Why America Will Fail In Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Davo The Mavo]

"Peace with Honor" Coming to a Talking Point Near You.

I originally wrote this piece back in January of 2004----it seems even more applicable today

The lessons learned in Vietnam were apparently not a consideration prior to the launch of military operations in Iraq. The Domino Theory and its promise of the spread of communism had nothing to do with how we handled our strategy in the war against the Vietnamese insurgents. The battle for “Hearts and Minds” is a modern approach to occupation, and has yet to be proven as a viable option when trying to stop an insurgency. History is once again being ignored. Where we ignored the lessons learned during the Philippine Insurgency from 1898–1903 during Vietnam, the present day administration is ignoring the lessons learned during Vietnam while occupying present day Iraq. It cannot be debated that we won the battles on the ground in Vietnam, however, we lost the war for “Hearts and Minds”, and did damage to our world stature that took years to overcome. And unfortunately, it is happening again.

Many from the right like to use Vietnam and the numbers of casualties sustained in that war for comparison when justifying the deaths of our troops in Iraq. Apparently, fewer numbers of American youth dying in Iraq compared to Vietnam justifies the ineffective foreign policy decision of fighting a counterinsurgency. The Cold war raged in full force in the mid 1960’s, and if not in Vietnam, the battle would have been elsewhere. The real question is; how do you win a counterinsurgency?

History has shown that there is only one way to win a counterinsurgency as it pertains to occupation of a foreign nation. Unless the occupying nation is willing to use the only conduct that has ever proven effective against counterinsurgencies, they are doomed to failure. United States History contains two examples of counterinsurgencies that represent both how to win and how to lose a fight against insurgents. White European immigrants are the fathers of our nation, this is not debatable. However, the United States Government fought a counterinsurgency against the Native Americans for over 100-years. The United States showed the world how to win a war against insurgents . . . Occupiers must be willing to completely annihilate their opposition. This is the only way to win a counterinsurgency. A willingness to bring your enemy to its knees through sheer force is the only historically proven method in containing insurgents.

The great thing about history is that it repeats itself over and over. Let’s look at another example of our past that would seem to prove my point. The American Revolution is a perfect example on how to win an insurgency. Upon realizing that the British would not be willing to exterminate the civilian populace, American insurgents realized they had time on their side. They did not have to win the major battles but near the end it helped. Staying alive and pestering the British became the battle plan. When the war became too costly in both money and lives, the British pulled out. A simple yet effective plan, which has proven itself successful time and time again, and Vietnam was one of those times.

The battle for “Hearts and Minds” has never played out on a major scale. Inevitably, corruption of the “favored” brings down the puppet representation of the indigenous population. It is history, not me, that has dictated why, while we may have won the battles in Vietnam, we lost the war. And unfortunately, it is happening again.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"Peace with Honor" Coming to a Talking Point Near You.

I originally wrote this piece back in January of 2004----it seems even more applicable today

The lessons learned in Vietnam were apparently not a consideration prior to the launch of military operations in Iraq. The Domino Theory and its promise of the spread of communism had nothing to do with how we handled our strategy in the war against the Vietnamese insurgents. The battle for “Hearts and Minds” is a modern approach to occupation, and has yet to be proven as a viable option when trying to stop an insurgency. History is once again being ignored. Where we ignored the lessons learned during the Philippine Insurgency from 1898–1903 during Vietnam, the present day administration is ignoring the lessons learned during Vietnam while occupying present day Iraq. It cannot be debated that we won the battles on the ground in Vietnam, however, we lost the war for “Hearts and Minds”, and did damage to our world stature that took years to overcome. And unfortunately, it is happening again.

Many from the right like to use Vietnam and the numbers of casualties sustained in that war for comparison when justifying the deaths of our troops in Iraq. Apparently, fewer numbers of American youth dying in Iraq compared to Vietnam justifies the ineffective foreign policy decision of fighting a counterinsurgency. The Cold war raged in full force in the mid 1960’s, and if not in Vietnam, the battle would have been elsewhere. The real question is; how do you win a counterinsurgency?

