USA is not winning (1 Viewer)

[Bergslagstroll]

Both Vietnam and Iraq show the efficiancy of guerilla war, that mosqitoes can make the Elephant bleed. This tactic don't lead to that USA will military lose. But the cost to stay can be very high and can lead to the choise of leaving or pay an unaccpetable cost. Both for the civilians in that country as for USA.

Of course there are huge different between Iraq and Vietnam alot of things that are more positive with Iraq, but also some that are more negative. But they have the same problem that USA despite there enormous military superiroty can't stop the violence.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The terrorists can not be allowed to win. Period.

If you dont think we are getting the job done conventionally, then other options must be on the table.

Allowing the terrorists to win simply isnt an option. Just like allowing Japan to win wasnt an option.

Personally I believe we can win conventionally....but it will take time. Just like we could have beaten Japan conventionally, but at a very high cost.

The reason we are involved in a conventional situation is because weak kneed individuals lose their minds everytime a nuclear weapon is mentioned.

Using one in this instance could save countless American lives. And Im sorry for being so harsh, but the AMerican lives are the only ones I am concerned with.

 

[cherokee]

Bergslagstroll]Both Vietnam and Iraq show the efficiancy of guerilla war, that mosqitoes can make the Elephant bleed. This tactic don't lead to that USA will military lose. But the cost to stay can be very high and can lead to the choise of leaving or pay an unaccpetable cost. Both for the civilians in that country as for USA.

Not anytime soon. The cost of leaving are greater then staying. "mosqitoes can make the Elephant bleed"?. I guess.... but remember humans can destroy the entire swamp and kill them all cant they?

Of course there are huge different between Iraq and Vietnam alot of things that are more positive with Iraq, but also some that are more negative.

Tell me....Tell me whats the same and whats not..

But they have the same problem that USA despite there enormous military superiroty can't stop the violence.

Bullshit...You can. BUT you have to be willing to use whatever force is needed....

 

[Hoot]

Force is not the answer in Iraq. You do not win the hearts and minds of the people by imposing force.

Here we have the USA, with a bunch of paper towels, soaking up all the blood on the floor, and ignoring any effort to bandage the cut that is bleeding.

We need to stop the radical Islamic schools, paid for by Bush's allies, the Saudis...schools that are teaching the youth of the Middle East to grow up hating America.

We will never have a chance in Hell of ridding the world of terrorism until we address this indoctrination that continually creates successive generations of terrorists that want to kill us.

 

[oldreliable67]

We need to stop the radical Islamic schools, paid for by Bush's allies, the Saudis...schools that are teaching the youth of the Middle East to grow up hating America.

We will never have a chance in Hell of ridding the world of terrorism until we address this indoctrination that continually creates successive generations of terrorists that want to kill us.

Very true. Doing so has been one of the pillars of the National Strategy on Terrorism since it was first articulated. Unfortunately, this aspect of the 'Strategy' has gone largely unnoticed and under-emphasized (IMO). It certainly doesn't make the pages of the MSM.

One can't help but feel that if we were making a real effort in this regard, we would be hearing more about it. We're not hearing about it.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

proudamerican, if it were only still 'about terrorists'
it is now all out sect on sect violence, as well as some terrorism here and there.

but it is not as easy as 'good guys/bad guys' anymore.
Those of us following this conflict are aware of that.

 

[MSgt]

Good grief. Why do people always miss the mark on this?

Iraq will succeed or fail on the backs of Iraqis. A successful Iraq will be an Iraqi success. A failure will be an Iraqi failure. If they cannot calm the Sunni rebels thirst for Shi'ite blood and civil war is in their future then so be it. In the end, the only thing that will fix the Muslim world that so wrecks the Middle Eastern civilization and societies elsewhere, is Muslims. Until they collectively adhere to what Muhammed taught them (tolernace) they will continue to feud over religious diversity, breed terrorism, and encourage the bayonet as the only means for religious, social, and economic change.

America will leave Iraq in due time and we will move on to protect our interests and securities against Islamic terrorists in other lands. Our lives will go on, just as it did on September 12, 2001. However, it is doubtful that the Middle East will recover from a failed Iraq. They will further push into oppression and religious fanaticism, which is exactly what the Iranian and Arab elite want, because it ensures their power.

