Everything he says about the Marines is true. He knows what he's talking about and who his audience was. Nothing there to disagree with. His take on Iraq War politics contains much spin, though, starting in paragraph three where he says that Iraq is not in a civil war. As far as the quotes you noted. . . Well, most observers would note that our presence in Iraq has led to the worst erosion of our international credibility since Vietnam. We're not winning anything there and the longer we linger, the more it looks like we're losing. At some point an Iraqi government is going to order us to leave and we'll have to leave on their terms. Better to leave on our terms. Our credibility as a nation will improve. We've shown to any potential enemy or terrorist host nation that we can take down your country in 21 days and stay as long as we want to. We've proven that. We don't have to stay forever to prove any more. The Iraq insurgents can't force us to leave, but the democratically elected government that we installed can. Meanwhile babysitting their civil war is not our fight. We can't even back one side since both sides are trying to kill our troops. We'll soon have other wars to fight and this one is breaking the army and wearing the marines thin. The fight with Al Qaida is international. The main Al Qaida bases are in Afghnaistan and Pakistan and everybody knows it. We're hurting them there. The only reason they are in Iraq is because we've provided them with all these American targets that are easy for them to get to. When we're gone, then they are strangers in a strange land and the Iraqis will evict them. The Sunnis are already fed up with them and Al Qaida never did have a relationship with the Shia, having blown up about 100 Shiite mosques. Al Qaida doesn't want us to leave Iraq, this is the best present they ever got--easy American targets that they can kill with IEDs and not have to stand and fight. Plus the opportunity to embarrass us in the region by saying that we are there to destroy Islam. The Iraqis want us to leave their country so they can fight Al Qaida and each other. I think that's great. We leave and let our enemies kill each other. The withdrawls in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia were all in our best national interests. Guerrilla occupations are not America's kind of war and wise commanders avoid such quagmires. Reagan and Clinton were wise to withdraw from Lebanon and Somalia or we might still be there accomplishing nothing with a people who hate us and don't deserve our help. Johnson and Bush were unwise to linger and try to create political change in a hostile land with military force. To quote Rush Limbaugh, "the military's job is to kill people and break things", and our forces do this very well. Our military is being ill-used in this guerrilla war and occupation of a hostile land. There are some things that military power alone cannot accomplish and one of them is winning the hearts and minds of the people. These Iraqis hate each other with a passion that has been going on for 1500 years. To tie our success in Iraq to making these ragheads into a peaceful American-style democracy is futile. We eliminated Saddam, the WMD's were mythical, Iraq is no threat to us or our allies in the region. We're done, we won, and its time to redeploy and get ready for the next one. Meanwhile the fight against Al Qaida is increasingly going to be a covert war conducted by special ops and the CIA. As it should be.
So, you know more about what's going on over there than the Commandant of the Marine Corps. You must be a very enlightened man red. So, now you trying to justify tucking tail and running away by saying it's just "leaving on our own terms". Giving up is giving up no matter how you try to justify it red. If we just up and leave, without accomplishing our mission, then we have lost. Lost red, there's no other way to describe it. We have given up too many times in the past. Like the General said, each time we have it has done nothing but encourage our enemies. Neither side is trying to kill us red. Haven't you been paying attention..it is the insurgents. Iran, and a few other islamic countries, are fighting a proxy war with us in Iraq. We must continue to fight, or every one that has died up till now has died in vain. We'll soon have other wars to fight huh? Let me guess, you'll oppose them also. Any conflicts in the near future will be continuations of the one we're currently fighting. If we give up on this battle, it's only going to make the next one that much more difficult. Bull crap red. They're in Iraq because they want to hinder our efforts there. They fear a free, peaceful nation in the heart of middle east. The last thing they want is for us to succeed over there. Freedom spreads red, and the scum we're fighting over there doesn't want it to. Like you said above, the people of Iraq are getting fed up with the insurgents. Hopefully soon they will start to push back against them even harder. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They're starting to realize this. You couldn't be more wrong. We leave Iraq, and Al Qaeda wins. Period. The embarrassment would be the most powerful country in all of the world getting beaten by some third world rouges. Regardless of whether or not you agree with any of our reasons for getting involved in military actions against another nation, once we commit, we must prevail. Walking out of Vietnam did absolutely nothing to help our world image, and did plenty to harm the people we said we were there to protect. How many people suffered and died red because we tucked tail and ran from Vietnam? What did giving up our toe hold in Lebanon get us red? Nothing but more problems..that's what. Special Ops and the CIA huh red? You've been reading too many Tom Clancy books my friend. Let the politicians take the reins off our military, and we'll beat the muslims back to the 19th century. Winning the hearts and minds is nothing more than politics. What we need to do is let the warriors be warriors. Stop kissing azz and playing patty-cake, and start bombing capitals and exterminating the scum. Politicians need to stick to diplomacy, and leave fighting wars to the people that know what the hell they're doing.