History has shown that there is only one way to win a counterinsurgency as it pertains to occupation of a foreign nation. Unless the occupying nation is willing to use the only conduct that has ever proven effective against counterinsurgencies, they are doomed to failure. United States History contains two examples of counterinsurgencies that represent both how to win and how to lose a fight against insurgents. White European immigrants are the fathers of our nation, this is not debatable. However, the United States Government fought a counterinsurgency against the Native Americans for over 100-years. The United States showed the world how to win a war against insurgents . . . Occupiers must be willing to completely annihilate their opposition. This is the only way to win a counterinsurgency. A willingness to bring your enemy to its knees through sheer force is the only historically proven method in containing insurgents.

The great thing about history is that it repeats itself over and over. Let’s look at another example of our past that would seem to prove my point. The American Revolution is a perfect example on how to win an insurgency. Upon realizing that the British would not be willing to exterminate the civilian populace, American insurgents realized they had time on their side. They did not have to win the major battles but near the end it helped. Staying alive and pestering the British became the battle plan. When the war became too costly in both money and lives, the British pulled out. A simple yet effective plan, which has proven itself successful time and time again, and Vietnam was one of those times.

The battle for “Hearts and Minds” has never played out on a major scale. Inevitably, corruption of the “favored” brings down the puppet representation of the indigenous population. It is history, not me, that has dictated why, while we may have won the battles in Vietnam, we lost the war. And unfortunately, it is happening again.

You're completely wrong on well just about everything.

A) This is not Vietnam not even close.

B) There are many historical examples of how to win a counterinsurgency without resorting to genocide. One needs look no further than Latin America to realize how one can win a counter insurgency, ie Columbia and Peru. The lesson is that insurgencies can be defeated, however, it takes upwards of 10 years for counterinsurgent forces to win.

 

[128shot]

You're completely wrong on well just about everything.

A) This is not Vietnam not even close.

B) There are many historical examples of how to win a counterinsurgency without resorting to genocide. One needs look no further than Latin America to realize how one can win a counter insurgency, ie Columbia and Peru. The lesson is that insurgencies can be defeated, however, it takes upwards of 10 years for counterinsurgent forces to win.

Historical examples in columbia? I'm not up on Peru, however in columbia the government only has control of the city. The rural envoirment is all controlled by insurgents/paramilitary groups. Thats hardly a good example.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Historical examples in columbia? I'm not up on Peru, however in columbia the government only has control of the city. The rural envoirment is all controlled by insurgents/paramilitary groups. Thats hardly a good example.

You're misinformed, Columbia has gotten alot better since the 80s and 90s man, the cartels were running an insurgency the paramilitary that now exists was the counter insurgency we trained them to fight the Medelin Cartel and the counter insurgency won. Violence has decreased alot since 2002. Peru is a better example of how successful a counterinsurgency can be though:

Peru returned to democratic leadership in 1980, but experienced economic problems and the growth of a violent insurgency. President Alberto FUJIMORI's election in 1990 ushered in a decade that saw a dramatic turnaround in the economy and significant progress in curtailing guerrilla activity. Nevertheless, the president's increasing reliance on authoritarian measures and an economic slump in the late 1990s generated mounting dissatisfaction with his regime. FUJIMORI won reelection to a third term in the spring of 2000, but international pressure and corruption scandals led to his ouster by Congress in November of that year. A caretaker government oversaw new elections in the spring of 2001, which ushered in Alejandro TOLEDO as the new head of government; his presidency has been hampered by allegations of corruption.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pe.html

The governments may not be up to American standards but the insurgencies were nevertheless defeated without resorting to genocide.

 

[Stinger]

We won the first part, Saddam is no longer a threat to us. Iraq is no longer supportive of terror.

We could very well lose the last part if we lose our will to fight and that is the battle that is going on on the homefront not here. Their are those here who do not have the will and want the rest of the country to follow suit. When that happens and we pull out before we have accomplished a stable Iraq then those who oppose such a goal will win and what happens in Iraq after that who knows, they will be on their own just as those who opposed Vietnam left it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We won the first part, Saddam is no longer a threat to us. Iraq is no longer supportive of terror.