As long as the Saudi elite are permitted to fund Islamic schools on the fringes of the Arab world without our influence against them in those local countries, this fight will spread.

America will win, because progress cannot be stopped. America's culture is spreading whether people want it to or not. But this endeavor is generations from over. It is not confined to one tiny battle field called Iraq. Our goal is not to destroy all terrorism (a rediculous and unreachable goal), but it is to see the Middle East to a better place where terrorism is no longer widely seen as a legitimate means to force change.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You have to be willing ot jump into this with both feet. Something we have yet to do. We are worried about looking good and not hurting to many peoples feeling. For some reason we are concerned about what france and such think about us. BUt in the end we can beat this country down and prepare it for it's population. But unless there willing to fight for there freedom it will never work. And so far I don't get the feeling there willing to do that. They will bow to whatever force comes from the basement to step on there necks. And they will do so quitely.

 

[oldreliable67]

Our goal is not to destroy all terrorism (a rediculous and unreachable goal), but it is to see the Middle East to a better place where terrorism is no longer widely seen as a legitimate means to force change.

Gunny has it right. The doc linked below is from the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism". This graphic depicts that our overall strategy is to gradually reduce both the scope and lethal capabilities of terrorists terrorism is well within the "criminal domain" and thus no longer poses a significant threat requiring a large-scale military response. When we can confidently assert that terrorism has been returned to an unorganized, localized, non-state sponsored, and occurs relatively infrequently, then we can say that we have won the GWOT.

On some days, it seems that we're doing reasonably well with this strategy: al Qaeda no longer has sanctuary in Afghanistan and has been reduced to a much more decentralized mode of operations, which, coupled with our rapid ascent up the intelligence capabilities curve, has significantly reduced al Qaeda's capability for mounting large, 9/11-scale terrorists actions involving thousands of casualties.

On the other hand, several successful attacks of subway systems and other bombings have served to remind us that, even in this form, radical Islamists retain the ability to inspire local adherents, even in diverse countries, to martyrdom operations, placing us all at risk.

In short, it ain't over. The threat of radical Islamist terrorist actions remains significant in not only all western aligned countries, but all non-Islamic countries as well.

Doc is here.

 

[faithful_servant]

Force is not the answer in Iraq. You do not win the hearts and minds of the people by imposing force.

So how do you win the hearts and minds of a people?? My answer is as always - Tell them about the successes with equal fervor as the failures. Operation Horn of Africa is a stellar example of what canhappen when people start seeing and hearing about the benefits of turning away from supporting the terrorists and deciding to support the civilized people of the world.

Here we have the USA, with a bunch of paper towels, soaking up all the blood on the floor, and ignoring any effort to bandage the cut that is bleeding.

We need to stop the radical Islamic schools, paid for by Bush's allies, the Saudis...schools that are teaching the youth of the Middle East to grow up hating America.

How do you propose to do that?? The solution is not to shut down the schools, but to reveal the lies that they are telling and reveal the truth that they are not telling.

We will never have a chance in Hell of ridding the world of terrorism until we address this indoctrination that continually creates successive generations of terrorists that want to kill us.

First step - stop spewing criticism if EVERYTHING we do in Iraq. The people we are trying to help do actually read newspapers, have internet access and and TVs. When all they hear about is the problems and not the successes, what kind of response do you expect? How would an average person respond if they heard that someone was raped? They would be angry at the rapist. Correct?? How would someone respond if they heard that someone built a new school to replace the one that was falling apart? They would admire the person and even want to help them in most cases. Correct?? Right now, your average ME citizen is inundated with the negative and kept as isolated as possible from the positive. THIS is the biggest problem we face - an issue of public perception of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the good we were doing there was as loudly proclaimed as the problems, there would be vastly fewer terrorists and those who support them would be far less disposed to give their aid.

