lulldapull

Good God! I never thought about it, but these peace creeps are already comparing this Falluja to God-damn Tet offensive!, and Mai La to God-damn Abu- Gharaib! And the lying and deceptive LBJ to our buddy Dubbya! .... I agree there are similarities, but once again....it all depends on if Dubbya lives up to his "pledge" after 9-11, where he said.....We have infinite resolve...and infinite patience!

Anyway check out the last para, where he mentions that the resolve will be destroyed and we will be forced into an introverted country much like in the 30's! So Iran and Syria or NK campaigns will not materialize!


America Defeated in Iraq
by Jerry Harris

Just like Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense, George Bush is dead, he just doesn’t know it yet. The America century hardly left the gate before its marines were retreating from Fullujah. In Viet-Nam it was the Tet Offensive and the massacre at My Lai that striped US strategy of all pretension, in Iraq its been Fullujah and Abu Ghraib. The only difference being in Viet-Nam those disasters happen almost two years apart, not two weeks.

The 1968 Tet Offensive lasted a month with fighting in every corner of South Viet-Nam. That happen as President Johnson was telling the world the “light at the end of the tunnel” could be seen. Instead of the fighting being nearly over every American suddenly knew we had been lied to. The war was going to get ugly, long and painful. That was the beginning of the credibility gap that undercut government legitimacy. Fullujah has had the same impact today. As marines tore down their sand bunkers and dismantled their barbed wire perimeters General Myers was on T.V. stating this wasn’t a retreat. Yet every condition for victory was not met. No turn over of those responsible for the killing of the four US mercenaries, no capture of foreign fighters and no surrender of weapons. Fullujah, as Tet, revealed extensive popular support for the insurgency against the US occupation. As the military began to level Fullujah with missiles you could almost hear that colonel back in Viet-Nam who said we had to “destroy the village to save it.” Yes, things are going to get ugly, long and painful.

Talk about pain, the photos from Abu Ghraib say it all. Just as the killing of
over 500 innocent civilians at My Lai ended any remaining legitimacy for the US occupation of Viet-Nam; Abu Ghraib has demolished Bush’s last remaining excuse for the current occupation. Few can now believe the US is spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. The My Lai massacre remained hidden for almost a year until an individual solider exposed the horror. How similar to the current situation in which the Pentagon ignored reports of widespread torture and abuse throughout Iraq until a lone soldier supplied photos to CBS. As with My Lai the Pentagon is attempting damage control by blaming those in lower ranks.

Political leaders have been quick to cry this doesn’t represent America. But it does certainly represent an aspect of our society, an aspect brought out by the violent and racist policies of imperialism. All one has to do is turn on right-wing talk radio to listen to the self-righteous anger and excuses. As one caller stated about the sexual degradation at Abu Ghraib, it was nothing more than “fraternity pictures.” If this is what they’ve been doing at Yale’s Skull and Crossbones all these years no wonder they’ve keep it such a secrete.

Even if Bush wins the election in November he cannot now launch another war against Syria or Iran. Bombings, maybe yes. But land invasions and remaking the Middle East in America’s neoconservative image, that plan is buried in Iraq. The fall of Ahmad Chalabi is an indication of how badly things have turned out for the neo-conservative cadre core. This tightly knit group of policy makers pushed a strategy that detailed an American century lorded over by the military, starting in the Middle East and ending with the world. Chalabi was to be their “George Washington,” running a neo-liberal regime in Iraq for US interests. But neo-conservative predictions of an easy victory with welcoming Iraqis showering flowers on America troops turned into a quagmire of guerrilla war. Abu Ghraib deprived the neo-conservatives of their last argument for remaking the Middle East with a benevolent US occupation. Not only did this weaken the neo-conservative Pentagon fraction of Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Douglass Feith and Stephen Cambone, it also undercut their main protector Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are both old school Republican realists. But they were taken with much of the neo-conservative vision of US hegemony in a post-Soviet world. On the otherhand Colin Powell is lined-up with the mainstream realists of the Republican Party foreign policy establishment that ran the show under George Bush during Desert Storm. They believe in US leadership, but leadership means leading someone besides your own military. Multilateral coalitions still play an important part in their worldview, unlike the unilateral policy of the present White House. Another important aspect of realist thinking is keeping your eyes focused on key US interests. That means stability in Iraq not a campaign for democracy and remaking the Middle East. So if deals need to be made with old Ba’athist to quite Fullujah you do it. You work with whoever serves US interests in the short term and worry about the rest later. This policy is gaining the upper hand in Iraq and symbolized by the attack and isolation of the neo-conservative’s main operative, Ahmad Chalabi.

