Topic: What if we won a war and no one was told? (Read 1304 times)

HandBall · « **on:** February 15, 2009, 02:50:37 PM »

Guessing you haven't read this, but it appears that the war in Iraq may be over. And guess what? Oh no, we appear to have won!

BY James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - America faces a growing storm from militants spread across Asia, Africa and the Middle East - while the war in Iraq is virtually over, the nation's top spy said Thursday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/02/12/2009-02-12_intel_czar_sees_new_threats_as_afghan_si.html

Now while this little tidbit of news appears somewhat under-reported so far, and barely got a mention in the article above, imagine the Middle East today if we'd followed the advise of Obama and Democrat leadership in 2007 when they opposed the surge, declared the war lost, and were prepared to surrender Iraq to terrorists?

Buried in the new Obama Administration's intel guru's 45-page report on page 15, is this:

"Most Iraqi-led Sunni insurgent groups have largely suspended operations against the Coalition, favoring engagement [working with] with the United States to protect their communities, to oppose AQI [Al Qaeda], or protect against feared domination by the Iraqi Government, although many are hedging by maintaining their organizational structures and access to weapons."

And from page 14:
"A More Stable Iraq as Counterbalance
The positive security trends over the past year have endured and expanded, and a more stable Iraq could counterbalance other negative trends in the region. Extremists in Iraq have been largely sidelined by Coalition and Iraqi operations and dwindling popular tolerance for violence, and their attacks are no longer a major catalyst for sectarian violence. Iraqis now are less inclined to resolve their differences through unsanctioned violence, and fewer Iraqis are dying at the hands of their countrymen than at any time in the past two years."

With a viable democracy now in the heart of the Middle East, this should be very good news. Unfortunately, the party in power cannot admit the success, without also admitting their shame in opposing it.

basketballdad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2009, 07:18:54 PM »

I think it is a little premature to be saying we won. Also, if we have then it is a good thing since Afghanistan is detoriating rapidly. See todays AP article comparing our mistakes their to those of the former Soviet Union.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2009, 07:47:38 PM »

Afghanistan is going to turn better quickly (12-18 months) now that we are less dependent upon Euorpean assistance.

yote19 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2009, 07:51:37 PM »

And with my nephew going over in April ...look out.

basketballdad · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2009, 07:55:26 PM »

If you look at how the Soviet Union was driven out we had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps because they thought modern weaponry from a superpower could easily wipe out a small group of hill people also. It did not turn out so well.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:26:47 PM »

Quote from: basketballdad on February 15, 2009, 07:55:26 PM

If you look at how the Soviet Union was driven out we had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps because they thought modern weaponry from a superpower could easily wipe out a small group of hill people also. It did not turn out so well.

There always seems to be work arounds to technological fixes of recurrent problems in warfare. And we cannot forget that the Taliban took control of Afghanistan originally by being the worst thugs in a field of thugs. Of course, if we fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we will not win.
One thing that can be done is to use their religion against them. Defile the bodies of the Taliban and al-qaeda dead so that under the laws of Islam, they cannot get into heaven. (It worked with the Moros)

cheese · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:06:46 PM »

Quote from: yote19 on February 15, 2009, 07:51:37 PM

And with my nephew going over in April ...look out.

Mine is going back sometime around there also. $:-\$

basketballdad · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:13:30 PM »

Be curious to see how we fight. As most know right across the border in Pakistan there are mountainous regions that harbor militants. No surprise that they will run across border and attack then run back into Pakistan. We have ocassionally crossed the border with ariel attacks and Pakistan says they are helping us but not really. Can anyone say Laos, Cambodia during Vietnam. I have no idea what our policy will be when this happens but we had better have a plan for it.

cheese · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:33:59 PM »

Quote from: basketballdad on February 16, 2009, 02:13:30 PM

Be curious to see how we fight. As most know right across the border in Pakistan there are mountainous regions that harbor militants. No surprise that they will run across border and attack then run back into Pakistan. We have ocassionally crossed the border with ariel attacks and Pakistan says they are helping us but not really. Can anyone say Laos, Cambodia during Vietnam. I have no idea what our policy will be when this happens but we had better have a plan for it.