 

[Joby]

The strategy needs to be winning by any means necessary. Period.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Gunny has it right. The doc linked below is from the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism". This graphic depicts that our overall strategy is to gradually reduce both the scope and lethal capabilities of terrorists terrorism is well within the "criminal domain" and thus no longer poses a significant threat requiring a large-scale military response. When we can confidently assert that terrorism has been returned to an unorganized, localized, non-state sponsored, and occurs relatively infrequently, then we can say that we have won the GWOT.

How do you think this is going to happen when our actions are inflaming muslims worldwide, and potentially creating more animosity towards americans?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Good grief. Why do people always miss the mark on this?

Iraq will succeed or fail on the backs of Iraqis. A successful Iraq will be an Iraqi success. A failure will be an Iraqi failure. If they cannot calm the Sunni rebels thirst for Shi'ite blood and civil war is in their future then so be it. In the end, the only thing that will fix the Muslim world that so wrecks the Middle Eastern civilization and societies elsewhere, is Muslims. Until they collectively adhere to what Muhammed taught them (tolernace) they will continue to feud over religious diversity, breed terrorism, and encourage the bayonet as the only means for religious, social, and economic change.

Sorry but that is pure bullsh** that the conflict sucess is only based on the Iraqies. Because it's the duty of the occupation force to create the groundwork for the new state. For exampel Sweden can atack some small African country and liberate the people. But if we plan badly and don't have the resource to create a stable country. We can't just say hey we left them in chaos but there is they own fault that they couldn't fix the chaos we created.

Not anytime soon. The cost of leaving are greater then staying. "mosqitoes can make the Elephant bleed"?. I guess.... but remember humans can destroy the entire swamp and kill them all cant they?

Tell me....Tell me whats the same and whats not..

Bullshit...You can. BUT you have to be willing to use whatever force is needed....

Yes the elephant can run all over the swamp and stamp out all the insects home, including the homes of the insects you are there to liberate. This is a succesfully tactic used by the Romans, Djingis Khan and the Nazis. That leads to a passive and "peacfull" population. The problem is that the population hates you and will turn on you then there hatred becomes larger then there fears.

For example:
That is the same and different from WW1 WW2 is that you have great military superiority. That at the same time there comes prediction that the conflict will soon be over but those prediction are proven wrong and the conflict is continuing. Also that you underestimate the will of the enemy to fight even then his situation is getting more and more tough. You also face negative world opinion that you didn't have during the Yugoslavian conflicts, Afghanistan war and WW1 and WW2.

That’s differences is that you exactly have a democratic process in Iraq but also that you have a much more complex situation with different fighting fractions and ethnic groups.

The strategy needs to be winning by any means necessary. Period.

Well if you were talking about France 1944 that could maybe work. Because then the France hated the Nazis and trusted and liked the Americans and British. Therefore it didn’t get much uproar that you levelled there cities in the war with the Nazis. The situation is totally different in Iraq there many mistrust and dislike the American presence.

 

[faithful_servant]

How do you think this is going to happen when our actions are inflaming muslims worldwide, and potentially creating more animosity towards americans?

It's NOT our actions that is causing the problem, it's the fact that the good we do is being ignored. And please don't even start with the "we aren't doing any good" crap. I've proven that we are doing far more good than is ever reported too many times to have to go down that raod again. Some day you will acquire a level of understanding about the fact that our enemies greatest weapon is people like yourself who eat up the bad news and do everything they can to perpetuate it. We would halve the number of terrorist attacks in a year if we got as much press for our successes as we do for our failures. No other change, just an objective approach to reporting what is really happening.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

It's NOT our actions that is causing the problem, it's the fact that the good we do is being ignored. And please don't even start with the "we aren't doing any good" crap. I've proven that we are doing far more good than is ever reported too many times to have to go down that raod again. Some day you will acquire a level of understanding about the fact that our enemies greatest weapon is people like yourself who eat up the bad news and do everything they can to perpetuate it. We would halve the number of terrorist attacks in a year if we got as much press for our successes as we do for our failures. No other change, just an objective approach to reporting what is really happening.

hey hey hey now....
you knopw I follow this conflict quite carefully, and am well aware that we are doing good. Don't try to play that **** off on me.

But despite the good we are doing, our recent actions have inflamed muslims, potentially creating more fundamentalists...you know that.

two seperate issues, let's be honest here.

