Iraq, The most sucessful war in US history!

[MSR]

If one looks at the statistics how can anyone label the Iraq operation anything but a success? If you look at other operations of similar size and scope the Iraq operation still is the most successful operation of its kind in history. A few examples as compared to the Liberation of Italy during WWII (Italy was obviously a successful, but costly, military operation):

How long did it take to remove dictator?
Italy; 255 days
Iraq: 41 days

How many allied/coalition deaths?
Italy: 124,917
Iraq: 2,600

Months to constitution after liberation?
Italy: 31 Months
Iraq: 29 months

Months to first constitutional election:
Italy: 30
Iraq: 20

Months to first constitutional government:
Italy: 41
Iraq: 32

Insurgency Fact:
Italy: Fascist insurgency ended on Aug 02, 1980 with the bombing known as the Bologna massacre. The insurgency lasted 32 years.

There are many other examples of how Iraq has been one of the most successful operations in the history of the United States.

 

[MSgt]

This thread is going to get beat up. However......

Iraq is considered to have been the most successful war in our history and one of the most successful military campaigns in all history. More often than not, an overreliance on bold operational maneuvers to win a swift campaign throughout history has led to disappointment, even disaster. Men have always been unable to act as fast as the order given. Supporting firepower was always inaccurate or as deadly to the "friednlies" as it was to the enemy. With Iraqi Freedom, soldiers and Marines employed both aggressive operational maneuvers and devastating tactical firepower perfectly with small numbers. It was an historical military success for many reasons. Many records across the spectrum were shattered. These records involve....

1) Expedience on many levels

2) Fratricide

3) Comunications Creativity

-and-

4) Joint Support

The war in Iraq offerred us a glimpse into the future of a postmodern war of attrition—one in which the casualties are overwhelmingly on one side.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

C&Ped from here or there abouts: http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/rss/question?qid=20060627203757AA4oohj

There are three kinds of lies...

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Great Post! Can't wait for the fur to fly.

 

[bismitch]

Next time you post something, think about it first.

First of all this is not an accurate comparasion. These are two very different nations from different time periods.
Differences:
1. Italy has several montainous regions that are easy to defend, while Iraq for the most part is open desert.
2. Italy has more people than Iraq
3. We were not fighting the Italian army(a very insignifcant army), we were fighting the German Army. The German Army was on the same level as the Soviet Union and the US. Do you really think that the Iraqi army can compare to the German Army?
4. The people in these two countries are of different races and cultures.
5. Modern warfare is much quicker than old school warfare.

Usually "successful" means that something is accomplished and the costs will balance out with the sacrifices.
I agree with the fact of getting rid of Saddam was successful. We never really got rid of Musolini(his people did that for us).

However, for a war to be successful it must directly benefit the country that is engaging in it. How has the Iraq war been benefiting us?

Here is a better question:
What has the Iraq War done that has harmed us?
1. It has added to the ever-increasing deficit.
2. 2,600 allied men have died
3. according to NIE report... Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists
4. We have lost global favor

 

[bismitch]

I could probally bet money on Trajan replying to this.

 

[MSR]

The population and land-mass of Iraq today and Italy during the war is very similar. They are the most comparable in size and scope. However the point I am trying to make is this. If one wants to say that Iraq is a failure, as most Dem's do, one has the responsibility to define the comparison... what operation has been more successful than Iraq?

You are right ... the fight differently today than we did then. But believe me... if we had dumped 500,000 troops into Iraq there would have been 50,000 killed (because we provided more targets). The Dem's like to say that the war has been miss managed by Bush. There is no evidence to support that claim.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Next time you post something, think about it first.


Here is a better question:
What has the Iraq War done that has harmed us?
1. It has added to the ever-increasing deficit.
2. 2,600 allied men have died
3. according to NIE report... Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists
4. We have lost global favor

1 and 2 is a Very good argument... What you are asking is this: "Is freedom for Iraq worth what it is costing us in lives and money." It would be legitimate for someone to say "NO, screw the Iraqies... let them be oppressed." God knows we have said it before in other countries.

3 and 4 however... NIE also stated that if we maintain freedom in Iraq that it will be a hug success for for us and the free world. I don't know how old you are but in case you didn't know... we have never had global favor.

