BaronVonUlm

Inform us....As I recall, the Turks established three "provinces" that cover modern Iraq. When Ottoman rule began to decline, they were willing to grant the German Kaiser economic hegemony in the region (Baghdad Railway) and oil concessions. If I recall, Turkish administration outside the cities was more or less hands-off. They hoped for pan-Islamic feelings to work to the advantage of Constantinople.

Do correct me if I am wrong here. Perhaps I do need a refresher on Turkey-in-Mesopotamia.

Big K

i am no historian so i am afraid to give wrong infos but only some conceptual approachs (and i promise i'll study about this subject in Turkish archives but i need time )
i'll try my best.

we have to start studying from 1500's beginning of Ottoman rule. infact the word "rule" is not enough to determine. from my point of wiew Ottomans are more succesful because they were there "not to rule but to live with"

From Wiki:
"Under Ottoman rule the major religious groups were allowed to establish their own communities, called millets, each retaining its own religious laws, traditions, and language under the general protection of the sultan. Millets were led by religious chiefs, who served as secular as well as religious leaders and thus had a substantial interest in the continuation of Ottoman rule. After conquering Constantinople, Mehmed II used his army to restore its physical structure. Old buildings were repaired, streets, aqueducts, and bridges were constructed, sanitary facilities were modernised, and a vast supply system was established to provide for the city's inhabitants.

Ultimately, the Ottoman Empire's relatively high degree of tolerance for ethnic differences proved to be one of its greatest strengths in integrating the new regions until the rise of nationalism (this non-assimilative policy became a weakness during the dissolution of the empire that neither the first or second parliaments could successfully address)."

but betrayal of Arabs, during the last days of Empire, during the defense of Mekke will show you their alignements and dissolve the argument of "pan-islamism"

now i have to go home later we will continue?

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli

Garry

Hi BaronVonUlm, is that your feeling about September 2007? I mean can Petraeus have a year (till 1Q2008)....

In my view expecting results in first 6 month after reinforcement is too early.... they need at least a year

BaronVonUlm

Absolutely. I am enjoying this very much. I actually think you and me agree on this whole bloody issue. It seems to me, that if one really examines Turkish rule in the whole of what is now Iraq, it can only be called a success. It ruled slightly, not getting too involved in local issues of the residents. The post-Great War Hashimite Monarchy, tainted with British Imperialism, never could get it right. Iraq even sought aid from Berlin at one point to get rid of the British. Bad move. Nazi Imperialism would have been far worse than British, I assure you. Only the Baath Dictatorship, which had no problem killing any and all opponents, kept some semblance of order. General Petraeus will never (and can never) do that. Frankly, the United States should have killed a lot more people in 2003-2004 than we did. Real "Shock and Awe." That is hindsight. Can not go back and do it now. So, we continue to fight and we could still pull out a win here.

In the Phillipine War of 1899-1905, the United States finally did pull out a win under similar circumstances. But, we did get rather ruthless to do it. We need that here with the surge.

On another point: my great-great-uncle was on a survey team sent by the Germans to do survey work on the Baghdad Railway. He was actually in Ottoman Mesopotamia. I wish he could talk to me now. He later served in the Great War in the Bavarian Army on the staff of HRH Crown Prince Rupprecht. He was killed near Verdun (France) in the summer of 1916.

BaronVonUlm

His Excellency The President has told us that is what we must expect. Since he is the C-in-C, I defer to Him. I simply say I hope (and I pray) we shall have a good report from D. Petraeus at the front. If General Petraeus does not give such a report, the war is completely lost.

Then the USA will no longer be a great military power.

BudW

I dont see the war as a loss,the USA removed Sadamm and prevented Sadamm from developing wmd,I dont recall building a Country as part of the mission.

BaronVonUlm

It was not, it should not be and IT IS.....The people say it. Regime change was once the goal post, now it is moved. The oposition moved it. We allowed this. Now, what does this mean?? I am hoping for a good report from General Petraeus!!!

FibrillatorD

When you have a cousin and a good friend living ten thousand miles away in the middle of a civil war, another who might be on his way, and when you haven't seen them for months and you wonder how many people they've had to kill or how close bullets have come to their faces, and you wonder what kind of shape they'll be in when they return, your sleep suffers.

There are millions of Americans shouldering a similar burden. Some have to deal with losing their loved ones. I haven't, so far. (do I really have to explain this?).

You start to think about the cumulative toll. You start to crunch the numbers and just after you calculate a statistic that you hope will ease your mind, the casualties have gone up by 2 or 3 or 30. Its exhausting.

Kevin Brown

We did however accomplish part of the Iraq mission which was to topple Saddam, however I clearly think we are going to fail to prop up a democracy, Like I said we went into this thing with too many wild expections of a post-Saddam Iraq and didn't have a plan for anything that could go wrong during the reconstruction, Also we made critcal errors like disbanding the Iraq army and some of the sercurity forces which deined us of a useful resource. On a diffrent note if a Democrat gets elected in 08 where going to be withfrawing from there anyways.

