9 years and 4500 Dead Americans

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Personally, I just can't get tired of obliterating tyrannies, and can't understand or appreciate those who do.

I've seen what less-than-democracies behave like. It's enough to make you clean and re-clean your assault rifle and hone your bayonet most of the afternoon, I'm tellin' ya.

The worthwhile "exit strategy" is spelled W-I-N. Regardless of resistance, uncaring of time. Make that which is less-than-democracy or pretends-to-democracy extinct. Your world will improve.

I've also seen first hand the darker actions actions taken by "less-than-democracies." I sincerely hope that people of all nations gain their freedom - whatever THEY may define that freedom to be.

However, the US has plenty of problems at home to resolve before it goes frisking off to baby sit others. No one freed us from colonial rule but ourselves. We appreciate our liberty the more because of that. Let others do the same.

Besides, if US foreign policy is actually to go forth and demolish non-democracies, shouldn't we be going after the greatest remaining communist regime of them all - red China? But, no, far from it. US corporations can't outsource US jobs to China fast enough. Plus, we count on China to continue to take our worthless paper dollars to pay our debt, else the entire house of cards would collapse.

Far from attempting to make the Chinese communist regime extinct, the US is salivating for their co-operation. Don't give me that crap about Afghanistan; our actions there and in Iraq only show up the obvious hypocrisy inherent in US foreign policy.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No one freed us from colonial rule but ourselves. We appreciate our liberty the more because of that. Let others do the same.
.

I'm not great student of American history but, I understand there was a significant contribution by a foreign military power in the Revolutionary War. I don't know if it's considered that the colonists would have succeeded without French assisstance.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

tw, what are the strategic objectives and exit strategy in Afghanistan?

The strategic objective was the elimination of bin Laden and those who protect Al Qaeda. The exit strategy involved phase four planning that had to be accomplished within a year after hostilities ended. But wacko extremist blindly follow their political agenda - America does not do nation building. No phase four planning was possible due to a wacko extremist political agenda. Everyone heard the wackos subvert the exit strategy. "America does not do nation building." Any better educated American saw the disaster in that sound byte. The least educated blindly repeated it as something good.

Having surrendered to the Taliban in 2002, a strategic objective is no longer viable. We got bin Laden. We probably can no longer take out those who protected him due to that 2002 surrender. So we have a real problem in Afghanistan.

What is worse, a defeat will not be known until after we leave. Because the strategic objective was so subverted back in 2002. Unsolvable problems created by wacko extremists in 2002 are now apparent in the attitude of every Afghanistani. Now made even worse because Afghanistan is considered by so many Pakistani power brokers as to be an enemy. Even every ally adjacent to Afghanistan turned against us or remained reluctant (well paid) friends during the George Jr administration due an obvious problem. 99% of all problems directly traceable to their intelligence. A legacy we must now live with.

So many who were once our allies and friends have little trust of Americans. George Jr destroyed America's relations with virtually every nation in the world. Just fixing this damage has kept Hilary Clinton extremely busy. More reasons why the strategic objective may be impossible. A viable exit strategy - too late for that. Just more in a long list of legacies created by people who think just like UG. Where big dic thinking and excessive military power can solve everything. Right. As if nobody bothered to learn from - Deja vue Nam.

All attempts to achieve a strategic objective were subverted by George Jr. He even disbanded Alec Station in 2005. A group created by Clinton in 1996 to only do one thing - get bin Laden. Anything by Clinton was evil, said wacko extremists. Besides, a strategic objective in Afghanistan was contrary to the George Jr administration political agenda. George Jr needed that bogeyman alive. So George Jr did what was necessary to subvert the strategic objective.

We suffer consequences of that subverted agenda. Complicated by generals who would fight forever rather than admit George Jr made the objective virtually impossible to achieve. We will never really know until after we leave. Because of the American surrender in 2002, the Taliban have better cards to play.

How many $billions are paid annually to corrupt governments because we are stuck in a quagmire? If we don't pay big bucks for the friendship of adjacent nations, then we have an army stuck in Afghanistan like the Nazis in Stalingrad. Appreciate this mess we inherited because George Jr so harmed our relations even with countries north of Afghanistan. And a military unwilling to admit the strategic objective may no longer be viable.

Due to the 2002 surrender, our every option in Afghanistan is a bad one. Another example of how American soldiers get massacred when the people forget to get educated - and listen to Limbaugh, et al.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The Ba'ath models itself on Fascist philosophy, and has since its WW2-era invention. Have a google at it. I think you will find it interesting.

And is it not so that neither you nor I would like to have to live on the difference between the "totalitarian right" and the "totalitarian left" anyway? Your drawing a distinction between them is, I think, ill advised: give Leftism Revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn, a good read.

It's magisterial, thorough, in places eccentric, and unrebutted. He makes a hell of a case for "left" totalitarians and "right" totalitarians being undistinguishable, and contends there is little point in trying to partition either philosophy from the other. I found his thesis fascinating. He did show an eccentric devotion to the throne of Austria-Hungary, for a strange note in the work -- figures Austria-Hungary's royal house's fall was the proximate cause of Eastern Europe's slide into a hell of collectivism and un-capitalism and Western Europe's close, and he believed ill-advised, approaches thereunto. How it might have prevented that descent by there still being an Austria-Hungary or its empire, I don't recall his getting into. Perhaps some other work.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

He makes a hell of a case for "left" totalitarians and "right" totalitarians being undistinguishable, and contends there is little point in trying to partition either philosophy from the other.

Is true. If a man has power of life or death over you, it does not matter if he is "left" or "right". If you are killed by Hitler or by Stalin, you are just as dead, yes?

It is a bad idea to give any government more power than they need to fix the streets. Trust your friend Uday about this.

