Troop surge in Iraq

[myata]

I doubt that such a "skill set" actually exists or, in the least, is realistically possible to realize in practice.

We are talking about the idea that a society can be changed into its virtual opposite, entirely by external force,

and in very limited historic terms. That is a lunacy, utiopia, no more viable than communism.

Life (whether human, animal, etc) simply does not work that way. In a society, usually, there're several groups viying

for power - and the strongest one proves it's ability to govern by winning the competition. Even in democracies,

it's basically the same, except the nature of the competition changes. The chance that a faction with totally unproven

ablility to govern (otherwise it have shown some standing on its own), would very likely result in a failure -

ecause of its unpreparedness to govern, jealosy of stronger factions, mistakes of foreigners to which it's now associated,

and so on.

The only time when such a strategy has a chance is when a country is totally devastated by some disaster and its

internal groups are weakened to the extreme (not unlike the body's immune system need to be suppressed to let

a transplant have a chance to succeed). This is of course what has happened after WWII. In most other situations,

it's almost assured failure (Algeria, Vietnam & Cambodia, Chile - unless replacement of weak democracy with a

strong dictatorship is seen as a success, and so on). Democratic process can be helped but I doubt very much

that it can be "created".

[White Doors]

I doubt that such a "skill set" actually exists or, in the least, is realistically possible to realize in practice.

We are talking about the idea that a society can be changed into its virtual opposite, entirely by external force,

and in very limited historic terms. That is a lunacy, utiopia, no more viable than communism.

Life (whether human, animal, etc) simply does not work that way. In a society, usually, there're several groups viying

for power - and the strongest one proves it's ability to govern by winning the competition. Even in democracies,

it's basically the same, except the nature of the competition changes. The chance that a faction with totally unproven

ablility to govern (otherwise it have shown some standing on its own), would very likely result in a failure -

ecause of its unpreparedness to govern, jealosy of stronger factions, mistakes of foreigners to which it's now associated,

and so on.

The only time when such a strategy has a chance is when a country is totally devastated by some disaster and its

internal groups are weakened to the extreme (not unlike the body's immune system need to be suppressed to let

a transplant have a chance to succeed). This is of course what has happened after WWII. In most other situations,

it's almost assured failure (Algeria, Vietnam & Cambodia, Chile - unless replacement of weak democracy with a

strong dictatorship is seen as a success, and so on). Democratic process can be helped but I doubt very much

that it can be "created".

I see, so it's utterly impossible, yet possible.

thanks for your synopsis.

[White Doors]

Or sorry, were you saying it's impossible except in the places where history has shown us it was possible because it be?

either way, thanks.

[Higgly]

Or sorry, were you saying it's impossible except in the places where history has shown us it was possible because it be?

either way, thanks.

White Doors is having trouble seeing your point because he is looking for your boobies

[Higgly]

I doubt that such a "skill set" actually exists or, in the least, is realistically possible to realize in practice.

We are talking about the idea that a society can be changed into its virtual opposite, entirely by external force,

and in very limited historic terms. That is a lunacy, utiopia, no more viable than communism.

Life (whether human, animal, etc) simply does not work that way. In a society, usually, there're several groups viying

for power - and the strongest one proves it's ability to govern by winning the competition. Even in democracies,

it's basically the same, except the nature of the competition changes. The chance that a faction with totally unproven

ablility to govern (otherwise it have shown some standing on its own), would very likely result in a failure -

ecause of its unpreparedness to govern, jealosy of stronger factions, mistakes of foreigners to which it's now associated,

and so on.

The only time when such a strategy has a chance is when a country is totally devastated by some disaster and its

internal groups are weakened to the extreme (not unlike the body's immune system need to be suppressed to let

a transplant have a chance to succeed). This is of course what has happened after WWII. In most other situations,

it's almost assured failure (Algeria, Vietnam & Cambodia, Chile - unless replacement of weak democracy with a

strong dictatorship is seen as a success, and so on). Democratic process can be helped but I doubt very much

that it can be "created".

The other thing that happens is that you install a superior and very expensive military force and keep it there for two generations. The first generation will fight it. The second will be subdued, and the third will be turned around. About 35 years, which is, coincidentally, the amount if time the US military now seems to be asking for.

