standards is up in the air. Let’s take a look at two more recent civil wars to draw comparisons with.

El Salvador Civil War (1980-1992)

Death Count: 75,000+ (8,000 “missing”)+

Average Dead per Day: 17

Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): about 67

Average Dead per Year: 6,250

Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 24,563

Probable Cause: U.S propping up right-wing military dictatorship which violently suppressed dissent, assassination of Archbishop Oscar Ramero.

Combatants: El Salvador government forces, FMLN guerilla forces.

Results: New constitution and ceasefire in effect since 1992, FMLN allowed to join political process, civilian police force created.

This war was spawned out of government repression, the U.S backed government of El Salvador holding enough power to keep the FMLN from taking control of the country, but the means they went about doing it were gruesome. The Algerian government fought the GIA for ten years, the Syrians fought the Christian militias and the Israelis for nearly fifteen years, and the government of El Salvador fought the FMLN for twelve years, what do these wars have in common? They take a lot of time, but they can be won. One more civil war comparison to make this more accurate.

Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970)

Death Count: 3,000,000+

Average Dead per Day: 2,740

Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 557

Average Dead per Year: 1,000,000

Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 203,252

Probable Cause: Biafra province seceding, Nigerian government invasion, guerilla forces and militias breaking out into all out war.

Combatants: Nigerian government forces, Odumegwu Ojukwu lead Biafran rebels and hired mercenaries.

Results: Nigerian government forces slowly crush Biafran resistance, Biafra reinstated as part of Nigeria.

Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005)

Death Count: 1,900,000+

Average Dead per Day: 237

Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 173

Average Dead per Year: 86,364

Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 63,039

Probable Cause: Southern Sudan secession war.

Combatants: Sudanese government forces, Sudan People's Liberation Army.

Results: SPLA still holds Southern Sudan and has been granted unofficial autonomy, recent outbreaks of violence still occur as Sudanese troops still occupy parts of South Sudan.

Here is an example of a state within a state solution, something that we may have to settle for in Iraq if it is carved up into various states.

I would normally like to give people the benefit of the doubt on their credibility in what they are talking about, but facts like these are not made known to the general public because they have little to do with our nation. Obscure statistics in relatively unreported and unremembered civil wars are seldom reported or remembered here in the Western world. People today believe that they should be able to somehow have their cake, eat it too, and then get more to do the same, in a sense, have instant gratification met for all their unrealistic wishes and erroneous predictions.

Most thought this operation in Iraq would be a conventional war to topple a tyrant and a quick mopping up operation afterwards, a step beyond the First Gulf War but nothing on a scale significant enough to produce a violent and tenacious insurgency with its sights set on the Iraqi Government, Coalition troops, and their own fellow countrymen. We as a nation expected the Iraqis to greet our troops as liberators, and for a short time they did, as the famous images of the toppling statues had shown, but as reality sank in slowly more and more, we knew that we were getting into something we as a nation could not possibly have predicted.

Today we fight not only Sunni Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ex-Ba'athist insurgents but now we must deal with outlaw Shi'a militias, who’s sole purpose appears now to kill Sunnis. Because of these unlikely circumstances, we have been forced to protect Sunnis that previously rejected the Coalition and even fought against them. Now al-Sadr, al-Sistani, and Hakim run the show on the Shi'a side with the Iraqi government either sitting on the fence or covertly aiding their blood stained endeavors. In al-Anbar, the fight has been re-awakened for Ramadi and al-Qeada slowly finds itself on the defensive with 25 of the 31 Sunni tribes there now vowing to kill any insurgent opposing the government or trying to impose its own brand of law on the people of al-Anbar. Our public's response is to blame everything on Bush, Rumsfeld, and a Republican Congress and push for a troop withdrawal that would undoubtedly complicate this whole mess even further.

