The hell they didn't! They got held up and shot up, they didn't achieve their objectives, they didn't recapture the Israeli soldiers, so they negotiated a settlement and went home. They already tried occupying Lebanon back in the 70' and 80's. It was the same unmitigated disaster that Iraq is. So they were smart enought to leave and have something left to fight another day. Ronald Reagan was smart, too when he packed up took us out of Lebanon in '82. If the Lebanese were going to bomb the soldiers that were there to help them, then fugg 'em and they can solve their own problems. Clinton made the same smart move in Somalia. If you are going to shoot down our helicopters then you can friggin' starve. And they did. Bush one made a smart move when he kicked Saddam's ass in 1991, but knew better that to try to occupy the country. It never pays for a modern army to get caught in a guerrilla war. It never has.
That's the problem here our generals are saying there is no military soloution in Iraq. Our forces are not built to fight an unmarked unseen enemy. Large occupying forces are at a huge disadvantage in guerilla wars. The insurgents know just who the enemy is. We don't have that luxury. We might be playing football, but they are not. Thats the problem. We don't have a strategy to stop their tactics. And if you are denying that we are stuck in a guerrilla war then you are hopeless.
I think I agree with you more than disagree on Iraq but I'm calling total BS on this one Red. The Israeli's went in to stop the constant rocket attacks not to get the captured soldiers and not a rocket has droped since. They went in kicked a$$ and the US and UN had them pull out short of their objective. However they accomplished more in a few weeks than we have in 5 years in Iraq.
Everyone knows we are stuck in a guerilla war over there the problem is we are not fighting in it, we are just standing around playing police force and getting killed. Instead of standing on the corner directing traffic we need to be kicking in doors and blowing heads off.
Then we'd be no better than Saddam, Udda and Qusa. World opinion will just not stand for it, and the American public does not want the nation and its military behaving that way, period. But it is the only thing I know of that would work for sure. Saddam held the nation together despite being hated, so it can be done. If you opposed him and he caught you, he would kill your spouse, kids, parents, aunts, uncles, and after you'd watched them torture and kill them all, then he'd kill you. That technique worked, there was no organized opposition. I, and most Americans don't advocate it. There is a way to achieve our objective, but it is not civilized nor acceptable. So, what are we staying there for? Anybody got a plan that would work? If not, get the hell out, and stop standing around "bleeding out". There were no WMDs, there was no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda (9/11 commission report), Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We had Hans Blix in Iraq inspecting for WMD in the fall of 2002, we could easily have kept UN inspectors in there, like we did from 1991 - 1998, which WORKED, at a pittance of a price compared to this cluster thingy we've got going on. And it's all a failure to listen to people who knew better (like Colin Powell), and the problems in Iraq were well known. Cheney gave the speech on why we did not go in in 1991 as the then sec. of defense, calling it a potential quagmire. The arrogance and ignorance of these right wing neocon idiots boggles the mind! Afghanistan was a good war, AQ was headquartered there, they did 9/11, we had to go after them and take away their base of operations. Good deal. But in general, the idea we will defeat a terrorist group that makes up at most 1% of a country by taking and holding large land masses at huge costs, when the terrorists can just up and move somewhere else, is frankly, ridiculous. At its core, winning a war means depleting your opponents resources without depleting yours. Those resources are anything you need to live your lives and conduct the war. You need to be efficient. Strategies in the old days, like wounding rather than killing, were good, because if you had a dead soldier you could move on quickly, but wounded had to be moved and cared for, tying up more of your resources. A night raid was great, it just cost a few men, and then your opponent had to post a watch 24 hours per day, leaving some of the men tired and slowing troop movements, or maybe they just weren't in top shape to fight. We are spending huge resources in this country on carry-on inspection and sky marshalls, spending down our resources on unproductive activities for the society, at no additional cost to the terrorists. We are holding a whole nation when 99% of them were not against us, and the 1% that were could have been denied WMD by resident inspectors. We are just not efficiently prosecuting the campaign IMO. Tightening entry visas, tracking the flow of funds, predator strikes on meeting sites, covert ops, these are all good ways to fight against terrorists, and I do believe we are in a war with the terrorists, but I just think we are doing a real stupid job of prosecuting it. The fault lies with the bus driver. I'm an equal opportunity basher, I hate Fienstein, Boxer, Dingle, and many of the far left dem leadership, but they appear less stupid than the ones who failed to devise an effective plan to prosecute the war on terror.
I am not going to be that negative. There are indications that the insurgency in Iraq is starting to suffer from internal dissention. If true, that could be a big advantage to American and Iraqi forces. Also, if we can leave Iraq with a stable government capable of defending itself, then I feel we would have accomplished what we went there to do, even if the insurgency is still active.
I disagree. You can win a guerilla war but you have to fight it differently than you would a conventional one.
Do some searches on the French Algerian war in the 1950's. Well, here's one: http://www.algeria-watch.org/farticle/analyse/shatz_torture.htm The French won that one militarily, it can be done, if you are willing to be as vicious as your opponent, and you are better funded to boot. Is that what we want? Anybody got a better idea? Let's see, a bad idea, or no idea??? Hmmmmmmm........ Now on the other hand, if we don't "have to win", then there is the Northern Ireland model, which is a negotiated settlement and political solution, and that ended the violence. Anybody negotiating? Maybe the Kurds, Sunni's and Shia don't want to negotiate, they're willing to fight for local autonomy. So, then what have we got?
Yes, people in the state department "knew" what was going on. I heard Mr. Kiesling speak, and as he said, it was not that he was not listened to, it was that the state dept. professionals familiar with the region WERE NOT EVEN ASKED for their opinions, because obviously Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice already knew it all. Submitted March 2003: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kiesling.asp