 

[bismitch]

The population and land-mass of Iraq today and Italy during the war is very similar. They are the most comparable in size and scope. However the point I am trying to make is this. If one wants to say that Iraq is a failure, as most Dem's do, one has the responsibility to define the comparison... what operation has been more successful than Iraq?

You are right ... the fight differently today than we did then. But believe me... if we had dumped 500,000 troops into Iraq there would have been 50,000 killed (because we provided more targets). The Dem's like to say that the war has been miss managed by Bush. There is no evidence to support that claim.

Even then the population of Italy was 44.5 million(I looked this one up), that is almost twice the population of Iraq(26.5 million I think) today. They are not the most comparable in size and scope. The German Army(in relation to its time period) was much more capable than the Iraqi Army with better generals and equipment. The casulties in the Italian conflict were 125,000 not fifty thousand.

hmmm... if we dumped off 500,000 troops (according to you) the ratio of troops to deaths 2,600/130,000 * 500,000 does not equal anything close to 50,000.

A more successful conflict eh... I could name a few. The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American war, and the Gulf War(Not Operation Iraqi Freedom).

 

[bismitch]

I don't know how old you are but in case you didn't know... we have never had global favor.

As to how old I am, I will not tell.

 

[MSgt]

However, for a war to be successful it must directly benefit the country that is engaging in it.

Wrong. A military success in a war has nothing to do with a reliance upon what the country gains. It is simply a "military" success. There is an objective. The manner in which the objective is reached determines the degree of success. It has nothing to do with Johnny couch command at home.

What has the Iraq War done that has harmed us?

Very little, but an effort like this will always produce immediate splinters.

1. It has added to the ever-increasing deficit.

Nothing to do with the military success on the way to Baghdad.

2. 2,600 allied men have died

A very small number and is very much a part of the military success. Besides, the number when Baghdad fell was around 135.

3. according to NIE report... Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists

Nothing to do with the military success on the way towards Baghdad. Either way, a breeding ground exists between Casablanca and Karachi. Iraq is merely where they go to die. The NIE report might as well tell you that you breathe oxygen. Ever wonder why official reports always state the obvious and always forecast failure? It's always safer to assume the worse. Welcome to our intelligencia.

4. We have lost global favor

Nothing to do with the military success. This isn't politics. This was a war that pitted one military against another.

 

[MSR]

A more successful conflict eh... I could name a few. The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American war, and the Gulf War(Not Operation Iraqi Freedom).

So you are saying that the Spanish-American War is corollary to Iraq? Or even the Gulf war? Please list how it was so.

What dictator was deposed in these wars?

What constitution resulted from these wars?

What nation’s armies were disarmed in these two wars?

Did we invade Spain or Iraq with ground troops?

What free elections resulted?

To use your numbers… what were the local populations?

What major fortified cities were taken by ground troops in these wars?

How where they logistically (movement of troops and equipment) corollary to the current Iraq war?

The two wars you offer as corollary are not comparable in the areas that are important for an honest comparison. I have offered an argument that shows in what ways the current Iraq war is the most successful war of its kind in US history. Instead of nit-picking unimportant details perhaps you would help me to understand your position better. There are lots of military reasons that the causality numbers were so high in Italy, none of which were indigenous population (Italy 1940- 39 million vs. Iraq 2000- 23 million “similar”… far more similar than the populations of the Spanish American War). Please continue to do the research and pick a war that deposed a dictator, invaded a nation of similar geographic size, helped it’s people to develop a constitution, help it’s people to hold free elections, and supported the establishment of a constitutional government.… the number of allied deaths in the current Iraq war is very low.. I have not claimed that Italy and Iraq are the same country or the same war only that they both meet the same criterion. (Cuba and Puerto Rico in the 1800’s don’t even come close) I am saying that the base social development, goals for the outcome and geographic area are similar enough for comparison. But I would welcome an example of a successful military operation meeting the above criteria that was more successful than the current war in Iraq.

As for my reference to 50,000 deaths… this was the number that I pulled out of the air. It was a number publicized at the start of the war by anti-war activists. And it was not that far fetched when looking at the history of invading nations and the cost in human life. Viet-Nam showed that the more troops you have on the ground the more deaths you incur (this is why some Dem’s want more troops on the ground). During the height of troop movements into Viet-Nam we were loosing over 300 men a day. During the Normandy invasion we lost 30,000+ in one day. Neither of these actions are corollary to Iraq but they do show that the more troops on the ground the more troops you lose. So even if we do the math as you suggest we get a death toll of 10,000… and that supports my argument too. There is a hug overhead in protecting and maintaining troops and that overhead really distract from your ability to conduct war. But for this argument I am not debating military tactics.