 

[oldreliable67]

How do you think this is going to happen when our actions are inflaming muslims worldwide, and potentially creating more animosity towards americans?

That was the point I was (trying) making when, in response to Hoot's criticism of our lack of effectively addressing some of the root causes of radical Muslim terrorism, I wrote in an earlier post,

"One can't help but feel that if we were making a real effort in this regard, we would be hearing more about it. We're not hearing about it."

Killing or capturing those that are out to kill us is necessary in the here and now but not sufficient for the future. It is also necessary to address the process that creates radical Islamists. That process includes the madrassahs that are funded by the huge amounts of petro-dollars awash in the ME in ever-increasing amounts since the late '70s. It also includes countering the very effective radical Islamists propaganda efforts, including TV and more and more important, the Internet.

All of these 'legs' of the 'stool' were spelled out in the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism cited above. Some 'legs' appear to have been given more time and attention than others, perhaps to our eventual dismay.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[faithful_servant]

hey hey hey now....
you knopw I follow this conflict quite carefully, and am well aware that we are doing good. Don't try to play that **** off on me.

But despite the good we are doing, our recent actions have inflamed muslims, potentially creating more fundamentalists...you know that.

two seperate issues, let's be honest here.

No Major, ONE issue - public perception. This is THE key issue in our fight against terrorism, nothing else even comes close. When people are being inundated with bad news while the good news goes virtually ignored, it leads to dissatisfaction and a ripe field to harvest for the terrorist leaders. The simple change of placing as much focus and publicity on the good news as on the bad will alleviate a huge amount of the dissatisfaction and reduce the number of potential terrorists. This will lead to ever increasing stability, more opportunities for success and even greater satisfaction with how things are progressing. Until this happens, the terrorists will continue to thrive. The symbiotic relationship between the press and the terrorists is our greatest challenge. While we cannot limit the freedom of the press, there MUST be some form of accountability for them. Their irresponsible behavior is the fuel behind the terrorists recruitment and justification. I don't believe that the press is intentionally carry stories for the purpose of supporting the terrorists, but the irrefutable fact is that the highly one-sided focus on the bad news is creating more terrorists and more bad news for the press to report on. The press is stuck in a postive feedback loop of death - reporting - more dissatisfaction - more death - reporting - more dissatisfaction ----- This is the loop we MUST get out of and the best people to do this is the press. My fear is that someone is going to realize that the press is the problem and due to their irresponsibility, we will lose rights that we hold dear. When it becomes undeniable to everyone that the press is the key to this problem, I fear that someone will take away the right to a free press and place restrictions on them in order to stop their unwitting support of the terrorists. The press has the ability to stop this by reporting responsibly and fairly. My guess is that it won't happen though and then we'll hear the screaming of "You're taking away my rights!!!" That's what happens when you abuse your rights and refuse to take responsibility for your actions. I don't want this to happen. I want a free and RESPONSIBLE press. I want people to know as much about Operation Horn of Africa as they do about Abu Ghraib. I want people to be talking towns and villages all over Iraq are getting clean water and sewage treatment plants for the first time ever as often as they are talking about IEDs. I want to see as many pics in the newspaper of kids going to their new school in Iraq as they see pics of dead Iraqis. This is the way you beat the terrorists, by letting people see the WHOLE truth and not just the parts that sell newspapers; by letting people see that those who are fighting aginst the terrorists are the better choice.

 

[Navy Pride]

The terrorists in Iraq are not stupid..........They know they can never defeat win militarily........They remember what happened in Viet Nam and they see the left wing in this country losing the stomach for the fight and they think because of that and public opinion here the left will evntually win out and we will cut and run in Iraq like we did in Viet Nam.............They think all they have to do is hold out until then.........

Thank God we have a president like President Bush who does not govern by polls and will stay the course until we have complete victory in Iraq and the Iraqi people are free to govern themselves..........

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The terrorists in Iraq are not stupid..........They know they can never defeat win militarily........They remember what happened in Viet Nam and they see the left wing in this country losing the stomach for the fight and they think because of that and public opinion here the left will evntually win out and we will cut and run in Iraq like we did in Viet Nam.............They think all they have to do is hold out until then.........