Another important element that has put US imperial ambitions on hold is the debate over the size and nature of the military. Rumsfeld has been a major proponent of the Revolution in Military Affairs doctrine. This calls for a smaller military built around information technology. The idea is to move away from the massive W.W. II military of the past into a computer age of smart weapons. Ideally it will make the military more flexible and effective, needing fewer troops to accomplish more.

The first big test was the war in Iraq. This was the basis for the debate between General Zini and Rumsfeld when Zini said the US would need at least 250,000 troops to control Iraq. Zini was keeping faith with the Powell doctrine developed after Viet-Nam that says you go to war with overwhelming force. But Rumsfeld argued overwhelming force no longer meant troops on the ground but a technologically driven war that would create “shock and awe.” The quick victory in Iraq gave credence to the new doctrine and gave Rumsfeld an additional advantage to argue the Pentagon should control the post-conflict situation, not Powell’s State Department. But as the war evolved into an urban guerrilla conflict the US technological advantage began to mean less.

Certainly no military in the world can stand toe to toe with the US without being battered and destroyed. But as shown in Viet-Nam, the best resistance is popular guerrilla insurgency. Yet in comparing the guerrilla force in Iraq to those in Viet-Nam the weakness of the current US force becomes starkly evident. The resistance in Iraq has no central leadership and is organizationally splintered, it enjoys limited support confined mainly to certain urban areas, it enjoys no open friendly borders, and the country itself is politically, religiously and ethnically divided. Compared to Viet-Nam this should be a cakewalk yet the US occupation cannot secure the country.

Rumsfeld’s small military force of 135,000 troops can not control the battle environment or the social situation. Without significant allies the US finds its military stretched to the breaking point. The Pentagon has now turned to forcing soldiers into service beyond their contracts and pulling troops out of South Korea to fill gaps in Iraq. Morale is down as is recruitment. All this has played against the neo-conservatives and hard line realists as their critics inside the Pentagon and State Department move to try and salvage the situation.

The big question now is when do US troops leave, not when do they march into Syria or Iran.

This has produced some serious strategic problems for US imperialism. The US not only needs smart technology, but also troops to oversee an empire and convince people that the American way is the best of all possible worlds. The inability to successfully occupy Iraq has exposed US weakness and policy makers are now faced with a number of choices. There are several ways to increase the size of the military. A draft is most obvious but the most politically explosive. The draftee army in Viet-Nam fell apart with widespread drug use, refusal to engage the enemy and growing armed attacks on officers by enlisted men. When Bush announced his war on terrorism he asked the American people to help by shopping more, hardly the type of sacrifice that turns American teens into soldiers. A draft is probably the last choice of any Washington politician who has hopes of reelection.

The choice that is currently in use is to privatize many military functions. Essentially this policy aims to create a neo-liberal army reduced to its core efficiencies of killing people and winning battles. All other functions are outsourced to contractors. This corresponds to Rumsfeld’s vision of a smaller strike force. Logistics become privatized so you can reduce the number of troops and military training and strategy can concentrate on fighting. It is truly neo-liberal economics applied to military institutions. But this has begun to raise serious questions over command and control structures and legal questions over accountability. The involvement of private contractors in the Abu Ghraib tortures is one telling incident that has many people troubled in and out of Washington. In the final analysis privatization of logistics and some security duties still does not solve the need for more troops on the ground.

Lastly the US can turn back to multilateralism, working with allies and the United Nations to achieve stability for global capital. This would mean surrendering a certain amount of autonomy and recognizing the limits of US power. Something the nationalist wing of the US capitalist class finds abhorrent. But this approach fits the strategy of the globalist section of US capitalism. It includes nation building, military civic engagement and sharing the responsibilities of control. Policies articulated by President Clinton and those from the military like General Wesley Clark. If Bush wins the presidency we may get a hybrid policy preferred by Powell and the realists who reject nation building and civic engagement, but still support a US lead multilateral world.