If certain people on the anti-war side wish to use the loss of human life at the hands of these bloodthirsty terrorists as a justification for American withdrawal, then consider the fact that some have downplayed the barbarity and ruthlessness of the "freedom fighters" or outright have supported their actions before this mess came to be as it is now. Now that Shi'a death squads, Sunni insurgents, and militiamen from both sides are slaughtering each other and innocent people en masse what do you have to say for yourselves honestly? Over 3,000 people died due to these thugs last month, and I know that most people are never willing to say that the blood of the innocents constitutes freedom and progress at all.

The notion that our military is not capable to smash an insurgency is misleading...more so than just about any other arguments anti-war protestors have made. Western nations historically have been atrocious at combating significant insurrection movements in colonial territories and in foreign military conflicts, why? Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?! How do you think the British crushed three separate insurrection movements in Burma? How do you think the South African government under P.W Botha obliterated the anti-apartheid SWAPO insurgency in occupied Namibia in the 1980's? How do you think the Algerian government crushed a civil war and an insurgency in ten years? Well, I'll tell you now it wasn't by considering the negligible controversies in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, trusting an immensely corrupt indigenous police force to do our job, and handing out candy to kids. It was done by force, brutal decisive force, a force we would be called "Fascists" for using and the insurgents "freedom fighters".

The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? Because the South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, and he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you. What Coalition forces are allowed to do in Iraq today is ridiculous compared to the reality of war, armchair policy makers and idealists who have never seen combat wish to re-write the reality of war. That's why we will lose if our strategy does not change quickly. Either introduce elite counter-insurgency unit such as what the Koevet did in Nambia for a "less brutal" mission, do what the Algerians did for a slow and exhausting victory, or do what the British and South Koreans did and establish fear of your armies throughout the nation you occupy. The one answer that never works in combating insurgencies and terrorism in modern warfare is a premature withdrawal. The decision is up to our policymakers, and far be it for me to say they will do the right thing but I can only pray they will.

-Written by Xing/FinishingTouch

Well, can anyone disprove this?

Edited July 22, 2007 by Spamma

[ScottSA]

It's not really something to prove or disprove. You're right...during colonial times counter-insurgency was much more effective than it is today, and you're probably right about the tactics needed to crush the resistance in Iraq. The trouble is that it won't happen yet. The west hasn't been hurt enough. Reality only begins to intrude after there is a bloody nose and a pool of blood on the ground. It took years and millions of deaths before the west was able to bring itself to commit Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, events that would have been unthinkable in 1939 or 1940.

Here's another good take on the situation:

Greetings Readers, Friends, and Other Visitors:

It’s May as I write this and the subject of Iraq is much in the air. Of course, the subject of Iraq has been much in the air for years now, but it seems to be coming close to reaching some critical mass or tipping point. And everyone in political life or among the Trinities (NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc.) agree that September is the swivel point . . . that something will have to happen by September: U.S. withdrawal beginning, the Iraqis pulling up their socks at long last and meeting some legislative and security benchmarks, some political reconciliation in Iraq or dramatic signs of military progress . . . . something. September, we are told by anyone with access to a microphone, will be the turning point toward . . . something else.

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm

[Peter F]

...blublublah...

The notion that our military is not capable to smash an insurgency is misleading...more so than just about any other arguments anti-war protestors have made. Western nations historically have been atrocious at combating significant insurrection movements in colonial territories and in foreign military conflicts, why? Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?! How do you think the British crushed three separate insurrection movements in Burma? How do you think the South African government under P.W Botha obliterated the anti-apartheid SWAPO insurgency in occupied Namibia in the 1980's? How do you think the Algerian government crushed a civil war and an insurgency in ten years? Well, I'll tell you now it wasn't by considering the negligible controversies in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, trusting an immensely corrupt indigenous police force to do our job, and handing out candy to kids. It was done by force, brutal decisive force, a force we would be called "Fascists" for using and the insurgents "freedom fighters".

