Quote:
Originally Posted by JAD_333
The answer is so obvious that we gloss past it as if it was a pipedream. It's total commitment. That is to say, commitment of whatever it takes to turn the tide; only when the tide is turned can the commitment be deemed adequate. We are not at that point and have never been, in part because of the early Rumsfeld policy of limited commitment. You cannot fight a war or an insurgency successfully with a commitment limited by non-military considerations.
I don't see that it is too late yet, but if the waste inherent in partial measures continues, a withdrawal is not only inevitable, but ought to proceed immediately. Partial measures by their nature don't achieve lasting progress. They just bleed a nation dry of resources and will, and leave it impotent to deal with future threats. The US is becoming the mouse that roared. Lack of follow through is being added to its international profile.
We are in a dilemma. Apparent lack of lasting progress has swung public opinion around to where it believes we cannot succeed, yet it opposes the commitment necessary to succeed. Congress follows, as is expected in a representative democracy, by offering up an insipid compromise that simultaneously demands progress by fall but virtually blocks the level of commitment needed to achieve success. It's like continuing to build a highway that you know you won't finish.
The noises will continue to be noises because at this very moment there is no political will in Congress to fund the level of commitment needed to succeed. An October Surprise is always possible, a Gulf of Tonkin event to swing public opinion around. But I agree with you, it has to stop as it is. I feel the same way about Iraq as I did Vietnam. If we aren't willing to do what it takes to win, end it, for logically it makes no sense to continue when you know you are going to quit short of your goal.
Just a personal note. I take a hardline on fulfilling our objectives, whether they are military or political, for three reasons:
first, I believe it is more wasteful of time, material and life to put one foot in rather than two;
second, I believe the prevention of future conflicts depends heavily on the world's perception that we back up our threats to the hilt;
and third, I believe that following the principle of both-feet-in-or-none will make us much more selective in chosing when to use military force in the future.
Personal note: I am always uneasy shooting my mouth off about things that involve people dying when my life is not on the line. We have guys over there facing violent death everyday. I wonder what I would think about it all if I had to join them tomorrow. What do the military pros here think about it from their perspective--how the pols act and when public opinion is against what you're doing, so on?
|
First, your personal note: I do not believe you are any less a person-nor anyone lese here-by not being there and talking as you do. At the end of the day US troops need and deserve the support of loved ones at home. They put their lives on the line in admirable loyalty and commitment, and must be honored for it.
But I'm sorry. Everything you said is not relevant to the facts on the ground. You are talking as if it was a crusade against a fascist Hitler in the second world war. It isn't. This has nothing to do with fortitude or the commitment of the US armed forces, in fact, the dogged persistence of their presence in all this time proves that they are extremely commited to accomplishing operations and doing their given duties without any complaint.
But this is the solution to the wrong problem. Again, and I cannot stress this too much, the US administration simply is not understanding the Iraqis and is not trying to. It's like when a body is ravaged by an unknown fever and is being injected randomly by irrelevant serums that are only making things worse. Let's play the scenario and see what happens: Right now, the US army is facing Sunni insurgents, Shi'ite militias, foreign armed elements intent on killing Americans and 'infidels' and from what I know of Iraqis, they're probably starting to have trouble from Kurdish sepradists elements in the north, at the same time fighting each other...Let's say that Congress approves sending more troops, this solves nothing, unless the US policy is simply killing and butchering enough people til there is less of them fighting, something which leaders from the previous regime were arrested and hanged for doing, and in this case your 100,000 is not nearly enough anyway. In the meantime, Iraqi civilians who have absolutely nothing to do with all this are tired, ill-fed, sick and scared and are lacking the basic emenities of life, and those are the lucky ones who are not being killed on a daily basis who are beyond count, something which, and I am deeply sorry to have to say this, Iraqis did NOT suffer under Saddam hussien sadistic and inhumanly cruel dictator that he was...They are the real victims here of uninformed irresponsible descisions of hacks thousands of miles away sending their brave sons and daughters to kill and die with such an insignificant return it makes Vietnam resemble a soccer friendly. This isn't rhetoric or theory, the numbers and the situation on the ground speak for themselves. 3000 brave american soldiers die, civilians are massacared on a daily basis in numbers so large and beyond count they lost meaning, property and infrastructure destroyed so badly the populace live like medeival serfs, 'officials' are either corrupt or ill-suited for their jobs, and I wish there improvement prospects, there aren't. And what 'solution' is that imbecile Bush contemplating? Sending in more troops.
I have been an analyst for a long time, and I have known the region and its people for far longer, and I have never studied or seen anything like this so-called 'stick to the course' policy followed and its disastrous effects. it is so incredibly irresponsible and uninformed and incompetent and stubborn to the point of being criminal. Even if one does take it by the merits, nothing and I mean nothing is worth this unmitigated catastrophe. What's the point of trying to bring civilized human values such as sufferage if while you're trying to do it people are subjected to such barbaric destruction and genocide?
Even on a strictly military and strategic point of view the merits are meaningless: All rhetoric aside, the American servicemen and women there are performing their tasks with effeciency and devotion admirably, but to what? They are like the referee who is constatly being betrayed and attacked by the sides he is arbiting. Strategic objectives cannot exist simply because the conditions on the ground won't let you form any, so what's the point or even long-term goals of offensive operations to be obtained by the forces already there, let alone sending more troops? There are none.
I am sorry, but there it is. This is a long post, and I can just go on and on for far longer giving a point-by-point specific account on why this whole sorry affair is a complete disaster on all terms humanitarian and practical, but the bottom line is : For this to start improving the one thing it does NOT need is further irritation by sending in more guns, and what's more, everybody's starting to see it, including americans. You only have to look at polls to see it.