Just as US imperialism was forced into retreat after Viet-Nam there is a chance that political and military leaders will be very cautious about unilateral engagement for the next decade. Too much has gone wrong on the neo-conservative path to power. Not the least of which is the weakness of a small volunteer military even armed with the best technology in the world. Once again the lesson that war is politics needs to be learned. No one doubts that the US can level every city in Iraq. But wars aren’t won by body counts and rubble. If so the US certainly won in Viet-Nam. Wars are all about political and economic control and geopolitical security, but those goals are achievable only with strategic legitimacy for the broader political project. Once you are viewed as an occupier and oppressor unending resistance will follow your every footstep until the tents come down and the troops go home.

Lucien LaCroix

I don't know the political leanings of Mr. Harris, but I must admit that I agree with about 99 percent of what he says in the article. And this comes from a diehard conservative.

I admit to the rejection of the broad-stroked brush he aims at what he calls "American imperialism," yet much of the substance of his other comments holds true.

This war has been such a waste of virtually everything America stands for--and has fought and died for. Perhaps what it has been most a waste of is true conservatism, not the neoconservatism that he so correctly cites in his article.

And what angers me most of all about our populace, our political system, and the integrity of our nation is that Republicanism, which once TRULY symbolized conservatism, has been hijacked by neoconservatives anxious to show how much they can diversify conservatism. And the watering down process is having a devastating effect--both domestically and internationally.

I supported our INITIAL goals in launching this war. I could even support it after discovering some sort of aggregious intelligence error--provided it was owned up to with a modicum of integrity. But what I cannot support is the paving of the way toward Iraqi 'democracy' using the blood of our American troops simply to validate a last-minute change in political agenda to encompass the 'freedom' of a people who, for the most part, don't have a clue as to America's idea of freedom and democracy.

__________________
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."

lulldapull

Damnit Lucien! I was hoping that you are a lefty! or at least a "covert" lefty.....waitin for the opportune moment to drop the ball on them god-damn Neocons!

btw...I totally agree with you...... aside from some ridiculous generalizations and propaganda statements......much of the content is dead on!

Even I get sober once you ponder over those impendig retreats or them lack of action on the well publicised and chalked out plans! Have they amounted to mere rhetoric now, after the blunting of the Neocons in Iraq? ....and how are impending actions will be percieved throughout the world.....specially by them A-raanbs!

Lucien LaCroix

Are you kidding me??? ME...a lefty? I'm so damn conservative--a TRUE conservative--that I make Ronald Reagan seem like a "New Dealer." I'd like to think my posts on other thread have at least dropped a hint as to that identity (assuming you have read any of them).

Conservatism, TRUE conservatism, should embody the truth above all else. Anything less is a waste. In this case it is, very, very sadly, a waste of American soldiers.

I grieve for what has become of this country, and of the corruption, the infection, that has gripped the conservative movement. I have been banned from other online discussion boards because of my failure to wave the flag prominently enough for the taste for the neoconservative posters.

They had no problem waving the flag in the belief that this country's virility and integrity were best served by the intellectually dishonest filling of our cemetaries with war dead.

That sounds harsh...and it is. But so is the unnecessary death of American soldiers cloaked in some sort of do-gooder, flag-waving, "give the world democracy," mantra.

lulldapull

yeah man! No kidding! ....its a sad time for this pathetic situation in iraq. Iam just waiting for the day when we can leave that country, and relieve everyone of their sufferings! What a horrible demise to the neocon doctrine!

P.S. Just like you I was cheerin too when that Saddam statue came down! Back then I refused to believe that there were ulterior motives for these new wars! But it was the 9-11 euphoria and fog that had gripped everyone, and gave these neocon lying bastards an excuse to wage war for nothing else but greed and the quest for power! nothing else!

What a disgrace these guys have turned out to be!

Btw. I will disagree with you on Reagan! I reserve a special type of hate for that guy! He's the biggest raeson why we are facing these problems today...in his quest for revenge and power play with the Soviets, pakistan got fukked too!, when he imported all these virulent camel jockey terrorists and dumped them in pakistan. the creator and inventor of international jihad inc. I'll never forgive that bastard! INMO he was the biggest terrorist of the 2oth century! Right up there with Hitler and Stalin! May he rot in his grave!

Lucien LaCroix

I don't know that there were ulterior motives--unless you count the idea that Saddam was going to get caught red-handed regardless of what the intelligence data said about his current activities. And I don't agree that it was about greed and a quest for power--at least not in the traditional sense. I believe that it was about being all things to all people--a neoconservative, "kinder, gentler nation" philosophy espoused by those who have come to believe that military prowess is the ultimate achievement for America (because they don't have the courage or brains to adhere to a true conservative philosophy).