The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? Because the South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, and he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you. What Coalition forces are allowed to do in Iraq today is ridiculous compared to the reality of war, armchair policy makers and idealists who have never seen combat wish to re-write the reality of war. That's why we will lose if our strategy does not change quickly. Either introduce elite counter-insurgency unit such as what the Koevet did in Nambia for a "less brutal" mission, do what the Algerians did for a slow and exhausting victory, or do what the British and South Koreans did and establish fear of your armies throughout the nation you occupy. The one answer that never works in combating insurgencies and terrorism in modern warfare is a premature withdrawal. The decision is up to our policymakers, and far be it for me to say they will do the right thing but I can only pray they will.

-Written by Xing/FinishingTouch

Well, can anyone disprove this?

Yeah. South Korea withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Despite puilling out the stops they still lost.

South Africa withdrew from Namibia

Britain withdrew from Indonesia

the Algerians are still fighting.

Brutality doe's not guaranee Victory. Civilized behaviour does not guarantee defeat. This article is a gross oversimplification of a very complex problem. The author believes that the USA should actually intensify the killing and maiming. This would result (according to the author) in the insurgents giving up and turning thier arms into ploughshares....sorta like the Palestinians did...no wait, they havn't yet. Bad example. No, the IDF sitll functions with a modicum of civilized behaviour.

Russians! Yes, Russians marched into chechnya twice - the second time they made sure they did it right - turned it into a free fire zone and flattened the place with artillery/tank fire. Seems to have worked to.

or the Allies bombing Germany and Japan flat without regard to loss of life amongst the targeted.

So lets look at the Iraq problem and apply some western know-how. The USA should declare Baghdad a warzone - Bomard the place three ways from Sunday then have the grount troopsstart at one end and move slowly through shooting anything that moves.

When they are done they should then remove all the heads that can be found and boil the skin off them, then make big piles of bleached skulls beside the roads that enter the city.

The insurgency would collapse.

And every Iraqi would love america again.

Unfortunatly, and my thanks to God above for it, politically no-one can advocate for this either openly or behind the scenes.

I love democracy - especially when it works.

[Spamma]

...blublublah...

The notion that our military is not capable to smash an insurgency is misleading...more so than just about any other arguments anti-war protestors have made. Western nations historically have been atrocious at combating significant insurrection movements in colonial territories and in foreign military conflicts, why? Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?! How do you think the British crushed three separate insurrection movements in Burma? How do you think the South African government under P.W Botha obliterated the anti-apartheid SWAPO insurgency in occupied Namibia in the 1980's? How do you think the Algerian government crushed a civil war and an insurgency in ten years? Well, I'll tell you now it wasn't by considering the negligible controversies in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, trusting an immensely corrupt indigenous police force to do our job, and handing out candy to kids. It was done by force, brutal decisive force, a force we would be called "Fascists" for using and the insurgents "freedom fighters".

The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? Because the South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, and he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you. What Coalition forces are allowed to do in Iraq today is ridiculous compared to the reality of war, armchair policy makers and idealists who have never seen combat wish to re-write the reality of war. That's why we will lose if our strategy does not change quickly. Either introduce elite counter-insurgency unit such as what the Koevet did in Nambia for a "less brutal" mission, do what the Algerians did for a slow and exhausting victory, or do what the British and South Koreans did and establish fear of your armies throughout the nation you occupy. The one answer that never works in combating insurgencies and terrorism in modern warfare is a premature withdrawal. The decision is up to our policymakers, and far be it for me to say they will do the right thing but I can only pray they will.

-Written by Xing/FinishingTouch

Well, can anyone disprove this?

Yeah. South Korea withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Despite puilling out the stops they still lost.

South Africa withdrew from Namibia

Britain withdrew from Indonesia

the Algerians are still fighting.