We could very well lose the last part if we lose our will to fight and that is the battle that is going on on the homefront not here. Their are those here who do not have the will and want the rest of the country to follow suit. When that happens and we pull out before we have accomplished a stable Iraq then those who oppose such a goal will win and what happens in Iraq after that who knows, they will be on their own just as those who opposed Vietnam left it.

Except unlike Vietnam this enemy will follow us home.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

General George C. Marshal was once quoted (paraphrasing here) that no Republic or Democracy can or will tolerate a war that lasts for more than 7-years in the modern era (1940s). Why do you think he would say that? For anyone who refers to any South American country that defeated a insurgency-----are you claiming that South America has given us a blue print on how to win in Iraq? Hamas gets elected into Office. Hugo gets elected into Office. The Left are taking control in South America via the polls. Oh yeah, Columbia is a bastion of peace and they are cooperating so much as it concerns the drug trade. Yep, no more rebels. All fixed down there.

"Annihilate" is probably the word that has been confused with Genocide----at least that is my guess. I am not going to get all semantic, so let me clarify my meaning by stating, If you are going to win a counterinsurgency in a Foreign Country, you better be willing to bring the local population to its knees. I believe there are still some Native Americans left in America.

Lastly, those who claim this is not even close to a Vietnam scenario commit the same error of not learning from our mistakes there that the Administration has walked us into. A Consequence of not having any real leadership and power coming from the President's staff who had actually experienced war. Oh wait, they had Colin Powell and Anthony Principi warn them, but their arguments seemed to fall on deaf ears. It's funny how they are no longer members of the Administration. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure General Shinseki got fired for warning them as well.

Damn those Military guys with wartime experience. Iraq is so much closer to being another Vietnam than it is not. Who is our Friend and who is our Enemy? 4000-years of history of invasions, occupations, and eventual pull out of forces is very similar to the Vietnamese's 2000-year history of occupation. Insurgent Hit and Run Tactics which minimize insurgent casualties at the cost of American life. No end in sight. No clear objective. No definition for success. No exit strategy. Escalating violence among the indigenous populations pitted against one another. Our Troops are being used as targets to draw fire. Puppet government, corruption on a massive scale, and instead of Vietminization we have the mideast version of Iraqi-ization.

Differences: Iraq is the land of Friend by day, enemy by night. Culturally known for the vendetta, that part of the middle and neareast are known for this and it is not going to change just because we are there. This is a Bad thing.

We disbanded their Army and know that to arm the new one and leave would be more dangerous than just staying. Vietnam had the 4th largest Army in the world for a time after we left. We won't make that mistake again. That we are in this kind of situation----that's a bad thing.

Also, secondary to no other Super Power Jockeying for position during the Cold War, Iraq has no regular army or air power to harm us. However, they do have a neverending supply of recruits that will continue to go to Iraq to fight the Americans, and we all know Iran and Syria are not helping us out much----so they cancel eachother out. We have one MIA and casualties are not anywhere near Vietnam like numbers. GPS is responsible for saving more lives than we will ever be able to count. This is a good thing. Remember this time honored equation for any foreign power fighting insurgents in a foreign land:

TIME + MONEY + CASUALTIES = CLAIM SUCCESS AND PULLOUT

Yeah, there are so many examples of winning counterinsurgencies. That's Way Africa,the Middle East, The Near East, and Asia are still under control of the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Germans, and Vikings too. How did that first attempt by the British at quelling unrest after WWI work out in the Mess-o-Potamia?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"Annihilate" is probably the word that has been confused with Genocide----at least that is my guess. I am not going to get all semantic, so let me clarify my meaning by stating, If you are going to win a counterinsurgency in a Foreign Country, you better be willing to bring the local population to its knees. I believe there are still some Native Americans left in America.

