Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The War in Iraq is won

It's the after-war turmoil that the Democrats are seizing on to make stupid statements like "The War is lost.'

when you defeat a nation's army, depose its leaders, and occupy the country, then you've won the war. To say the troops who accomplished this in such a professional manner did not win the war is absurd and demeaning to the troops.

Politicians are looking at the political side, and saying the war is lost from a political view. This is what happened after Tet in 1968, and they're repeating the same old story.

We won the war. By any definition, except a Democrat who's running for President, or trying to elevate his party by criticizing the troops.

Unfortunately, I think, the current Administration expected the military to also run the country after the war. I'm not exactly sure what they thought, but whatever plans they had for after the were not well-considered, as apparently they had no contingency for chaos, although there always is after a war. Rnning countries is not the role for the military; it's the role for government.

You are right on both counts Gene L : the war has been won and it was won very quickly and very efficiently.

However one thing remains to be done : to win the peace ! That is where things become more difficult and more confused. You noticed that too.

What can be done from here is a very open question.

Can it end with a situation that is better than the situation ante ? That is very doubtful at this stage. In the meantime, the "peace" or rather the "civil unrest" or worse requires to keep troops in alert and involves very considerable direct and indirect costs both economic (not to forget the increased cost of oil), political and human.

Not an easy situation, no clear solution in view, no clear calendar is possible...

On top of that the political opposition does not seem to see the situation as one of national importance, thus requiring national cooperation, rather than an opportunity for self-serving political intrigues and personal ambitions...

Yes, this is a war like no other in our history, a war where more Iraqis die everyday by a 100 to 1 margin, but it is us that are losing the war..go figure.

It is supposedly the United States the insurgents are fighting and want to leave Iraq, so they kill Iraqis to accomplish this?

You would think the goal by the insurgents would be to get the USA to leave by winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, not blow them up. It makes no sense that their strategy is working.

How long can we continue the "war" in Iraq at the present rate of spending,(money) ?

Sort of irrelevant to the issue, but I'll counterquestion: How long did we stay in Germany after WW II.

Not a comment on politics or reason,just curious!

No, I took it as a serious question.

I guess the answer depends on how much Congress is willing to spend. The money is there; how it is spent is the perogative of Congress. Usually it goes to projects like "The Big Dig." Pork.

We've still got troops in Germany. Are they worth the cost? I would have to say yes, although their value over there has lessened after the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't know, but I'll bet they played a part in the Wall being torn down and the fall of Communism.

After WW II, German "Werewolf" terrorists continued to operate, but they were finally either killed or left the country.

What Congress isn't asking itself is "Do we have a need to be in the Middle EAst?" Or, if they are asking, their answer is "No." I think we do. We have at least as much reason to be in the Mid East as we do in Germany.

If we had the same attitude in 1945 and had pulled out, the Soviet Union would be ruling the Continent by now.

I would think the first thing we need to do is seal the borders! Kinda like at home.

That ain't gonna happen, and doesn't involve the miilitary. In any case, it's nothing to do with Iraq and the troops.

But it is a great idea that hardly anyone in Washington supports.

Resupply?

Yup, Gene L you are right.

Barkoff, this war is just like many wars in our nation's history. The problem is that apparently nobody in the Bush administration has ever read any military history. MacArthur essentially became the Prime Minster of Japan under the Japanese Emperor. Patton, until he was fired, was the military dictator of Germany. Both men put in place the same civil bureaucrats that were in place before the war. Patton said that they knew how to get the German infrastructure going again.

The point is we won the Iraq war. Upon the completion of the war we should have put a five star general in place as a military dictator with the power to maintain the peace. Trying to establish a democracy in a country that has never know anything but a dictator is pure folly (stupid)in my opinion.

Unfortunately, we are committed until we are finished as a nation. We can't leave and we can't stay. Because the Administration had no idea of what it would do once we had won the war we will drain our Treasury of both money and lives until there is nothing left. It makes no difference which political Party wins the next election we will have to stay until we cease to exist as a nation. I have said that this war is the last war the nation will ever fight because once this war is declared over the nation will be over too.

My brother is an officer in the 101st and according to him the most troubling thing on the minds of the guys serving in Iraq isnt beating the insurgents, its the possibility of not being allowed to beat them.
They want to finish the job and come home as winners and I think we owe them the full victory for the hard work they have done. To do as Hillary wants to do is to dishonor them and demean what they have done.