While I admit to ignorance as to your allegations about Pakistan and its terrorist problems, I would never go so far as to compare the man to Hitler and Stalin. I believe we need to keep such discussions on an even keel. Those two men managed to kill, with deliberate malice aforethought, some 60 million people. Of course, it isn't just about the numbers. But the difference in their political philosophies makes it clear that there is such a thing as realtivity. So, you and I part company on this point. Reagan had some good, truly conservative ideas. Unfortunately, his domestic policies didn't always embody those ideas. For that, I blame both a Democratic-dominated Congress and his inability to push hard enough for a conservative agenda.

Please don't confuse me with some malcontent boat-rocker who rocks the boat just to see the size of the waves he can generate.

As an aside, I would mention that Pakistan is a sovereign state. If they truly have a problem with terrorists, then they have had plenty of time to deal with it since the Reagan Administrations. As such, any ineffectiveness with regard to the subject must be shouldered by the Pakistanis as well. After all, regardless of whatever ill may have been visited upon us by others, there comes a time where a nation has to take responsibility for any continuing problem.

Anon

Well, i disagree with just about everything the lot of you have said.

When freedom isn't worth fighting for, then fighting is worth the effort.

Lucien LaCroix

Whose definition of freedom??? Yours???

That's the biggest bunch of rhetorical nonsense that I have read on this board (so far). Try responding with something more than BS flag waving.

lulldapull

Dude the reasons as espoused by the many articles I have personally posted over the last many weeks, and which all passively indicate that the structure envsioned by the Neocons entailed bullying the international opposition into submission! the dollar has been slumping, the economy sputtering, and with the continued dim prospects for any type of recovery or at least a quick recovery now firmly estabilished, something had to be done, specially vis a vis the emerging EU power block in retrospect of the worst attack in our country's history!

You can't float the idea of the dollar ( as the reserve currency ), when such glaring discrepencies start to emerge buddy! Just as an example take the airline industry...it has lost 35 billion since 9-11 happened! U.S. Airways is now entering chapter 7 proceedings!

Take manufacturing man........where do you think those ppl who were employed in that sector will go? The sector has lost more than a million hands! only some corporations who survived the last 3 years of collosal job losses and or bankruptcies have to somehow compete with products or markets being pumped out by those who will work for pennies!

Thats the new reality man!

And like I said, if our national interests were not threatened by Saddam and others who openly talked about trading in Euros or god-damn Roubles, then we ought to have helped stave off genocide in Angola or Sudan waaaaaaaaaaay before looking at our buddy Saddam!

And with the comunist Panda clawin and God-damn knawin and thirstin for oil, puttin our puppet in Eye-raaq was the way to do it man! and with Saddams tens of billions in debt to both France and Russia, he'd have danced to their tune!

So basically.......Hustle what you can't honestly get!........If you know what I mean!

Lucien LaCroix

I'll have to respond tomorrow to your post. As much as I'd like to respond to it now, I have to keep my body clock at least reasonably in sync with my work schedule. One more day of vacation, then it's back to waking up at 0400 for my shift at Fire and Rescue.

lulldapull

Good god!............. 5 alarm fire deal eh????

jeeeez man that totally sucks! 0400?

As for me I start pumping new cheez on the 3rd!

Anon

"Whose definition of freedom??? Yours???"

How bout, HERS...

"Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.
As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.

On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.

As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.

Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this.

You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.

Semper Fi,

Mark
GySgt / USMC "

--------------------------

This story is only posted in the thread directly below this one. But of course, neither one of you negative nit wits bothered to post to that thread. No, no....only negative news sells to negative people.

You're all a bunch of defeatists, and frankly, like i said before......im glad you're not in charge of anything.

Lunatock

^^^ The kinds of things you won't hear about on the news. And by the way...has anyone heard anything about abductions and knife beheadings since all the foreign fighters were driven out of Fallujah? Maybe the tet offensive claim is right, but the polar opposite of what you two believe.

Anon

As i've said 10,000 times, we must ignore the daily headlines in this struggle.

It's the sensationalist daily headlines that will sapp our resolve, and losing our resolve is the ONLY way we can be defeated.

And no, of course you don't see the feel good stories in the paper...but they happen EVERYDAY in Iraq.

All one needs to do to see that is read soldiers emails.