Thank God we have a president like President Bush who does not govern by polls and will stay the course until we have complete victory in Iraq and the Iraqi people are free to govern themselves..........

Well it's seems like you making the same mistake that was done in Vietnam, that you belive that there are only two partners to decide the llength of the conflict the Americans and there enemys. But there are also the civilians Iraqies to decide then the cost get's to high. That is a really bad strategy if you think you can just carry on the conflict as long as you want and ignore the opinion of the Iraqies.

Also remember that the terrorist can win smaller victorys that can have great importance in the middle east but also for the USA. Like for example one of the goal of Iraq war was that Iraq should be a a showcase for democracy. But if Iraq as is today is a place full of violence and instability and also then it comes out storys about American atrocities, that showcase doesn't look as good. This tarnish both the belifes that democracy can work in the middleeast and the reputation of the USA and the west.

Also the terrorist can win economical victorys. Like for example they have mad "an easy victory" that could have "only" costed only 50 billion dollar into a conflict that will cost the american taxpayers over 200 billion dollar.

They also win military victories like for example that they pin down alot of American soldiers that would either be discharched or deployed in other places.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

The terrorists in Iraq are not stupid..........They know they can never defeat win militarily........They remember what happened in Viet Nam and they see the left wing in this country losing the stomach for the fight and they think because of that and public opinion here the left will evntually win out and we will cut and run in Iraq like we did in Viet Nam.............They think all they have to do is hold out until then.........

Thank God we have a president like President Bush who does not govern by polls and will stay the course until we have complete victory in Iraq and the Iraqi people are free to govern themselves..........

we should have stayed in nam? 58,000 dead not quite enough? We could have won had we stayed for 15 more years?

assinine.

 

[oldreliable67]

Well it's seems like you making the same mistake that was done in Vietnam, that you belive that there are only two partners to decide the llength of the conflict the Americans and there enemys. But there are also the civilians Iraqies to decide then the cost get's to high. That is a really bad strategy if you think you can just carry on the conflict as long as you want and ignore the opinion of the Iraqies.

I don't think that is quite accurate...

We are "making the same mistake that was done in Vietnam": no, the insurgents and al Qaeda are trying to make us make the same mistake that we did in Vietnam. By trying to turn Iraq into a long-term war of attrition, one in which the continued loss of Americans over a long period of time (even if their numbers are relatively few, they are all still tragic losses to us), and a continued high investment in dollars and cents, and by continued effective propaganda aimed at the anti-war elements in the US, they hope to (as the North Vietnamese did) see increasing political pressure for the US to withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqi gov't is able to stand on its own (as was the case in VN).

We are countering those efforts to force us into emulating Vietnam by faciliting progress in the formation of an Iraqi government, contributing strongly to the rebuilding of the country's infrastructure (after admitted mistakes early in the process), and by supporting the creation of a new Iraqi military and police force. We are supporting the Iraqi efforts at national reconciliation.

Just take a look at one web site, www.spiritofamerica.net, and you will see a major difference between Iraq and Vietnam. Just look at the level of committment - at the local level - by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, something I saw very little of in VN in '67 and '68 - some, yes, but nothing to this extent. This is the kind of activity that wins hearts and minds. This is the kind of activity that keeps young muslim men at home and away from radicalization at a madrassah. Is there enough of it? No. We need more.

We can't ignore the bad stuff that happens either. Hopefully, the world and the Iraqis can see that when American soldiers are suspected of violating the law, they are held accountable. Unlike the terrorists that deliberately target women and kids in a marketplace or at a bus stop.

We are "ignor[ing] the opinion of the Iraqies": I don't think so. But perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I don't think that is quite accurate...

We are "making the same mistake that was done in Vietnam": no, the insurgents and al Qaeda are trying to make us make the same mistake that we did in Vietnam. By trying to turn Iraq into a long-term war of attrition, one in which the continued loss of Americans over a long period of time (even if their numbers are relatively few, they are all still tragic losses to us), and a continued high investment in dollars and cents, and by continued effective propaganda aimed at the anti-war elements in the US, they hope to (as the North Vietnamese did) see increasing political pressure for the US to withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqi gov't is able to stand on its own (as was the case in VN).