You know I wasn't going to respond to that flag-waving post to the marines from a marine. But you asked me what I thought, so I told you. I should have known you just wanted to set me up to take a lame potshot. Well, bring it on. You didn't pay any attention to what I said. Explain to me what constitutes victory? Be specific and be sure to explain why it hasn't worked for five years. We won the friggin' war. Nation building in Iraq is not a military job. The enemy isn't standing and fighting and haven't won a damn thing. You can't possibly be serious, no one on earth would buy that line. The insurgents are both Sunni and Shia Iraqis, you know . . . both sides! Foreign Al Qaida have entered the mix too. All of them are trying to kill American troops. Tel lme, who is on our side, the pathetic and treacherous Iraqi police? Don't put words in my mouth. I've supported every smart war in my lifetime and opposed stupid wars like this one. Quite the contrary, the next war could very well be in the Pacific and it will be much more difficult if we've squandered our resoureces in Iraq. The impossible neo-con dream. Name me one free peaceful country anywhere in the arab world. You aren't paying attention to the real world. Look what happened when the Paletinians got a democratic vote. They elected Hamas! The Iraquis have no understanding of democracy. The elected a government can't accomplish a damn thing because of tribal rivalries. It is utterly foolish to expect a democracy to happen there. There is no democracy anywhere in the Arab world, even among our allies. You can't force liberty down someones throat, they have to want it. If they were ready they would have revolted against Saddam. You are thinking with your balls instead of your brains, Salty. Everybody wants to kick Al Qaida's ass. This Iraqi misadventure is not the way to do it. You understand the difference between tactics and strategy. Were in a strategic hole fighting a tactical knife fight with Al Qaida and the Iraq insurgents. Their kind of fight. Strategically, we need to be out of the hole and ready to fight them anywhere. Our kind of fight. Leave them in the hole. Fill it in on them if neccessary. Leaving Iraq is a tactical decision that enables a strategic advantage. How? The ragheads will not stand and fight! They will not stand and make a government. They will not do anything while we are there. My friend, people stopped dying when that useless war ended. Nobody "tucked tail and ran". After eight years and 58,000 dead men, everybody from the president to the military to to Joe Public knew that Vietnam was a dead-end road. We didn't lose squat. How can you lose a war when you win every battle? We quit Vietnam because it was in our best interest to do so. Look at us now--sole superpower. Look at Vietnam--third world POS. They didn't win nothin'. Sometimes our leaders get us into foolish wars. It is no virtue to pursue failed policies and no shame for the military to extricate themselves. I'll never understand the Bushian notion that resolve is somehow "victory". Sometimes we win by leaving the chit to the gooks and get back to what we do best. Quite the contrary. We sent peacekeeping forces there to help the Lebanese, not the kind of military force to establish a permanent military presence. We do NOT need to get directly involved in the Arab/Iraeli fight. We went there to help and the Lebanese crapped all over us, so Reagan basically said "Fight your own fights, we're out of here". We'd still be occupying Lebanon otherwise, taking IED casualties from an enemy that won't fight and gaining nothing of vital interest to the United States. Lebanon is a problem for the Israelis, not for us. And you've been reading too little geopolitics, history, military science, and current events, amigo. Geez, get a grip! The muslims are not the enemy! There are no capitals to bomb, no country has attacked us. Many muslims are vital allies to us. Al Qaida is the enemy and Iraq is not the main front in that war. The Iraq insurgents will disappear when we do. They are just nationalist who are fighting the invaders of their country. They'll go back to killing each other. Fine by me, I hate the raghead bastards. First you want establish freedom and a Jeffersonian democracy among these illiterate tribal third-world bastards and at the same time you want to bomb their cities and "exterminate the scum". You're a little confused aren't you? Damn straight! If you've been paying attention then you know that the Bush administration has not been letting the military do what it knows best or we wouldn't be in this situation. The brass do not want to be in Iraq. They were following orders. Stupid orders. I'll bet you a six pack of Mexican beer that this month General Petraeus will demonstrate that he has a handle on things, speak of the progress being made, and be encouraging about the future of Iraq. But he will also start bringing troops back and it won't stop until we're gone. Making the success of our effort dependent on what the Iraqis do is a recipe for further failure. Petraeus will not do that.