[myata]

Maybe and maybe not. In some places, and not so far away - Northern Ireland e.g. - even hundreds of years of government by force failed to bring a lasting resolution to the conflict. It's a very uncertain proposition at best, given the success rate of colonial governments. And the cost of three or four decade occupation would be truly astronomical - in both human and financial terms. I'm not sure the US, in their current financial condition, would even be able to carry it. And is there anybody else in sight to pick up the slack? Wouldn't it have been much more efficient, not to mention helpful for the coalitions standing in the world, to contain Saddam for as long as needed (cost of which would not come close to that of the full blown occupation) till he was either gone by a natural cause or more likely toppled in a coup?

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe and maybe not. In some places, and not so far away - Northern Ireland e.g. - even hundreds of years of government by force failed to bring a lasting resolution to the conflict. It's a very uncertain proposition at best, given the success rate of colonial governments. And the cost of three or four decade occupation would be truly astronomical - in both human and financial terms. I'm not sure the US, in their current financial condition, would even be able to carry it.

The US has had "occupation" forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea for over 50 years.

And is there anybody else in sight to pick up the slack? Wouldn't it have been much more efficient, not to mention helpful for the coalitions standing in the world, to contain Saddam for as long as needed (cost of which would not come close to that of the full blown occupation) till he was either gone by a natural cause or more likely toppled in a coup?

Sure....was Canada gonna help pay for it, fly the combat air patrols, launch cruise missile attacks, and send special forces into Iraq? Nope.

[myata]

The US has had "occupation" forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea for over 50 years.

That was then and this is now.

Sure....was Canada gonna help pay for it, fly the combat air patrols, launch cruise missile attacks, and send special forces into Iraq? Nope.

As a matter of fact, I'm with you on this one. At the time before the invasion, the coalition had every right to ask for, and expect a meaningful contribution from the rest of world. Perhaps, if they had more of such support, they'd be more willing to listen to the arguments against the war.

[bush_cheney2004]

That was then and this is now.

The forces are still there after 50 years....Germany, Japan, and Korea. Why should Iraq get "special" treatment after only 4 years?

As a matter of fact, I'm with you on this one. At the time before the invasion, the coalition had every right to ask for, and expect a meaningful contribution from the rest of world. Perhaps, if they had more of such support, they'd be more willing to listen to the arguments against the war.

PM Chretien said he would have supported the invasion with UNSC approval, although it is clear that the Canadian Forces cupbards were bare because of commitments elsewhere, so it would have been a token effort at best beyond the frigates attached to American task forces. Canada helped to enforce UN sanctions, but did not take an active role in combat air patrols for no-fly zones, Desert Fox, special forces operations inside Iraq, intel gathering, etc., .....things associated with Saddam's "containment" after Gulf War I.

[myata]

The forces are still there after 50 years....Germany, Japan, and Korea. Why should Iraq get "special" treatment after only 4 years?

Not the same forces, different coiuntries, fighting different wars. Vietnam would be more reminiscent of the situation in Iraq.

[ScottSA]

Not the same forces, different coiuntries, fighting different wars. Vietnam would be more reminiscent of the situation in Iraq.

Yeah, vietnam is exactly the same. Same jungles, same VC, same rice paddies. Same North Vietnam, same Russia, same Ho Chi Minh Trail. The only thing we're missing is a movie by Francis Ford Coppola. Oy vey.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not the same forces, different coiuntries, fighting different wars. Vietnam would be more reminiscent of the situation in Iraq.

No, there is only a superficial likeness, but even then, the Americans were in Vietnam for a very long time. The larger point was that America will occupy such countries for strategic interests many years after the "peace", whatever that means. So I would expect a persistent US military presence in Iraq for many years to come, on top of other bases in the region (Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.). Uncle Sam is staying for a while...maybe build some Wal-Marts!

[myata]

No, there is only a superficial likeness, but even then, the Americans were in Vietnam for a very long time. The larger point was that America will occupy such countries for strategic interests many years after the "peace", whatever that means. So I would expect a persistent US military presence in Iraq for many years to come, on top of other bases in the region (Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.). Uncle Sam is staying for a while...maybe build some Wal-Marts!

Unless the cost of keeping troops thousands miles away and permanently under siege combined with slow bleeding will become unbearable or impractical to bear. At this point, there's too many unknowns. I'd say, it was definitely less than a smart move to get involved with that roulette. But, arrogance and that sense of mission on this Earth does it even to smarter people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless the cost of keeping troops thousands miles away and permanently under siege combined with slow bleeding will become unbearable or impractical to bear. At this point, there's too many unknowns. I'd say, it was definitely less than a smart move to get involved with that roulette. But, arrogance and that sense of mission on this Earth does it even to smarter people.