Additionally you seem to be inferring that the Iraq war is somehow easy War in comparison… are you saying that 2600 deaths is easy? If you are, then you are over-stating my point on success. And you are also making it hard to support an argument that it is somehow a failure. Is an easy war with only 2600 deaths a failure? I don’t think that is the point you are trying to make. If you are going to call the current Iraq war a failure then please tell me... as compared to what?

 

[Saboteur]

If one looks at the statistics how can anyone label the Iraq operation anything but a success? If you look at other operations of similar size and scope the Iraq operation still is the most successful operation of its kind in history. A few examples as compared to the Liberation of Italy during WWII (Italy was obviously a successful, but costly, military operation):

How long did it take to remove dictator?
Italy; 255 days
Iraq: 41 days

How many allied/coalition deaths?
Italy: 124,917
Iraq: 2,600

Months to constitution after liberation?
Italy: 31 Months
Iraq: 29 months

Months to first constitutional election:
Italy: 30
Iraq: 20

Months to first constitutional government:
Italy: 41
Iraq: 32

Insurgency Fact:
Italy: Fascist insurgency ended on Aug 02, 1980 with the bombing known as the Bologna massacre. The insurgency lasted 32 years.

There are many other examples of how Iraq has been one of the most successful operations in the history of the United States.

Well, when you put it that way... Cool!

 

[Hoot]

The Dem's like to say that the war has been miss managed by Bush. There is no evidence to support that claim.

I'm amazed that someone can make a statement like this, and even more amazed that they believe it? Maybe they're renting one of those caves from Osama and have not been following the news? J/K

We have generals, who led combat troops in Iraq, who are protesting the dismal strategic decisions that have resulted in the uneccessary deaths of American servicemen and women in Iraq.

This kind of protest among senior military officials during wartime is unprecedented in American history!

But, yeah...no evidence Bush has mis-managed anything, so let's just "stay the course."

 

[MSgt]

You are right ... the fight differently today than we did then. But believe me... if we had dumped 500,000 troops into Iraq there would have been 50,000 killed (because we provided more targets). The Dem's like to say that the war has been miss managed by Bush. There is no evidence to support that claim.

Actually, this war has been very mismanaged. 500,000 troops would have produced less of a fight...

The OSD was determined to prove that his vision of the future of warfare was more correct than that of the experts who actually wear or have worn the uniform. He believes in a high octane technological war, with "shock and awe" as the deciding factor as a minimum of troops walk in and sweep up the enemy. He imagines (as many Americans do) the future or warfare being a series of '91 Gulf Wars and is determined to build a military around the fat defense contractors. He was wrong. Our future will reflect very much on what we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our enemy, which will fester amongst their civilians, does not surrender to F22s above the clouds.

During the war to take Baghdad, Marine units had to constantly swerve to the flanks to cover ground that was absent of troops. In doing so, other elements had to hold position until the mission was complete. Army units learned lessons of the lack of training with their support personel as their rear convoys were hit. However, with the correct amount of troop strengths, those rear echelon units could have been protected. It's only due to the professionalism and battleground creativity of the man in boots, that such a low number of casualties were sustained and the Washington plan came off like gang busters.

Also, imagine how many Saddam loyalists fought merely because they didn't see thousands and thousands of Marines rushing their positions? How many were deceived into thinking they had a chance?

More men would have saved lives on both sides and it would have allowed us to secure Iraq properly after Baghdad fell. Those that shrunk into the shadows to fight as an insurgency, did so because they didn't see a "beat cop" on every corner.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

This kind of protest among senior military officials during wartime is unprecedented in American history!

But, yeah...no evidence Bush has mis-managed anything, so let's just "stay the course."

I will ignore the personal attack... this time.