We are countering those efforts to force us into emulating Vietnam by faciliting progress in the formation of an Iraqi government, contributing strongly to the rebuilding of the country's infrastructure (after admitted mistakes early in the process), and by supporting the creation of a new Iraqi military and police force. We are supporting the Iraqi efforts at national reconciliation.

Just take a look at one web site, www.spiritofamerica.net, and you will see a major difference between Iraq and Vietnam. Just look at the level of committment - at the local level - by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, something I saw very little of in VN in '67 and '68 - some, yes, but nothing to this extent. This is the kind of activity that wins hearts and minds. This is the kind of activity that keeps young muslim men at home and away from radicalization at a madrassah. Is there enough of it? No. We need more.

We can't ignore the bad stuff that happens either. Hopefully, the world and the Iraqis can see that when American soldiers are suspected of violating the law, they are held accountable. Unlike the terrorists that deliberately target women and kids in a marketplace or at a bus stop.

We are "ignor[ing] the opinion of the Iraqies": I don't think so. But perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by that?

Well I don't think Al Qaeda and the other groups focused on destruction arn't doing so much wrong in there overall strategy. Becaus yes they may have it as a vision to drive out the infididels. But they have many other goals that they can archivie from the conflict: Like for example "live" traning, increased radicalisation of the ME, econimical and military bleeding the USA etc.. Also you have the bandits that profite from kidnapings and payed terrorist act. But yes I agree that for the groups fighting for a "free Iraq" violence isn't a smart move.

Yes it is extremly vitale that you give aid and help the Iraqie people and therefor it's of course good with the aid you give. That is a work as you say have to continue and increase. But one really great thing I think the USA could do, but don't think they will do, is say that the poor of the world will not pay for the Iraq war. Meaning that USA will if necissary compensate for that the aid to the rest of the world will be lowered because of Iraq and Afganisthan. But as I said this is a idealistic goal.

You have to remember that you have many diffrent military group in Iraq, with diffrence goals, diffrent tactic and representing diffrent groups. So for example some Iraqies can hate groups that atack inocent civilians but support group that kill American soldiers. Also you can have some Sunnis that have lost close relatives from Shia atacks, that will as a reason of that hate Shia terrorist but support militant Sunni groups even if they atack innocent Shia's.

Well I could just have overinterpret Navyprides post. But I understand his post that it's just up to Bush to decide how long the war will last and that USA will not leave before the war is won. The problem is that you then ignore the will of the Iraqie people, that they may think it's a biger security risk to still have the american troops. This can connected to the problem you had in Vietnam is that the side you supported wasn't democratic elected end therefor didn't represent the people. This time you actually have a body that represent the people but you have to listen to it.

 

[MSgt]

Sorry but that is pure bullsh** that the conflict sucess is only based on the Iraqies. Because it's the duty of the occupation force to create the groundwork for the new state. For exampel Sweden can atack some small African country and liberate the people. But if we plan badly and don't have the resource to create a stable country. We can't just say hey we left them in chaos but there is they own fault that they couldn't fix the chaos we created.

Why is it always the same individuals that lack the insight?

Historically speaking the progress in Iraq is remarkably well. Do your own study (Here's a hint, put down your headlines). By the end of the year, the Iraqi military and security forces will be at 80~90 percent. Many Iraqi units are working on their own (twice this year, two seperate Iraqi units came to the rescue of Marine squads in the Al-Anbar Province). Keep in mind that it took nearly a decade to create a security force in Germany after WWII and that it was not during a consistent insurgency and rebel element.

Our mission is to place them on a bicycle. It is up to them to take the training wheels off. However, they will hardly meet this if the world's most impatient subjects continue to insist that they ride Harleys. Of course, to some individuals it doesn't matter how well off Iraqis are left with. They will always claim "bull ****" and seek to blame America. It's the global fad and certainly a historical need of Europeans who cling to past "glories." Americans have been and are doing their part. Iraqis must do theirs. The best chance that the Middle East has at reform is Iraq (something well known to our enemies - House of Saud, Iran, Syria).