That remains to be seen....the US can certainly afford the cost in dollars and lives if it has the political will to do so. It spent many hundreds of billions maintaining forces in about 130 nations before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not to mention a "blue water" navy. I think part of the message from Iraq is that US foreign policy is not gun shy about using ground troops to achieve objectives compared to the more poltically safe missile and aircraft campaigns of old. Iraqis or Serbs or Syrians or Libyans or Sudanese or Afghanis still died, but domestic body counts were low. Well that's changed....US Army and Marine Corp grunts now get a major piece of the action.

Former Clinton Sec'y of State Madeline Albright's question has been answered (i.e. to Colin Powell....."What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" )

[myata]

Former Clinton Sec'y of State Madeline Albright's question has been answered (i.e. to Colin Powell....."What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" )

Can't disagree that that's probably one of the more plausible real reasons for this war. Will it bring any positive results though? That's a totally different question. Not all problems (and very likely, only few) these days can be solved through purely military force.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can't disagree that that's probably one of the more plausible real reasons for this war. Will it bring any positive results though? That's a totally different question. Not all problems (and very likely, only few) these days can be solved through purely military force.

Correct...very few at all. It has been said that war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means. The paradigm shift for US intervention was certainly desired if not 100% necessary.....one can argue if Iraq was the correct venue, but it was the most likely candidate given the past 15 years of stranglehold policies and operations. It's not an idea hatched by the Bush administration...just executed.

War is an excellent change agent for the status quo....success is never guaranteed, but change is almost certain.

[ScottSA]

Sounds just like Vietnam alright. Look out, the NVA are acomin'!:

RAMADI, IRAQ – In early 2007 Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, was one of the most violent war-torn cities on Earth. By late spring it was the safest major city in Iraq outside Kurdistan.

Abu Musab Al Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq had seized control with the tacit blessing of many local civilians and leaders because they promised to fight the Americans. But Al Qaeda’s rule of Ramadi was vicious and cruel. They turned out not to be liberators at all, but the Taliban of Mesopotamia.

Al Qaeda met resistance, after a time, from the Iraqis and responded with a horrific murder and intimidation campaign against even children. The Sunni Arabs of Ramadi then rejected Al Qaeda so utterly they forged an alliance with the previously detested United States Army and Marine Corps and purged the terrorists from their lands.

Combat operations are finished in Ramadi. The American military now acts as a peacekeeping force to protect the city from those who recently lost it and wish to return.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001517.html

[jdobbin]

Sounds just like Vietnam alright. Look out, the NVA are acomin'!:

Fifty coalition troops dead in 19 days. The government is still not functioning and the prospects for fixing its problems seem to be unhinged with every incident of sectarian violence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fifty coalition troops dead in 19 days. The government is still not functioning and the prospects for fixing its problems seem to be unhinged with every incident of sectarian violence.

The same thing was said 3 years ago.....that was before elections. Are things so much rosier in A-stan?

[ScottSA]

The same thing was said 3 years ago.....that was before elections. Are things so much rosier in A-stan?

I wonder whatever happened to the "brutal civil war" that Iraq has been "spinning into" for, oh, about 5 years now?

[Bonam]

Surge seemed to be having some military success. It's just too bad that when the first positive results are finally being felt, that the US already wants to start pulling troops out right away, lowering them right back to the level that couldn't keep Iraq secure for 4+ years. Imo, if the surge is working, then troops should stay at surge levels until Iraq is mostly pacified. If they don't, then as soon as those troops leave, the gains of the surge will be undone.

[M.Dancer]

I wonder whatever happened to the "brutal civil war" that Iraq has been "spinning into" for, oh, about 5 years now?

What, don't they have newspapers or TV where you live? You think 1500 civilians killed by sectarian violence every month for the last 2 years is not brutal?

I mean, if it was happening in Brussels......

Here you go, 19 days of sectarian violence in an asymetrical civil war.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

[myata]

Surge seemed to be having some military success ...

Now this is going all the way back. And how do you know that its "having some success"?

From deeply flawed "report" that does not stand grade 5 logic? From speeches by administration that has created this war?

They can pull this off by brushing and polishing and massaging only until things turn real nasty. By that time, it'll be too late to react in any rational way. The downside of taking in unquestioning what you're fed.