I think in every war there is dissenting military leadership. I think it is part of the planning processes. Some Generals may want to drop a nuke while some may want to run and hide. I think a wise commander will consider all view-points and then show leadership by making the call. No war ever in history has gone exactly as planned... we were losing WWII for the first several years remember. But back then people had more self-respect than they do today and would voice their concerns through the proper channels as not to embolden the enemy. These Generals love self, hate Bush and love politics more than country.

The tired "stay the course" political statement with no real meaning in and of its self shows no understanding of the success we have found in Iraq. Tactics constantly change and must change. No-one is staying the course... unless your definition of not staying the course is to run away and hide.

What the Dem's don't understand is a large percentage of the 62% who don't like how the war is going would love to see Bush drop a nuke or two. Very very few Americans support running away (Dem's call it redeploying).

I think everyone understands that this thing could turn out to be very very bad... but to pretend that it is already a failure has more to do with politics than reality. There are lots of ways to turn it in to a failure such as running away as many of the Demoquits recommend. Bottom-line is that many Dem's want the War to fail for political reasons.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Actually, this war has been very mismanaged. 500,000 troops would have produced less of a fight...

I will always deffer to a military experts knowing as you do that hind-site is always 20/20. Your points are very well taken.

I take issue with the term mismanaged because War is not McDonald's and there is not a franchise book you open up and fallow the instructions when something goes wrong. And something will always go wrong. I agree 100% that the old military tactics are far more effective and would have lead to much higher level of success initially. But politically dropping tactical nukes and carpet bombing... while effective, would result in pictures of dead women and children all over the world.

I think Bushes numbers would go through the roof if we were more bruttal... but the politicians are not willing to take the heat from the world community. And the Republicans fear the Dem's would not support it. Truman, LBJ, Nixon and Bush have all bowed to political pressure and if that is mismanagement then I will agree. I just don't think the term is the right one.

Mistakes are made in every war.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I will always deffer to a military experts knowing as you do that hind-site is always 20/20. Your points are very well taken.

Actually, the request for more troops were ignored well before we crossed the border. The sentiment from Washington was that we had enough. This was, of course, correct. But, "having enough" was an unnecessary risk and it made things harder for us. We should never go to war with unnecessary risks.

I take issue with the term mismanaged because War is not McDonald's and there is not a franchise book you open up and fallow the instructions when something goes wrong. And something will always go wrong. I agree 100% that the old military tactics are far more effective and would have lead to much higher level of success initially. But politically dropping tactical nukes and carpet bombing... while effective, would result in pictures of dead women and children all over the world.

I think Bushes numbers would go through the roof if we were more bruttal... but the politicians are not willing to take the heat from the world community. And the Republicans fear the Dem's would not support it. Truman, LBJ, Nixon and Bush have all bowed to political pressure and if that is mismanagement then I will agree. I just don't think the term is the right one.

Mistakes are made in every war.

"Mismanaged" does suggest a trivial thing and is probably the wrong word. War is full of uncertainty and surprises. No plan goes without an alteration after the battle commences and the battleground is forever changing. And certainly nukes and carpet bombing are unnecessary at this point. However, this is not what I meant. The request for troops was denied not because we didn't have them - well over half of the Marine Corps was sitting in front of television sets when the conflict commenced. It was denied because of a determination to prove oneself correct. Unnecessary risks were taken and it's to the credit of our troops that their wasn't an OSD disaster.

Another area where we would have done far better was also noted prior to the fall of Baghdad (which was to the collective shame of all those individuals who prefer local terror to western inspired democracy). This area was in the conduct of the repairation. We have sunk an enourmous amount of money into international contractors to do a job that they are slow to do. We could have spent far less money by paying Iraqis to repair their own system (which they know how to do) and given them money to pay for workers who are now jobless and lash out with bombs and bullets. Getting the youth off of the streets and giving them purpose would have given us three things:

1) Given them pride and purpose

2) Shifted blame for power outages and water rationing to Muslims instead of Americans.

3) And denied the terrorists their recruiting pool.

This is nation building 101. Not new concepts. We have seen and practiced this since the fall of Berlin all over the world. This time around, it was ignored.

Another area, still, was first Fallujah. This military operation was stopped short of victory. Success was snatched out of the jaws of Marines and soldiers on the 5 yard line, because of media pressure and an election year. The terrorists were allowed a reprieve as American troops withdrew from the city. The result was a cheer heard around the entire Middle Eastern Arab world about how the Americans were fought to a stand still and a withdrawal. (This gave them a hope that we are still dealing with today.) What occurred next was a terrorist state within a state. Fallujah became a safe haven for terrorists and was known as the terrorist capital of the world. People sufferred and we watched it happen. Second Fallujah would not have happened if the suits in Washington did not interfere the first time.