My nephew did something like 8 months in Afg (getting back about 10 weeks ago). He said some of that happens but it's usually a 1 time attempt (cuz they don't always make it back after striking our Marines).
Didn't sound a whole lot diff then what was going on in Iraq.....just a diff country.

yote19 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2009, 04:45:22 PM »

Nephew seems to think they are going in to work primarily as training with local governments and joint missions. They are heading to Louisiana for 6 weeks of preparedness training and I don't know how many mountain ranges they have in the Bayou.

basketballdad · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:18:34 PM »

Tell all your relatives best wishes for me.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:18:39 PM »

Quote from: yote19 on February 16, 2009, 04:45:22 PM

Nephew seems to think they are going in to work primarily as training with local governments and joint missions. They are heading to Louisiana for 6 weeks of preparedness training and I don't know how many mountain ranges they have in the Bayou.

Not Fort Polk?

Louisiana has, if I recall the southern state correctly, a medium intensity national training center to provide the best training in the world for infantry going into a war zone. At Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert, they have the high intensity national training center, which focuses on armored fighting vehicle combat training. (Go OPFOR! 442nd MRR Rules!)

While no one should ever make light of American troops going into action, more people died on America's highways last years than Americans have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars, combined and total. Several of my former players (one for 3 tours) have gone over, and all have returned or are still serving over there.

cheese · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:41:11 PM »

Quote from: yote19 on February 16, 2009, 04:45:22 PM

Nephew seems to think they are going in to work primarily as training with local governments and joint missions. They are heading to Louisiana for 6 weeks of preparedness training and I don't know how many mountain ranges they have in the Bayou.

There might not be a mountian range in LA but they have a pretty big Mountian there. Seems like the Saints always have that big mountian to climb every football season.

yote19 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:55:05 PM »

He is infantry and finished up ranger school last spring after completing airborne the previous year...so he is excited and ready to go.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2009, 10:47:46 PM »

Quote from: yote19 on February 16, 2009, 05:55:05 PM

He is infantry and finished up ranger school last spring after completing airborne the previous year...so he is excited and ready to go.

Ranger school is tough. My salute goes out to him.

poolboy · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:36:00 PM »

god bless these dudes. they are the backbone of this great country.

FanInRed · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2009, 04:58:59 PM »

Quote from: basketballdad on February 15, 2009, 07:55:26 PM

If you look at how the Soviet Union was driven out we had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps because they thought modern weaponry from a superpower could easily wipe out a small group of hill people also. It did not turn out so well.

But keep in mind that there are a couple of major differences: 1) The Soviet army was made of mostly conscripts who didn't volunteer to be in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) and 2) they may have been a superpower but their opposition was being supported by the rival superpower. Most people forget that when Western powers have been unable to make headway in Afghanistan, it's been not just because of the inhospitable terrain and people, it's also the covert, overt or sometimes imagined opposition from a rival Western power. The British expeditions in the 19th century were aimed at ending Russian interference in the area, and the Soviets had to deal with US aid to the mujahedeen in the 20th century. The thing to worry about is not the hill people themselves but which power may be helping them.

yote19 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2009, 05:45:02 PM »

Like Iran or ....?

basketballdad · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2009, 10:27:36 PM »

Fan so true to a degree. But that part of the world has been fighting for centuries. There is no doubt that the type of assistance that can be provided is available. Some within the Pakistan government is sympathetic to their cause. Throw in other countries who would be willing to help, (Iran is a good one but not the only one), and we should not be so arrogant to think we are somehow different than the Soviet Union. They had shorter supply lines, more men and weaponry than we will ever be able to put in there. (see soldiers in Iraq). Not saying we can't win just that we have to be a lot smarter than previous countries. P.S. defiling dead bodies not really an American tradition. Doubt that will ever become part of the orders of battle.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2009, 07:24:38 PM »

>>>P.S. defiling dead bodies not really an American tradition. Doubt that will ever become part of the orders of battle. <<<

Remember the Hezbollah terrorists/Iranian mercenaries who taking Americans hostage in Lebanon in the 1980s? They got cocky and started doing the same thing with the Soviets. Kidnapped someone from the Russian embassey in Beirut and a family member of someone else. So the KGB went out and snatched half a dozen family members of Hezbollah leaders. Hezbollah was outraged, and cut off a couple of fingers and mailed them to the Russians. The KGB sent back several hands.
The Soviet hostages were released, and no more were taken.

Greater terror can be effective against terrorism. But, as BBD points out, it is not the American way.

Just like torture. It is not perfectly reliable, but it works most of the time. Proven, historical fact. Does not mean that America should use it.

