Iriemon

Sure seemed like the Govt gave it lots of attention to me.

Yes, brute force reduces the symptoms of crime/insurgency. But not the cause of it.

The Nazis used brute force in occupied Europe. The Soviets used brute force in Afghanistan. That suppressed but did not eliminated the insurgencies, and it died not eliminate the reasons for the insurgency, only magnified it.

The blunder was going in in the first place, based on your assertion of what were bald faced lies by this Administration about WMDs and the supposed threat they supposedly represented.

MSgt

Not the right kind of attention. Their attention was based on reaction. One can't win a war when one's government pretends that it is little more than a conflict. Whther or not we agree on what war is the proper war for us, when our government decides to take part in one or conduct one, it has the obligation to give our troops everything they need to win it. This is called full commitment. What if we hit Normandy with only half the troop strength we did because half was "good enough?" Or hit Iwo Jima with "just enough" troops? We have been playing this "good enough" game since WWII and this is why we keep running into problems that always go back to troop strength. This idea we have that we can send men into war for a limited period of time and then relieve them with fresh green troops is stupid. We did not deploy to the Pacific theater or to Europe with this idea that a 6 month pump between units would do the job. What should take a matter of a relatively easy few years always turns into a long drawn out and expensive violent expedition.

I didn't say anything about "brute" force. It doesn't require "brute" force. It requires presence and proper execution. The Nazis conquered. The Soviets sought to conquer. We were always going to leave. Our entire history proves this. Giving them the opportunity to vote on their new government proves this. The insurgency in Iraq got much of its recruits from the Iraqi youth who had absolutely nothing to do. They had no jobs. No way to feed their families. No gaurantee of security. Militias were formed in order to not only attack American troops, but to protect their families from rival tribes. This is because we failed to occupy correctly.


Yeah, yeah. That's the America that defines that shining capital on the hill right? Support the dictators for oil stability in the Middle East during the Cold War, but refuse to topple them after the Cold War when we can finally focus on fixing oppressed regions for fear of the stigma that we only did it for oil? This is twisted morality. Hiding behind Bush lies and WMDs only furthers this sense of denial that you have about this failing civilization we are up against.

The way to get long term security from WMDs is not to watch oppressed and brutal civilizations who support religious terror drive themselves straight to hell while seeking someone to blame.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Iriemon

I disagree with your assertion that the 550,000 deployed to Vietnam was based on what was "just enough".

Your claim that we were always going to leave is contradicted by Administration efforts to establish a permanent presence in Iraq.

I disagree with your assertion that the insurgency in Iraq is based on idle youth.


No, that is based upon your own assertion that the Administration knew that Iraq had no WMDs, and therefore deliberately lied to the public in order to justify a war that was otherwise unjustifiable.

The way to long term security is not attacking other nations based on bald faced lies, givening those who seek to foster support for hatred against the US perfect legitimacy.

MSgt

You just don't get it. And when did 550,000 get deployed? At one time or in increments as they decided that "just enough" wasn't good enough? The first deployments was in the hundreds and then the thousands and then the ten thousands. Each time the attitude was that it was "good enough." When they finally reached 550,000 they should have acknowledged that they should have deployed 550,00 to begin with. We would not have had to be in react mode for 7 years.

There is an old Army maxim: A lack of occupation troops inspires resistance. The result of this is finding ourselves deploying additional forces to support a troubled effort.

We were always going to leave in the capacity that we left Japan or Korea or Germany or Kuwait or the many other places the local governments have invited us to stay. Our base has nothing to do with controlling the country or the people. Nothing is contradicted. We did not go in as Nazis to conquer and to rule as you implied. We did not go in as imperialists as the Soviets did as you implied. We went in the same way we have always gone in. With every intention to give back with the possibility of leaving a base for future entanglements. We have never kept an inch of conquered territory abroad that wasn't offerred.

And what do you base your disagreement on? Good faith? It is a fact that much of the local resistance was made up of youth or out of work fathers that eventually tired of the idea that "utopia" was going to be delivered by the bare minimum of American troop strength. We couldn't protect them, they protected themselves. Some joined the international Al-Queda element. As things worsened, the locals became more angry with the situation.


Because human misery and terror is unjustifiable. Because acknowledging our responsibilities is unjustifiable. Because attempting to correct the path an entire civilization is on while blaming solely us and Jews is unjustifiable. We've heard it before Iriemon. Without WMDs pointed at us, the world can rot as long as we maintain our illusions of "peace" and happiness on the hill.

Heard it already. We should have stated that we are attacking Saddam Hussein because he deserved it long ago when we were too caught up in our fantasies about stability equaling peace and has since ignored his every snubbing at the UN. perhaps that would have broken people's sense of false morality. Then they could be honest and state that Iraqis matter as little as Africans do....but we care because we are the shining capital on the hill.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Orion

I sincerely hope you're right, but the cynic in me is doubtful. It's one thing to instill the ideas of democracy into a society, it's another to try and do it with a region that, for thousands of years, has been ruled by separate tribal associations who never seem to agree on anything. (Except for maybe that the infidels of the West need to be fought.) I question if the Middle East is culturally ready to accept Democracy for the longhaul, since traditionalism is still the status quo. Cultural shifts take generations, during which time Democracy can be overturned once more.

Like I said... hopeful but also doubtful.