Don't get me wrong. I very much agree with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and with the military actions in other countries that many aren't even aware of. I also agree with our non-military activity on the fringes of the Middle East, where Islam is not set in brittle concrete. However, "senseless" mistakes have been made and many things that need to happen have not even been touched. Of course, I am talking about the much wider "War on Terror" and not just Iraq.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I think in every war there is dissenting military leadership. I think it is part of the planning processes. Some Generals may want to drop a nuke while some may want to run and hide. I think a wise commander will consider all view-points and then show leadership by making the call. No war ever in history has gone exactly as planned.

Your statement would be true if you were applying it only to the invasion of Iraq, the fall og Baghdad and the capture of Saddam. Problem with that rational is that those points in time were the beginning, not the end of this war.

It's one thing when some generals are dissenting, it's quite another when a majority of generals and military analysts declare the Bushie's plan a failure.

I guess one can go one refusing to accept the truth about Iraq and just accept what Bush says as pure fact, not questioning his "logic" and without oversight...but then we wouldn't be living in the USA, now would we?

You can ignore that things are getting worse in Iraq, much worse in fact if that helps you get through your day. Or, you can become objective and listen to all sides, read what's out there, examine the players on all sides and then, and only then, come to a conclusion that is thought out rather than purely partisan. You know?

The tired "stay the course" political statement with no real meaning in and of its self shows no understanding of the success we have found in Iraq. Tactics constantly change and must change. No-one is staying the course... unless your definition of not staying the course is to run away and hide.

How can you defend Bush and then deny his "Stay The Course" stance? The first 3.5 years of this war has been based on "Stay The Course". Only now as members of the GOP, in bunches are finally accepting that the entire way the Iraq campaign has been managed is a disaster (I'm being kind because that's assuming there actually was a "plan").

What the Dem's don't understand is a large percentage of the 62% who don't like how the war is going would love to see Bush drop a nuke or two. Very very few Americans support running away (Dem's call it redeploying).

Do you actually believe that more Americans want to Nuke Iraq rather than redeploy our troops? Surely you can't be serious? Wouldn't that be completely against one of Bush's more recent reasons for going to Iraq in the first place (To spread democracy using a sword)?

You wrote "a large percentage" and I challenge you to prove any evidence at all that even a "small percentage" want to Nuke Iraq? Egads!

There are lots of ways to turn it in to a failure such as running away as many of the Demoquits recommend. Bottom-line is that many Dem's want the War to fail for political reasons.

I find this sort of not too subtle attack against the Majority of Americans (including Democrats) to be nothing more than a Conservative Talk Radio BS talking point! Show me real evidence that Democrats want, to use your words "the War to fail for political reasons."

It's amazing to me that people can be so fooled by this Administration. It's so sad. People put their trust into the Administration and pray for their version of success, but in so doing they avoid the reality that is occurring everyday.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

If you want to redefine sucess with an apples and oranges comparison to an old war then sure, but if you want to define sucess by our capacity to control and address the conflict then no.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Another area where we would have done far better was also noted prior to the fall of Baghdad (which was to the collective shame of all those individuals who prefer local terror to western inspired democracy). This area was in the conduct of the repairation. We have sunk an enourmous amount of money into international contractors to do a job that they are slow to do. We could have spent far less money by paying Iraqis to repair their own system (which they know how to do) and given them money to pay for workers who are now jobless and lash out with bombs and bullets. Getting the youth off of the streets and giving them purpose would have given us three things:

1) Given them pride and purpose

2) Shifted blame for power outages and water rationing to Muslims instead of Americans.

3) And denied the terrorists their recruiting pool.

This is nation building 101. Not new concepts. We have seen and practiced this since the fall of Berlin all over the world. This time around, it was ignored.

An acquaintance of mine who works in the financial sector in the ME and Maghreb suggested pre-invasion a massive program of micro-loans to accompany the rebuilding process.

