Yeah well, two of my best friends and my cousin just got back and they speak on quite the contrary. It's all about who you ask and what they've seen I guess. One of my buds was a platoon commander, and was in the thickest of it...killing peeps and what not. His opinion is that we're going nowhere fast. :shrugs:
Major differance. All those places combined dont have as many deaths as Iraq since the end of combat. Combat ended three years ago in Iraq according to the President. Why do the casualties continue to climb?
At what point are you suggesting we have reached the end of combat, that makes a big difference also. Some will say (most military analyists) that we have not yet reached that point. Most reporters though will say the "traditional" war is over. I think history will prove that this was anything but a traditional war. Yes the president did say that the "occupation" of Iraq was complete 3 years ago. He also said that the fighting is not done and there would be more causulties.
He never said combat ended. Not once has he said anything like that. Also, in just about all of those other places mentioned, we lost more in one day's fighting than all that have been killed to date in Iraq and Afg. It's called a war, casualties happen. The key is to inflict more on them then they do on us. So far, we are winning. Get behind the effort and stop female dogging about it.
Major combat was declared over in 2003. Remember the President on the battle aircraft carrier with big banner that said mission accomplished. We are no longer in combat mode we are in occupation mode, the odd thing is that there has been more combat since combat ended than when it was going on. The key to winning a war is not to inflict more casualties. You can not win a war with an attrition strategy. Vietnam should have taught you that lesson. The north lost alot more than the south in the War of Southern Independence.
'Should' is the operative term there. Our stated mission in Vietnam was to 'spread democracy in Asia.' What's startling is that is exactly what Bush is saying our mission in Iraq is (save for the region, obviously). Nice. I always say 'The War Between the States.'
What's taking place over there, right now, is not major combat. His saying that major combat, if those were his words, are over would be correct. An attrition strategy is always part of a war. The plan is always to kill more of them than they do of you. The difference here is that men are not dying to take the same piece of ground twice. Also, no area is off limits due to political reasons. We clear an area, we set up security opperations in that area, we turn the area over to the Iraqis. Big difference from Vietnam. Our mission in Iraq will be successful even though more men will die in the process. I talk weekly with veterans returning from Iraq. I have not met or talked to a single one who did not support our president or our mission over there. Not... A.... Single..... One.
spreading democracy in the area is what is important. when iraqi people are free and all get rich because of sweet capitalism and democracy, the neighbors will like it and want to ditch the fanatical islam for a more modern style society. it might take a while though. i dont care who attacked us. spreading democracy is the only long term solution.
I do watch the news. Furthermore, I understand what I'm seeing. Iraq is a long, long way from democracy. You know, they held elections in the Soviet Union. They held them in Iraq under Saddam, too. An election does not equal democracy by a long shot.
Can you say "quagmire"? Many military analysts also say that this occupation is unwinnable. We won the friggin' war in 21 days-- defeated the Iraqi army and sacked the capital. There is no way to win this insurgency, certainly not with the troop levels we have committed.