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Why is it always the same individuals that lack the insight?

Historically speaking the progress in Iraq is remarkably well. Do your own study (Here's a hint, put down your headlines). By the end of the year, the Iraqi military and security forces will be at 80~90 percent. Many Iraqi units are working on their own (twice this year, two seperate Iraqi units came to the rescue of Marine squads in the Al-Anbar Province). Keep in mind that it took nearly a decade to create a security force in Germany after WWII and that it was not during a consistent insurgency and rebel element.

Our mission is to place them on a bicycle. It is up to them to take the training wheels off. However, they will hardly meet this if the world's most impatient subjects continue to insist that they ride Harleys. Of course, to some individuals it doesn't matter how well off Iraqis are left with. They will always claim "bull ****" and seek to blame America. It's the global fad and certainly a historical need of Europeans who cling to past "glories." Americans have been and are doing their part. Iraqis must do theirs. The best chance that the Middle East has at reform is Iraq (something well known to our enemies - House of Saud, Iran, Syria).

Well of course it depends on that you measure it. But the fact is that USA the most powerfull country in the world havn't been able to archieve the first goal of an occupation force, to create stability and safety for the people they occupie. That's why you goal of "placing them on a bicycle" arn't finished. Therefor I think it's fair to say that it's bull**** that it's now just the Iraqies fault if the mission is not succefull, but maybee I just misentepreted your post.

Also you call look at this way after you took over the controle over Iraq from Saddam, the Iraqie people have experience atleast 10 9/11 in absolute number and a 100 9/11 relative to the size in civilians killed.

But yes it's really great that you make progress in the second and third goal, building up armed forces (military and police) and political structures. Also so you mean that this year they can take of almost all of the security in Iraq? And that the USA can almost take home all of there troops? Because for me 100 % means that you have enough troops to create stability.

I most make one correction that many Europeans like me don't like to think of the time we oppresed large part of the world at the same time as the regulary european population also suffered, as the good ol'days. (In the swedish case then we killed, raped and plundered large part of germany, poland and the baltics in the interest of a small elite in the 17:th century)

 

[MSgt]

Well of course it depends on that you measure it. But the fact is that USA the most powerfull country in the world havn't been able to archieve the first goal of an occupation force, to create stability and safety for the people they occupie. That's why you goal of "placing them on a bicycle" arn't finished. Therefor I think it's fair to say that it's bull**** that it's now just the Iraqies fault if the mission is not succefull, but maybee I just misentepreted your post.

Who ever said that we were finished? That's the entire point. We are not finished, despite the world's impatience to hurry us up. If the rest of the world really gave a damn about this effort, they would help instead of sitting back pretending to care as they offerred Saddam more time to abuse his people. "Old Europe" will always seek the path of least resistance no mater who it hurts. With Iraq, America finally broke from that corrupt sham. We are at a point in history where America has no choice but to be intimately involved with the Middle Eastern culture. Trusting our Arab business partners to treat their own people with respect and dignitiy was too much for them to handle.

Also you call look at this way after you took over the controle over Iraq from Saddam, the Iraqie people have experience atleast 10 9/11 in absolute number and a 100 9/11 relative to the size in civilians killed.

They have their culture to blame for that. They can't blame Americans. They have to blame Muslims.

But yes it's really great that you make progress in the second and third goal, building up armed forces (military and police) and political structures. Also so you mean that this year they can take of almost all of the security in Iraq? And that the USA can almost take home all of there troops? Because for me 100 % means that you have enough troops to create stability.

It will be time when it is time. No matter how prepared they are, they still are up against an entire region that clings to the past. The leaders of Islam, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will not sit idly by and simply allow a free Islamic government flourish. Iraq must be strong for their own sake and take the lumps.

Study the region.

I most make one correction that many Europeans like me don't like to think of the time we oppresed large part of the world at the same time as the regulary european population also suffered, as the good ol'days. (In the swedish case then we killed, raped and plundered large part of germany, poland and the baltics in the interest of a small elite in the 17:th century)