Winning is important in football games. In the real world, as a practical matter, what is more important is "what is your ROI, return on investment". As a practical matter, appearances and 'embarrassment' are not good reasons to spend $5 Billion per month and about 60 mens lives and 500 wounded. You have to buy something a lot more valuable. There were no WMDs in Iraq (Kaye and Dulfour reports) and "no collabortive relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (9/11 Commission report), and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (President Bush among other said it). We put the UN weapons inspectors in during Oct. 2002 and they found nothing, and we could have left them in. Where is the ROI? I saw zero ill effects on US strategic interests in the 30 years following VN. We prospered greatly. When we assembled our coalition in 1991 to oust Saddam, I didn't hear anyone say they would not join because we were not a reliable partner. How many people suffered because we pulled out of VN? Probably tens of thousands, but that always happens at the end of wars. How many more died because we did get involved in 1954, and what was our justification for getting involved? After we lost in 1973, did any of the fears that caused us to get involved in the first place, actually occur? No. No dominos fell. It is a testament to the stupidity of our presidents, mainly Johnson and Nixon. It is vitally important to make the correct decision up front, and only get involved in wars that advance the strategic interests of the US. Wars are expensive and unpredictable once they start, and the objectives had better be worth the price paid (that ROI thing), or we should not waste our time winning them if it costs more than its worth. Giving up our toehold in Lebanon did not cost us anything and that's a good thing. It we had stayed in Lebanon, what would it have cost, and what strategic advantage would we have gained? Why is refereeing a civil war between religious fanatics seem like a good idea? What did Al Qaeda have to do with Lebanon? Are you saying if we'd stayed in Lebanon, Al Qaeda would not have brought down the towers, and if so, connect those dots. You don't buy stock to make a profit, you buy stock to gain a healthy ROI. You can make a profit and still be a loser, if the profit is so small that you could have made more money in a safe CD. The profit on a stock is only 'good' if it exceeds the return you could have earned on a CD, otherwise why are you taking the extra risk? It doesn't make sense. The initial article was dumb. The war on terror is not analogous to WWII. Al Qaeda is not as dangerous as fully armed Germany and Japan were. AQ has not militarily conquered a single nation because they don't have the ability to. They are a few thousand thugs hiding in kitchens in Germany and Spain, and caves in Pakistan. How do you fight a few thousand thugs hiding in kitchens and caves? Take over Iraq? Doesn't make sense to me. If worst case Iraq became the next Lebanon, would it make matters worse? Lebanon had nothing to do with the rise of AQ. If we got out of Iraq, what would happen? Would AQ take over? I don't think so, they are not that strong. Iraq factions want to rule their own country, that is why some of the Sunni who initially supported AQ now do not. I think the Kurds, Sunni and Shia partition the country and keep AQ out so they have it to themselves. The Shia may try to subjugate the Kurds and Sunni and keep it together, which will result in continued civil war. It all goes back to idiotic decision making by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz. Cheney made the case in 1991 for not going into Iraq for every single reason that going in in 2003 has shown it to be the wrong decision. We knew it was wrong in 1991, Bush II was just too stupid and pig headed and failed to listen to good reason, such as from Colin Powell who did not want to go in, then resigned as soon as he could cut loose from the band of idiots in charge. When you listen to fools and fail to listen to wise men, you are a fool. Powell was the only one who had served under fire in VN, all the rest ducked and covered and sat it out, which is partially why their judgment was improperly formed. Winning is a good objective, but its more important to achieve a good solid return on your investment. Iraq does not buy us that.
All good points. I'm dead tired, so I'll have to respond tomorrow. Man, I missed talking with you guys. I do want to make this point however...I do not necessarily agree with our strategy in Iraq. Obviously, if left up to me, there would no longer be a place called Iraq in existence, but I also very much disagree with your solution of just leaving. We have to accomplish something. Too many of my friends have died for us not to accomplish something of significance. The hatred and disgust that I would feel, if my friends and brothers end up dead for nothing more than political games, will be unbearable. Failure is not an option.
Consider that a tactical redeployment would not be a "just leaving" situation. "Pack up and go" is not what is meant. Obviously, some troops will be withdrawn no further than Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, close enough to keep Iran from any thoughts of invading Iraq. We have heavy weapons and secure bases and the locals aren't trying to kill us. The Kuwaitis friggin' love us. Troops coming home should turn things over to the Iraqis, province by province, on a steady schedule and force them to step up to the bat. We can still provide them with money for rebuilding, but they have to do it themselves. And if they must kill people, they can kill each other. What more do you want, amigo? We conquered the country in 21 days, bombed all their facilities and sacked their capital. Their military was completely eliminated. There are no WMDs and no Saddam anymore. We're still a superpower and Iraq is completely wasted. What more total victory can you want? The subsequent occupation was a collossal political blunder. Still the military has proven that we can stay as long as we want and no one can't force us to leave. There is nothing more to squeeze out of this country. There is no remaining "victory" to be found. Indeed, zero return on investment.
