U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    This is, of course, no surprise...sooner or later, a formal acknowledgement of the obvious had to come...the realities are beyond the scope of spin.

    As to how this will play politically, especially in regards to the Presidential Race, is hard to say.

    If I were the Kerry Campaign, I would sieze upon this as an issue worth discussion.

    I do not believe the Bush Campaign can spin away all the damaging things the man has done as a politician, or as a President.

    As to what this means to Iraqis or US soldiers...
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    It certainly shows the difficulty of breaking a foe's will when an all-out effort can't be made. It's not like WW II where an "enclave" would have just been flattened, regardless of non-combatant deaths and injuries.

    The use of smart bombs on a limited target requires good Intel, and if not rapidly acquired and disseminated the targeting is a slow process.

    It's also a slow process to wait until you're shot at before declaring somebody an enemy and then trying to kill him.

    Over the long haul, only the Iraqis can determine which group comes out on top; all we can do is carry the great majority of the load on an interim basis.

    'Rat
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    The argument that if lethal force doesn't work, it's because you're not using enough of it, falls flat in the face of examples like Gaza, Grozny and Stalingrad.

    You have created the load. You "own" the load. And don't forget that exactly the same thing has happened in Afghanistan, too. Both situations are examples of what happens when you take your eye off the ball. Both could have been avoided if anyone had had the semblance of a plan.
     
  5. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #5
    Quite right, Rat. It's not like WW2 in any way. Germany was an aggressor. Iraq has been occupied without a UN mandate.

    Following the debacle over the WMD "intelligence" used in an attempt to justify military action, the suggestion that such "intel" be used to target "smart" bombs would be laughable if the likely consequences were not so horrific.

    You're also right that it's only the Iraqis who can determine the outcome. That's one hell of a gamble for the US to take with the lives of their own troops and the lives of Iraqis civilians who they are purporting to help.
     
  6. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    rat - no one's disputing that war is difficult. it's what many of us have been saying since before the invasion.

    what's amazing to me:
    1. the reality is wholly different from how the war was sold
    2. no one seems to remember that
    3. the message from the WH continues to be that everything is going fine
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    It's just not possible to impose rule on people who don't want you there. Even if you can take over, there will always be someone in an alley that will pop up and slit your throat just for being there. That kind of attack can't be countered without the 'no holds barred' kind of occupation 'Rat alludes to.

    But do you want to see your country use those tactics 'Rat?
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Touche... Although Britain's hands aren't exactly clean of that behavior either.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    "The argument that if lethal force doesn't work, it's because you're not using enough of it, falls flat in the face of examples like Gaza, Grozny and Stalingrad."

    Not an appropriate comparison. Relative weaponry, disparity of forces...

    You might have noticed, skunk, that modern tactics don't call for a toe-to-toe slugfest.

    toontra, there's a lot of eyeball-radio liason. USAF guys on the ground with the infantry, spotting, radioing and then laser-designating targets. A lesson learned in Afghanistan. Cuts out all that up-and-down the chain of command. Tactical intel, not spook-stuff.

    I'm not referring to no-holds-barred occupation mac. I was just commenting on the difference in procedure between the present and the past, between "hair, teeth and eyeballs" and comparative, repeat comparative, surgical precision. The last thing we want is any sort of nhb occupation. Getting the shooting down to no more than your sporadic "back-alley" stuff and then the Iraqis themselves are welcome to it all.

    Where the planners erred (obviously) is in the amount of action from the Saddamites. We're stuck with that, like it or not. We either do whatever can be done to end it, or we bail out. The first option ain't fun; the second is far worse.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page