Brutality doe's not guaranee Victory. Civilized behaviour does not guarantee defeat. This article is a gross oversimplification of a very complex problem. The author believes that the USA should actually intensify the killing and maiming. This would result (according to the author) in the insurgents giving up and turning thier arms into ploughshares....sorta like the Palestinians did...no wait, they havn't yet. Bad example. No, the IDF sitll functions with a modicum of civilized behaviour.

Russians! Yes, Russians marched into chechnya twice - the second time they made sure they did it right - turned it into a free fire zone and flattened the place with artillery/tank fire. Seems to have worked to.

or the Allies bombing Germany and Japan flat without regard to loss of life amongst the targeted.

So lets look at the Iraq problem and apply some western know-how. The USA should declare Baghdad a warzone - Bomard the place three ways from Sunday then have the grount troopsstart at one end and move slowly through shooting anything that moves.

When they are done they should then remove all the heads that can be found and boil the skin off them, then make big piles of bleached skulls beside the roads that enter the city.

The insurgency would collapse.

And every Iraqi would love america again.

Unfortunatly, and my thanks to God above for it, politically no-one can advocate for this either openly or behind the scenes.

I love democracy - especially when it works.

Withdrawal does not always mean peace.

[Peter F]

Withdrawal does not always mean peace.

Niether does invasion and occupation. Since the USofA is a domocracy the authors recommendation of

going postal in Iraq isn't gong to happen. The Americans always intended to withdraw anyways, their planned withdrawl is only being delayed.

Withdrawl doesn't always mean peace and it certainly won't mean peace for the Iraqi's until thier civil war is fought to a conclusion (and the winning team will be a brutal bunch of muthers), but the USofA will have peace if they withdraw. Just like after Vietnam when the South Koreans withdrew or when the British withdrew from Indonesia. Peace reigned when the troops were brought home.

[Topaz]

As far as I'M concerned Bush never had a good reason of going into Iraq and I think most of the world would agree to that. I was listening to a call-in radio show last night and a US soldier who was sent home because of being shot in both legs and is now out of the military said when asked, the US shouldn't be there, the people want Hussein back because they want the US and other countries to leave. Their lives have become hell under this US invasion. He also said the US soldiers don't want to be there, but have to follow orders. I think alot of the fighting force is mentally exhausted and is holding it together only from the medication they are given to deal with life in this hell of Bush's war.

[jazzer]

Withdrawal does not always mean peace.

It will never be any worse in Iraq with withdrawal.

[bush_cheney2004]

It will never be any worse in Iraq with withdrawal.

That's what they said about Vietnam and Cambodia too.

[jazzer]

It will never be any worse in Iraq with withdrawal.

That's what they said about Vietnam and Cambodia too.

Really? I didn't know the viet cong strapped on bombs to blow themselves and anyone near by to bits. Pray tell, how much worse can you get than that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? I didn't know the viet cong strapped on bombs to blow themselves and anyone near by to bits. Pray tell, how much worse can you get than that?

You're right...you don't know. The Vietcong favored suicide grenade attacks. Iraq has nothing on Cambodia for "how much worse"....see "Killing Fields".

[jazzer]

Really? I didn't know the viet cong strapped on bombs to blow themselves and anyone near by to bits. Pray tell, how much worse can you get than that?

You're right...you don't know. The Vietcong favored suicide grenade attacks. Iraq has nothing on Cambodia for "how much worse"....see "Killing Fields".

I would really like to see a link regarding viet cong and suicide bombs that compare to Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would really like to see a link regarding viet cong and suicide bombs that compare to Iraq.

Why....is there a suicide bomb scoreboard? Lebanon had one suicide bombing in 1983 that killed 241 Americans and 58 French.

[jazzer]

My point is Iraq and Vietnam/Cambodia are two different conflicts. For the Iraqis how much worse can it get than what has been going on in the last 4 years. Many believe that the violence will indeed decrease once America gets the hell out. And yes, some even say life was better under Saddam.