[infinite monkey]

Without whom your dumbasses would have been royally fucked. And I do mean royally.

[Trilby]

UG - I'm .....I'm nearly speechless.

Nearly.

If you think the US went into Iraq to take out a dictator, you're a bigger idiot than you appear.

[regular.joe]

What I find interesting in todays world of sound bites is that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States. We just took the lid off, to leave it open like that sure makes it sound like U.S. soldiers have been wandering around Iraq killing 100,000 Iraqis. However miss guided we were for going into Iraq; we did, in good conscience, try to keep the lid on a bit tighter then it would have been had we just left in 2003. Most of the killing of Iraqis has been by Iraqis and fighters from foreign countries like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc... I have not really heard this discussed at any length by anyone outside of the military. There certainly is a depth to this topic that cannot be covered in one post in this thread. The dynamic of Shia VS Sunni VS tribe/family/clan VS government power VS foreign influence VS whateverthefuckelseyoucanthinkoftofightabout is amazing in countries like Iraq. What the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld leadership of the day did not get right in any way shape or form was to topple the country and then the very next day hand it over to the general population and say...no need to thank me...here ya go! Even in post WWII Germany/Europe and Japan we set up military governors and city mayors etc that ran and administered the countries and communities until the military administrators were able to leave. In some cases 20 to 30 years later. I for one do not think that what we have gained and what we have lost as a result of invading and occupying Iraq has been or will be worth the results. We will be feeling the pain from this one for years to come.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by JBKlyde

It could have been a whole lot worse..

Originally Posted by regular.joe

What I find interesting in todays world of sound bites is that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States. We just took the lid off, to leave it open like that sure makes it sound like U.S. soldiers have been wandering around Iraq killing 100,000 Iraqis...

This is why it wasn't "a whole lot worse", as bad as it was. The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.

No violence and ethnic killings occurred in Mosul while same was ongoing in so many other regions. Petraeus and the 101st Airborne was literally stealing money to institute Phase Four planning in Mosul. As a result, Mosul was completely peaceful. Until the 101st left. Then Phase Four planning stopped. And Mosul became as violent as other Iraqi regions.

From Wikipedia:

This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in nations such as Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized …

Meanwhile, Bremer never got organized. Even Bremer had to sneak out of Baghdad on a small airplane because violence Bremer created even threatened his own life.

Gen Petraeus was expelled to a penalty box. Stuck in a war college in Kansas rather than in positions for advancement such as in another combat unit or the Pentagon. He was telling truths that contradicted George Jr’s political agendas. Expelled because he was saying all along why Americans were encouraging so much Iraqi violence and uprising. One man in particular was accurately criticized for causing that violence and resulting deaths. Paul Bremer.

George Jr's chosen man, Bremer - even honored with a Freedom Medal by George Jr - was clearly a major reason why so many Iraqis attacked Americans and other Iraqi ethnic groups. A problem is well defined - 2,500 years ago - in military doctrine. Violence was inevitable when Americans did not do nation building. As soon as Petraeus and the 101st left Mosul in 2004, then entire region broke down into chaos. As military doctrine so clearly says.

Cheney, et al just assumed (due to low intelligence) that as soon as Saddam was gone, then democracy would sprout up from the earth. Why did 100,000 Iraqis die? Because wacko extremists (the right wingers that have low intelligence) said, "America does not do nation building." Suddenly 2,500 years later, that well understood principle is wrong? Only when a political agenda is confused as education and intelligence. America encouraged and enabled violence that killed over 100,000 Iraqis. Iraqis did not die when a General harmed his career by doing nation building. Iraqis died in mass numbers because low intelligence leaders in Washington said, "America does not do nation building."

None of this is new. Read old Cellar posts where reasons for an insurgency and deaths were directly attributed to, "America does not do nation building." The problem was well defined and that obvious that many years ago.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I have not really heard this discussed at any length by anyone outside of the military.

And you won't. We will get the blame. Some of it is well placed. Much of it is not. Most people never take the time to learn the history of the area but are quick to lay blame on the US.

[ZenGum]

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

And they're getting right back into it, aren't they? Heck I hope the events of the last few days are just a bit of teething difficulty and things will stabilise again soon, but I have my doubts.

I was always thinking that Iraq would really struggle to hold together after the US leaves, but I was thinking in terms of five or ten years. It hasn't been a week yet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

As military doctrine says should happen when a conquering nation does not do nation building. Those first six months were that critical. As Colin Powell's "Future of Iraq" study group warned of ten years ago long before even Gen Garner appeared.

Previously, the Kurds have been successful as peace makers. In part because Kurds are so secure in their part of Iraq. Can they still do that without an 800 pound guerilla in the room?

A resulting power vacuum is also an open door for Iranian supporters of their 'favorite' side. That Sadr finished his education in Iran after deciding combat with Americans was counter-productive. Was that coincidence or part of a longer term plan?

The fact that so much violence is happening so quickly implies long term planning. Easy to implement since Iraq's economy remained worse than it was under Saddam.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

And they're getting right back into it, aren't they? Heck I hope the events of the last few days are just a bit of teething difficulty and things will stabilise again soon, but I have my doubts.

I was always thinking that Iraq would really struggle to hold together after the US leaves, but I was thinking in terms of five or ten years. It hasn't been a week yet.

Your friend Uday is surprised that it is only this bad.

What many Americans do not understand is that Iraq is a manufactured nation. It is a collection of tribes which are "stapled" together by the British. Without a monster like Hussien, there is no chance to keep Iraq in one piece.

So, it is a choice between one monster and chaos in street. Choose.

[Undertoad]

One problem is that Hussein felt compelled to use his supply of staples to staple other countries on.

Lebanon, less tribal but more diverse, has remained stapled without a "big man" since 1943. Maybe the French staples are higher in quality.