Well I would argue that when conquering or liberating new principalities one must use violence but all violence should be done at the begining and all at once, you don't have to bring the local population to its knees if you have their support, insurgencies can't win if they don't have the support of the people and prolonged violence against the average citizen will alienate you from the population which is precisely what is happening to the current insurgency in Iraq. Basically it's 27 million freed Iraqis vs. 10 thousand insurgents, who would you put money on???

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Well I would argue that when conquering or liberating new principalities one must use violence but all violence should be done at the begining and all at once, you don't have to bring the local population to its knees if you have their support, insurgencies can't win if they don't have the support of the people and prolonged violence against the average citizen will alienate you from the population which is precisely what is happening to the current insurgency in Iraq. Basically it's 27 million freed Iraqis vs. 10 thousand insurgents, who would you put money on???

The Home team----the advantage is huge, they don't have to wait to get sick & tired of fighting, they don't have to sit and wait in great anticipation for the day they get to go home. They are already there.

And, the numbers you give are coming from the same people who said there was only a few Deadenders left back in June of 2003. Oh yeah, how's the French and British empires doing right about now?

Here's another example of how we won a counterinsurgency, the Philipino Insurgency from 1898-1903. We brutalized the nation and they got over it. I use an example GW loves to use----how about Japan? We dropped two friggin A-Bombs on their heads and now they lend us money everyday. I would say we brought them to their knees-----and that wasn't even a Counterinsurgency. What about Berlin and Dresden? The German Army was being supplemented with kids at the end of the war, do you think we brought them to their knees? They got over it too. if you want to win you have to be willing to take the bad press, otherwise, don't start what you cannot finish.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The Home team----the advantage is huge, they don't have to wait to get sick & tired of fighting, they don't have to sit and wait in great anticipation for the day they get to go home. They are already there.

And, the numbers you give are coming from the same people who said there was only a few Deadenders left back in June of 2003. Oh yeah, how's the French and British empires doing right about now?

Here's another example of how we won a counterinsurgency, the Philipino Insurgency from 1898-1903. We brutalized the nation and they got over it. I use an example GW loves to use----how about Japan? We dropped two friggin A-Bombs on their heads and now they lend us money everyday. I would say we brought them to their knees-----and that wasn't even a Counterinsurgency. What about Berlin and Dresden? The German Army was being supplemented with kids at the end of the war, do you think we brought them to their knees? They got over it too. if you want to win you have to be willing to take the bad press, otherwise, don't start what you cannot finish.

Here's the thing we already brought the Iraqi military to its knees now there is a small insurgency that can only be defeated by the Iraqi people themselves, if we used nukes or something like that it would only help in their recruiting effort but as it stands more Iraqis are joining the police and security forces than are joining the insurgency. Counterinsurgencies take a while to win but they do win if the insurgency doesn't have the support of the people and in the case of Iraq the Iraqis want the insurgency out.

 

[justone]

Here's the thing we already brought the Iraqi military to its knees

Does not always constitute wining a war, as Vietnam shows

now there is a small insurgency that can only be defeated by the Iraqi people themselves,

Anyway to measure the insurgency? Are Iraqis making a measurable progress?

but as it stands more Iraqis are joining the police and security forces than are joining the insurgency.

When Iraqi join police and security we give them money and we train them, but in a few months they leave, desert, disappear to join insurgents, sides of the civil war etc; and new insurgents sign up for money and training. We train and pay to insurgents. Iraqi police is a day time police and night time insurgents.

the Iraqis want the insurgency out.

if they ever wanted, the insurgents would be gone long time ago. You called it small insurgency, didn’t you.

 

[MSgt]

I'm so sick of this obtuse garbage. Where the hell are we going to fail? Saddam is gone. What is left is the insurgency of zealots, who are being wrecked whole sale, and the local Sunni fighters who merely long for the good old days when it was legal to look down upon Shi'ites and Kurds. The future of Iraq will ultimately be an Iraqi success or an Iraqi failure - not American.