[bush_cheney2004]

My point is Iraq and Vietnam/Cambodia are two different conflicts. For the Iraqis how much worse can it get than what has been going on in the last 4 years. Many believe that the violence will indeed decrease once America gets the hell out. And yes, some even say life was better under Saddam.

It can get a lot worse....see Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, and UN sanctions. Saddam is dead...he ain't coming back to give Iraq that "better life".

[jazzer]

My point is Iraq and Vietnam/Cambodia are two different conflicts. For the Iraqis how much worse can it get than what has been going on in the last 4 years. Many believe that the violence will indeed decrease once America gets the hell out. And yes, some even say life was better under Saddam.

It can get a lot worse....see Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, and UN sanctions. Saddam is dead...he ain't coming back to give Iraq that "better life".

Sheer speculation, and your position seems a good one since Bush is not likely to pull out. More lives to be lost for absolutely nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sheer speculation, and your position seems a good one since Bush is not likely to pull out. More lives to be lost for absolutely nothing.

As opposed to "more lives" lost for absolutely something? Now what would that be...world peace?

[jazzer]

The only way the U.S. is going to stop terrorism is to stop supporting it. No world peace without it.

[bush_cheney2004]

The only way the U.S. is going to stop terrorism is to stop supporting it. No world peace without it.

Nope, even if the US stopped supporting terrorism, there would still be Canada! How's that Air India investigation going....LOL!

[Spamma]

Oh, yeah guys, sorry about the title, it was too long...

The title's supposed to say: Why Would Any Historically Informed Person Believe the War in Iraq Can't Be Won?

Just to clear things up...

[FascistLibertarian]

The US cant sustain theses troop levels.

They need something like 30,000-50,000 gound troops left behind with air support.

They should never have pulled 100% out of vietnam.

Going in was a mistake, pulling out now would be an even worse one.

[M.Dancer]

Really? I didn't know the viet cong strapped on bombs to blow themselves and anyone near by to bits. Pray tell, how much worse can you get than that?

You're right...you don't know. The Vietcong favored suicide grenade attacks. Iraq has nothing on Cambodia for "how much worse"....see "Killing Fields".

I would really like to see a link regarding viet cong and suicide bombs that compare to Iraq.

Common knowledge.......

Later, suicide bombings took place in the Vietnam War. The Viet Cong utilized sappers (demolition commandos) who would carry or wear satchel charges. These individuals would purposefully blow themselves up to destroy U.S. and Republic of Vietnam equipment and fortifications.

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/vo...005/4_05_3.html

[M.Dancer]

The US cant sustain theses troop levels.

They need something like 30,000-50,000 gound troops left behind with air support.

They should never have pulled 100% out of vietnam.

Going in was a mistake, pulling out now would be an even worse one.

If they can sustain 100,000 to 150,000 with massive air support, what can't they maintain 30 to 50k?

Why do you think that 50% of what is there now is what they need.

[FascistLibertarian]

look at what sustaining these levels is doing to the army.

And its not brininging victory.

The US needs lower levels. If they had 30,000-50,000 people they could sustain this for as long as needed.

[Spamma]

We already have that many, thank you.

[Higgly]

Oh, yeah guys, sorry about the title, it was too long...

The title's supposed to say: Why Would Any Historically Informed Person Believe the War in Iraq Can't Be Won?

Just to clear things up...

Because Iraq is an artificial country created 100 years ago to suit the needs of Great Britain and now maintained to suit the needs of the US and Israel. If the people who live in Iraq had been left to their own devices, the outcome would have been very different. Right now what the US is trying to do is maintain an artificial country defined by the British. This is why it took a brutal strongman (Saddam) to hold it together - just like Tito in Yugoslavia. History is biting George Bush in his fat white arse and he hasn't got the brains to understand it. We have the world's most powerful army being directed by a man whose only experience outside of the US prior to his election being a visit to Israel during which he was managed by a bunch of Likud handlers.

You wanted an opinion from any historically informed person. There it is.