The State Dept's Future of Iraq program also had similar thoughts as above. IIRC, even though the DoS planning was shelved in favor of turning the post-war planning over to the DoD, Garner requested some of the personel from the Future of Iraq project. However, his requests were not fulfilled.

Second Fallujah would not have happened if the suits in Washington did not interfere the first time.

Politicans are expert politicians. Journalists are expert journaists. The Military and Intel communities are the experts on the military and intel. As a rule of thumb, the pols should pick the goals and let the pros decide the strategies and tactics. IMHO.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

An acquaintance of mine who works in the financial sector in the ME and Maghreb suggested pre-invasion a massive program of micro-loans to accompany the rebuilding process.

The State Dept's Future of Iraq program also had similar thoughts as above. IIRC, even though the DoS planning was shelved in favor of turning the post-war planning over to the DoD, Garner requested some of the personel from the Future of Iraq project. However, his requests were not fulfilled.

Unfortunatley, your acquaintance's request was not alone. We would be so further along with Iraq were the voices of wisdom heard. The internal re-construct of Iraq should have employed Iraqis on a grand scale just like what occurred in Europe, Asia, and today in Africa. As it stands, every terrorist attack on a structure in Iraq is against the "American effort" instead of the "Iraqi effort." The Iraqi anger towards Islamic terrorism would have a very loud voice were it the other way around.

Politicans are expert politicians. Journalists are expert journaists. The Military and Intel communities are the experts on the military and intel. As a rule of thumb, the pols should pick the goals and let the pros decide the strategies and tactics. IMHO.

Very true.

 

[MSgt]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I find this sort of not too subtle attack against the Majority of Americans (including Democrats) to be nothing more than a Conservative Talk Radio BS talking point! Show me real evidence that Democrats want, to use your words "the War to fail for political reasons."

I don't know about proof, but there is no denying that politicians will and do seek absolutely anything that which will gain them points or a vote. It is a true statement that anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent. Is it such a stretch to believe that some Democratic politicians wish it too just to give the current administration and the Republican Party another black eye?

Surely, there were Republican politicians that wanted us to tuck tail and run in Somalia just to hurt the Clinton image.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I don't know about proof, but there is no denying that politicians will and do seek absolutely anything that which will gain them points or a vote. It is a true statement that anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent. Is it such a stretch to believe that some Democratic politicians wish it too just to give the current administration and the Republican Party another black eye?

I disagree on the premise that Dems or Anti-War people want us to "LOSE" this war. Redeploy? Sure there are many Dems who want that but I've never spoken to anyone who wants us to "LOSE" in Iraq.

The real question should be is there any way to actually "WIN"? What constitutes victory? I find it difficult to believe that the Iraqi government in place now will be able to stand up on it's own, ever. The Sectarian violence is spreading outside of Baghdad into other parts of Iraq where there have been all out battles between Sunnis and Shiites...for example:

Fighting in Iraqi Town Killed Over 60, U.S. Says

By MICHAEL LUO and JOHN O’NEIL - NY Times
Published: October 17, 2006

BAGHDAD, Oct. 16 — The American military said today that more than 60 people were killed in four days of sectarian fighting in Balad, a rural town north of the capital, that left some residents wondering why American troops did not intervene.(snip)

By the following day, groups of Shiite gunmen from Balad, which is mostly Sunni, were setting up checkpoints and hunting down and killing dozens of Sunni Arab residents, the authorities said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/w...&en=838de499d828163f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This is but one small example of the spreading of this civil war. If you read the story it points out that American military were not involved in the fighting. This was Iraqi vs. Iraqi without Americans.

At the end of the day it is outrageous to claim that the Iraq war was "the most successful in US history" because that statement would only be accurate if the war actually ended when we took over Baghdad...to make this sort of statement and justify it by ignoring the insurgency is plainly stupid and an excercise in mental masturbation.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

It's amazing to me that people can be so fooled...

WOW, lots of juicy tid-bits in this post... I will spend time responding on my my home on the train.

However I must say that the thread has lost sight of its original intent. There should be other threads about how to when the War and what we have done wrong in the War. This thread is based on the fact that many politician, mostly Dem's, are saying the Iraq operation has failed. I have not seen a single historical precedence to support this claim. All the stats, facts and history I have seen say it (so far) is one of the most successful operations in history. I was hopeful that someone would present a historically based argument as I did.