Shek

FibD,

My thoughts and prayers go out for your cousin and good friend. However, I would offer up that you are the statistical abnormality in the United States, and your figure of millions (not tens of millions) is probably about right.

Thus, for the vast majority of Americans, I find it hard to believe that they are really exhausted about OIF. Over the war bond drives that haven't occured? Over the increase in taxes that haven't occured? Over the food rationing that hasn't occured? Not that I'm arguing that any of the prior are needed, but the best that I can come up with is that the only thing many folks can be tired off is a few minutes of news each night about Iraq, an occasional front page article, and maybe having to replace their $2.99 yellow magnetic ribbon (because committing to a permanent sticker is much too permanent).

So, I find it mildly amusing when I look at Iraq from a detached view at how fired up some people get over something that really doesn't affect them much at all, and so I don't buy into the "America is exhausted" argument.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

astralis

economically speaking, this war is a relatively low-cost war, thanks to the size of our GDP.

however, within the current budgetary and manpower constraints which we have on the military today, the strain is starting to grow. i fear the worst effect of the war is that it has weakened america's military deterrent in the short-medium term. even assuming we get out within a year or two, i believe it would take quite a while before the U.S. can rebuild its pre-positioned stocks and rest/train its soldiers. even more seriously, the difference between the way the war was sold and the reality today will prove to be a major hamstring- for any president- if and when we need to fight the next one.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Shek

Kill who? Non-combatants?

Actually, our COIN efforts were really good in the PI, with "benevolent assimilation" providing a solid population centric strategic around which operations centered. While ruthless tactics did exist and were sometimes productive, they also severely harmed the war effort on the domestic front, although not quick enough to result in a withdrawal. Democracies aren't too happy when their forces torture the enemy.

Also, curious on how you date it from 1899-1905, given that TR declared victory on the Fourth of July in 1902 and "brought the boys home" except for the colonial garrisoning forces?

Lastly, given the successes of units under the command of COL McFarland, LTC Alford, and others in Anbar over the past two years such that Anbar had a day last week without a single attack, it is quite clear that it's not ruthlessness that is needed, but rather, the ability to work within the culture and environment that we find ourselves deployed in.

FibrillatorD

On the subject of war bonds and national drives in support of the cause, why haven't these kinds of things happened?

I mean, don't you think Americans would rally around campaigns like "War bonds for armored humvees" or "Food for troops?" -Something along those lines?

I have to think the climate in America after 9/11, and up through the Iraq invasion was something like it was during WWII when FDR and Truman rallied the American people into fuller support by doing the kinds of things stated above.

Ever see the David Letterman bit called "Great moments in presidential speeches?" Why haven't we seen any of that with Iraq? Could it be that even Bush doesn't have the gall to approach Americans and ask for help with a war like this? Could it be that he wasn't confident enough in the justness of the cause, and its relation to 9/11 to confront the American people as FDR, Truman, and even LBJ and Kennedy did before him?

(I'm just thinking out loud here. And I see where you're coming from, but in terms of reducing the costs of declining public support, I think the kind of mass campaigns I'm talking about would do well to galvanize the citizenry around the cause. So the absence of such campaigns from OIF is a bit of a quandary, methinks.)

Bluesman

You have just described the single most important failure of the entire effort.

NOTHING else compares to the primacy of public opinion - American, Iraqi, and World. And we've done dismally on that battlefield. Our troops are matchless, our system, for all its flaws, is superior in every way.

But the war for the minds of combatants and citizens has been fought by one side only...and it wasn't ours.

There were so many, many things that could and should have been done to shore up our own people, to neutralize the defeatism of the opposition party, to bring world leaders and their peoples to the understanding that America must not fail and to convince the enemy that they could not win. But we thought that beating the forces in the field would wrap up our problem, and then democracy would flourish.

So we beat 'em. Then, we had to beat 'em again. And AGAIN. And we've been beating them every single day, but not on the battlefield that counts most. The most crucial piece of key terrain is heavily garrisoned by the enemy, and our heaviest artillery is useless against the fortifications they've erected on the highest of high ground: the human spirit and its twin peak, the human mind.

Our own people are now so used to seeing the war as a hopeless quagmire that when the Majority Leader in the US Senate declares our defeat, instead of an instantaneous and enraged reaction from our People that drives him from office in disgrace, we get a call to debate the matter.

We can only lose if we choose defeat, and more and more of our own people and the people of the world are choosing to lose. It's heart-breaking, and the blame goes to our leadership, from both both parties, as well as a largely ignorant public, and the media that feed them a steady diet of defeatism.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

FibrillatorD

... hence the signature