A failed Iraq would say less about the limits of U.S. might than about the lack of practical and moral potential in the Middle East. We could withstand the collapse of our current effort. But it's doubtful whether the Arab world could recover from Iraq's failure. The future of Iraq matters profoundly. But it matters far more to the Iraqis and other Arabs than to us. We can go home. They can't. What the Iraqis do for — or to — themselves will tell us a great deal about whether Americans are right to hope against hope for the Middle East to progress, or if the prophets of Arab doom are correct. It's a self-help world, in the end. The Middle East is broken — governmentally, socially, educationally and, despite its unevenly distributed oil wealth, economically. It has stagnated on every front that might allow it to compete. That stagnation bred the terrorism that plagues the world today. Someone had to jump-start change. And no one else would do it if the same Anglo-lateral alliance that saved the world 60 years ago hadn't taken the lead and the lumps. We've done virtually all we can do. If the Arab world can't use Iraq to embrace change, there will be no end to terrorism in our lifetimes.

There will be no true end "victory" in Iraq. We will stay until we leave and that will be that. There will be no terrorist coming to a table to sign any term of surrender. There will not be a grand meeting of Shi'iotes and Sunni where hugs and kisses will be exchanged. "Victory" will not be immediate. No one should be under any illusion of this. The impact of what we have been attempting to do will only be evident in the years and years to follow. The Middle Eastern ideology must change. The people in the Middle East have to start thinking for themselves and not what perverted clerics tell them. The people of the Middle East have to start taking responsibility for their own lives and their own failed civilization and stop pointing fingers at America and Israel, because of what their dictators and rich Arab families have done to them.


Failure is not even on the table for America.

However, your points about defeating our enemy "correctly" is a shared sentiment. I too believe we should stop fighting "casualty free wars" and take the kid gloves off. We are the new "Roman Empire" and the future is America.



PS...the whole "Vietnam comparison" thing is tired.

 

[Captain America]

I would be interested in knowing the exact definitions of "victory" and "failure" in regards to Iraq.

Aside from Saddam being out of the limelight, it's hard to count the victory especially when the negative appears to outweigh the positive at the present. Only time will tell I suppose.

I do know this. In many aspects of life, a "remodel job" will simply not do. Often we have to do a total demo and start all over again from the ground up. I think that's what Iraq will have to do and Gunny is right. It is something THEY have to do. It will be THEIR victory or defeat.

But, if it turns out well, we can take credit for the demo. If not, well, Saddam's gone. That's a consolation prize I suppose.:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Does not always constitute wining a war, as Vietnam shows

What the hell are you talking about? We weren't allowed to invade North Vietnam because they had politicians running the war instead of the military. We never even attempted to capture Hanoi.

Anyway to measure the insurgency? Are Iraqis making a measurable progress?

All the estimates that I've heard have run from appx. 10-50 thousand.

When Iraqi join police and security we give them money and we train them, but in a few months they leave, desert, disappear to join insurgents, sides of the civil war etc; and new insurgents sign up for money and training. We train and pay to insurgents. Iraqi police is a day time police and night time insurgents.

Where do you get your intelligence that says the security forces are deserting? You're just making up your own facts here.

if they ever wanted, the insurgents would be gone long time ago. You called it small insurgency, didn’t you.

Yes it is a small insurgency and as I've said counterinsurgency forces take time to attain victory. The insurgency does not have the support of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi police and military is growing exponentially much more so than the insurgency.

 

[AndrewC]

Iraq mission a failure? Come on!! They went there to get rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I say mission accomplished!!

 

[BodiSatva]

WMD was one aspect...lets not harp on that one any longer...

Trajan, great points...I agree about the whole N. Vietnam thing. The US military had its hands in Vietnam. We were not able to go after the source of supplies in that war. Without hte North, the South and the VC would not have been resupplied via Ho Chi Minh Trail and we could have taken the fight to them, rather than running around playing patch up in areas that THEY designated would be combat areas. That whole thing was a shambles.

 

[KCConservative]

I say mission accomplished!!

Was it your intention to quote the US Navy?