However, there will come a point where we will have to use some distasteful methods to win against the terrorists. That is also a fact.

basketballdad · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:31:19 PM »

Then we become no different than they are. Just a matter of what side you are on.

elephant slayer · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2009, 11:51:44 PM »

I am almost sure the conservatives have forgotten their guru's proclamation-

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mission-accomplished.jpg

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2009, 03:22:33 PM »

Quote from: basketballdad on February 20, 2009, 11:31:19 PM

Then we become no different than they are. Just a matter of what side you are on.

That is an oft repeated fallacy.

basketballdad · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2009, 05:36:30 AM »

Sorry, I don't think so. I do agree with the President if our constitution and freedoms are not paramount then we are no different than those who have neither.

Islander · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2009, 12:06:08 AM »

Quote from: elephant slayer on February 27, 2009, 11:51:44 PM

I am almost sure the conservatives have forgotten their guru's proclamation-

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mission-accomplished.jpg

The mission accomplished statement is one the press has completely twisted. As a vertan of the United States Navy, when a ship deploys, the men and woman aboard consider it an honor to serve this country. At the end of that deployment, the unit will post a statement of "Mission Accomplished"

But let's use it in the context you choose. Pior to the war the left declared that this war was unwinable and we would suffer 10s of thousand of casualties in the intial battle with Saddam and his Army. The left was wrong and the mission was accomplished. The left then said we would not capture Saddam. The left was wrong. The left then said elections would not be impossible and again we saw the left was wrong. The left then said that the country would end up in a civil war, which came close but again it did not happen. The left then said that Iraq could would not support our surge and we could not gain their trust, we would fail. Mission Accomplished and finally you can take credit for bringing our troops home.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2009, 01:52:23 AM »

BBD,

Doing whatever unto the bad guys to win does not make us bad guys. Deliberately targeting the innocent - like the bad guys do - can make us bad guys. Responding in kind, to repeated tactics of the bad guys, IF THEY WORK, - does not neccessarily make us bad guys.

By your standards, when the bad guys use human shields, we should desist and retreat, rewarding the bad guys for their use of human shields. If we shot down every human shield with a .50 caliber bullet (illegal to deliberately use against human beings, have to aim at the weapon that is being held instead!), which would obviously pass right through the human shield and plow copioous chunks of flesh out of the bad guy using the human shield, then the bad guys would stop using human shields. Not out of any morality - which they do not have as we recognize it - but purely because it is not productive to their aims.

In the long run, that would save the lives of many more human shields than if we continued to encourage their use by the bad guys because we so often retreat in front of such tactics.

>>>Quote from: basketballdad on February 20, 2009, 11:31:19 PM
Then we become no different than they are. Just a matter of what side you are on.

That is an oft repeated fallacy.

Report to moderator 71.120.227.245

basketballdad
WPS Select Poster

Karma: +87/-88
[Wonderful] [Wicked]
Posts: 355

Re: What if we won a war and no one was told?
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 05:36:30 AM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I don't think so. I do agree with the President if our constitution and freedoms are not paramount then we are no different than those who have neither. <<<

basketballdad · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2009, 02:51:59 PM »

What price do you sell your conscience or soul for. I do agree that it might be effective but then we can be called the barbarians just like them. My price is higher than what you suggest.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2009, 04:22:10 PM »

Quote from: basketballdad on March 02, 2009, 02:51:59 PM

What price do you sell your conscience or soul for. I do agree that it might be effective but then we can be called the barbarians just like them. My price is higher than what you suggest.

So you would undertake policies that reward the illegal combatants for using human shields, you would undertake policies that would end up costing the lives of more innocents, policies that would cause more harm and damage to the Good Guys, and think that this is moral? That your soul is cleaner because of it?

basketballdad · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2009, 06:37:11 PM »

Yes in heartbeat. Would easily be able to live with myself than say I am no different than they are except for what side of the ocean I am living on. To me there has to be a difference between us beyond where we live, what alliance we are in, or what ecnomic reasons we fight for. Otherwise one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

EWSoccer64 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2009, 01:46:06 PM »

I'm afraid that I am not as heartless and uncaring as you are, BBD. It seems preferable to have the Good Guys win with the least cost in human lives, as quickly as possible. I cannot see how sacrificing more innocent men, women and children so that one can proudly proclaim "My hands are clean" is in any way moral.

>>>Yes in heartbeat. Would easily be able to live with myself than say I am no different than they are except for what side of the ocean I am living on. To me there has to be a difference between us beyond where we live, what alliance we are in, or what ecnomic reasons we fight for. Otherwise one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. <<<

Washington-OregonPremierSoccer.Com Forum

Author Topic: What if we won a war and no one was told? (Read 1304 times)