One of the big problems over in Iraq is that the planner (Rumsfelt) Thought the expatriot Iraqis would go back and take over the Government, not realizing that the population of Iraq is really much more devided than we are here. We have a few deluded folk who still are fighting the civil war oe would be and others who would like to start a new one due to racial predjudices. But in Iraq there are folks still fighting fueds and wars from a thousand years ago, they have had a religouse war going for close to two thousand years between muslim sects not to mention the religouse predjudice muslims have against any non muslims.Sadam was able to rule by keeping a balance between the warring groups, we took the contry over and are seen to be backing one side the Shia, but they are getting anti American propaganda from the shia mullahs in Iran, this is if you can imagine the inqusition of the 11 th through the 16th century in Europe one Catholic sect, the jesuits had taken over the Catholic Church and were makeing sure every Catholic followed Jesuit doctrine, any suspected unbelievers were put to the "test"This included any one who wasa suspected of being Muslim, Jew, or Reformer, as well as suspected witches. They were inprisoned tortured and burned at the stake in order to make them recant the counter Jesuit beliefs they held. I realize that now we cannot hardly imagine any Cristians doing these things but it did go on for over four hundred years.But since the Christain reformation we are a lot more tolerant to other beliefs.Even with in our own ranks, but not so much in the middle east, While many Muslims say they are "moderate" if a Immam starts preaching against any unbelievers that can be taken up by other Imams and a Jihad started. This is what we really are fighting in the middle east now. Wahabbii is a sect that has grown in the last century in the middle east, it is vey intollerant towards other beliefs even with in the Muslim ranks, sort of like communisim, but with the religion component thrown in. They want to rule the world through the Imams they tell the Governments and the people what to do and how to act. PERIOD.

Could you put the Wahabi sect into context please? Such as where would they fit if they were a Christian sect. Where do they fit into the Shiite's and Sunni's scheme of things? No offenses to Christians just that we all know Christianity so I thought we might understand things better.

Thanks.

William S Lind called it pretty close back in 2004 with his description of the aspects of what he has termed "Fourth Generation War".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html

I found this paragraph to be especially insightful.

As I have said before in this column, most of what we are facing in Iraq today is not yet Fourth Generation warfare, but a War of National Liberation, fought by people whose goal is to restore a Baathist state. But as that goal fades and those forces splinter, Fourth Generation war will come more and more to the fore. What will characterize it is not vast changes in how the enemy fights, but rather in who fights and what they fight for. The change in who fights makes it difficult for us to tell friend from foe. A good example is the advent of female suicide bombers; do U.S. troops now start frisking every Moslem woman they encounter? The change in what our enemies fight for makes impossible the political compromises that are necessary to ending any war. We find that when it comes to making peace, we have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. And the end of a war like that in Iraq becomes inevitable: the local state we attacked vanishes, leaving behind either a stateless region (Somalia) or a fa�ade of a state (Afghanistan) within which more non-state elements rise and fight.

coming up on 62 years, and counting.

It was foolish of us to get in this fix. Once the Iraqi army was defeated we should have packed up and come home. If the Iraqia decided to kill each other, so what? That is what they are doing now.

If another tyrannical Iraqi leader rises to fill Saddam's shoes in another 15-20 years, so what. Go back then and crush them again.

It would be cheaper both in terms of maney and blood than a protracted occupation (peacekeeping/). Let the Iraqis keep their own peace.

I supported the initial invasion. I think Saddam and his regime should have been toppled during the Gulf War but the UN and its sycophants would have nothing of it. Instead we let a Dictator get away with invading and annexing another country. What sort of example is that? How much deterrent effect is there from that? It was like telling a bankrobber or kidnapper they could go free as long as they returned their ill gained loot.

Fighting wars we are good at. Peacekeeping we are not good at. A long established military/political principle is to know your enemy and play to your strengths and his weaknesses.

When are we going to start?

If you want an excellent account of how it was won, read Thunder Run by David Zucchino. Awesome book.

An example?

This would be like the Chinese killing North Koreans in an effort to get the US out of Korea. If the left in this country wouldn't give this strategy merit it would be laughed at for what it is.