 

[ProudAmerican]

I will not be suprised if we fail.

In this day and age of political correctness, it is impossible for the U.S. government to properly fight a war.

We will have to suffer many more casualties than 3,000 civilians before enough people realize what we are up against to fully support America in this fight.

Maybe after an attack that takes out 100,000 people will wake up, and allow the military to do this job correctly, instead of worrying about civilians in 3rd world countries that have allowed muslem terrorism to grow for centuries.


we didnt concern ourselves with the well being of german civilians that allowed nazism to flourish.
or with japanese civilians that supported imperial japan.

why do we concern ourselves with the populations that have allowed muslem fanatics to grow, train, eat, and take shelter in their nations.

 

[BodiSatva]

Perfectly said Proud Am...that is the point I have been making in another thread.

 

[AndrewC]

I will not be suprised if we fail.

In this day and age of political correctness, it is impossible for the U.S. government to properly fight a war.

We will have to suffer many more casualties than 3,000 civilians before enough people realize what we are up against to fully support America in this fight.

Maybe after an attack that takes out 100,000 people will wake up, and allow the military to do this job correctly, instead of worrying about civilians in 3rd world countries that have allowed muslem terrorism to grow for centuries.


we didnt concern ourselves with the well being of german civilians that allowed nazism to flourish.
or with japanese civilians that supported imperial japan.

why do we concern ourselves with the populations that have allowed muslem fanatics to grow, train, eat, and take shelter in their nations.

Yes Yes, why worry about the nasty little third world people. I mean, they don't have anything of value to offer. Totally uncivilized. Best kill them and be done with it.

 

[BodiSatva]

An argumentative and emotive response that does not address the issue…

Do not assume that we want to fight them because they are third world…that is a ridiculous assertion. Does France sponsor genocide? Does Germany hide terrorists? Does Britain invade other nations and rape and pillage them? Naw, didn’t think so. Don’t start pulling out info on the Falklands or WWII now…

This enemy is not civilized. Beheadings and kidnappings are not civilized.

We bombed civilized nations in war before.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes Yes, why worry about the nasty little third world people. I mean, they don't have anything of value to offer. Totally uncivilized. Best kill them and be done with it.

When we give them loans and actually expect them to pay us back we're called imperialists and neo-colonialists, if we don't give them loans because we know they won't pay us back we're promoting poverty, it's a lose lose.

 

[AndrewC]

When we give them loans and actually expect them to pay us back we're called imperialists and neo-colonialists, if we don't give them loans because we know they won't pay us back we're promoting poverty, it's a lose lose.

Help me out here. The United States is the "we" or the "them" in the above?


http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes Yes, why worry about the nasty little third world people. I mean, they don't have anything of value to offer. Totally uncivilized. Best kill them and be done with it.

why in the world would you say such a thing?

fact is, if you are going to fight a war, fight to win. if not, then dont bother.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Here's the thing we already brought the Iraqi military to its knees now there is a small insurgency that can only be defeated by the Iraqi people themselves, if we used nukes or something like that it would only help in their recruiting effort but as it stands more Iraqis are joining the police and security forces than are joining the insurgency. Counterinsurgencies take a while to win but they do win if the insurgency doesn't have the support of the people and in the case of Iraq the Iraqis want the insurgency out.

I swear, it does not matter if a person is democrat or a republican----when someone spews this kind of rhetoric it deserves to be called exactly what it is----Bull Shite. OK TOT Boy, let's say I move into your house and break all your appliances, plumbing, heater, and electric. Then, I get mad cuz you are not fixing as fast as I want you to.

Iraqis want FOREIGN fighters out (You follow little Buddy?) The Shi-ites want to kill the Sunnis, the Sunnis want to kill the Shi-ites, and the Kurds want to suck up all the oil and be a SEPARATE country. Where in the hell did you study history? Counter-Insurgencies win over time? Are you really serious? MY Goodness-----does this kind of debate stand up as rational at this site? Ridiculous and Absurd. You don't even believe what you are writing.