Officer of Engineers

latimes.com
WARFARE


Surprise! The Soviets Nearly Won Afghan War
By Mark Kramer
Mark Kramer is director of the Harvard Cold War studies program and a senior fellow at the university's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian studies.

December 26, 2004

Twenty-five years ago, on Christmas Eve, Soviet troops marched into Afghanistan with the aim of restoring order in a few months. Nine years later they withdrew amid continued violence. In their wake, civil war erupted and the Taliban rose to power, providing a haven to Al Qaeda.

Critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq often cite the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as evidence that using foreign troops to put down an insurgency is bound to fail. But that "lesson" is misleading because it depends on a depiction of the Soviet-Afghan war that is downright inaccurate.

When Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan, they initially failed to protect their logistical and communications lines. But Soviet commanders quickly corrected these mistakes and brought in better troops, including helicopter pilots trained for mountain warfare. From mid-1980 on, the Afghan guerrillas never seized any major Soviet facilities or prevented major troop deployments and movements.

When Soviet generals shifted, in mid-1983, to a counterinsurgency strategy of scorched-earth tactics and the use of heavily armed special operations forces, their progress against the guerrillas accelerated. Over the next few years, the Soviets increased their control of Afghanistan, inflicting many casualties — guerrilla and civilian. Had it not been for the immense support — weapons, training, materials — provided to the Afghan guerrillas by the United States, Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan, Soviet troops would have achieved outright victory.

Even with all the outside military assistance, Afghan guerrillas were often helpless when facing the Soviet military machine. Raids conducted by Soviet airborne and helicopter forces were especially effective. In late 1985 and 1986, guerrilla units sustained heavy losses in the Kunar Valley and Paktia province and retreated from large swaths of strategic territory. The previously ineffective army of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul provided valuable support, launching fierce artillery barrages and huge armored assaults. In a long study of Soviet military progress as of mid-1987, a leading Westren military expert concluded that Soviet forces were proving "devastatingly effective against the Afghan resistance," were "presently winning in Afghanistan" and were "very close to crushing the resistance."

The announcement in 1988 by then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev that forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan within a year was a political and diplomatic decision, not a military one. The "bleeding wound" that Gorbachev described was not primarily Russian but Afghan. During the nine years of fighting, more than 2.5 million Afghans (mostly civilians) were killed or maimed; millions more were displaced or forced into exile. By contrast, 14,453 Soviet troops were killed, an average of 1,600 a year. This was not a trivial number, but certainly sustainable for the Soviet army, which numbered more than 4 million.

When the last Soviet troops left Afghanistan in February 1989, the situation on the ground was relatively favorable to Moscow, in part because the Soviet air force conducted sustained bombing raids to cover the withdrawal. Aided by huge inflows of Soviet weaponry, Kabul's staunchly pro-Soviet regime led by President Najibullah remained in power for the next three years. The regime's durability represented a notable success for the Soviet war effort. Only after the Soviet Union collapsed and the new Russian government cut off military aid to Afghanistan did Najibullah fall.

What relevance does the Soviet-Afghan war have for U.S. military operations in Iraq? Very little. Soviet troops did not invade and occupy Afghanistan to oust a brutal dictator or promote democratic elections. They simply aimed to install a friendly communist regime in Kabul. The number of Soviet troops never exceeded 120,000 at any time, but they eventually laid waste to the entire country.

A dearth of training and equipment hampered the Soviet war effort. By contrast, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are much better trained, equipped and motivated than their Soviet counterparts were in Afghanistan.

The Soviet-Afghan war's main relevance to the U.S. campaign in Iraq is operational. The Soviet experience underscored the crucial importance of intelligence in fighting an insurgency, an advantage the U.S. continues to lack in Iraq. It also highlighted the enormous potential of attack and transport helicopters that can strike deep in enemy territory, and it reaffirmed the value of small, flexible units of heavily armed special operations forces that are capable of carrying out rapid strikes.

Most important, the Soviet war demonstrated that the Afghan guerrillas were not invincible and that well-designed counterinsurgency operations can inflict grave damage on, and spread turmoil among, the enemy.

Looking back 25 years later, many observers have been tempted to assume that the Soviet military effort in Afghanistan was hopeless from the start. That's a distortion. An accurate appraisal of the Soviet military experience in Afghanistan is essential if we are to avoid drawing spurious lessons for current U.S. policy in Iraq.

__________________
Chimo