BF2S Forums Saddam was right

lowing wrote:

So you really don't think we can win this war if the colaition stopped fucking around politically and went in there and got the job done?..THAT can happen if politics were put on the back burner, Bush can not fight to fronts of this war, Iraq, and home fronts.

Well, I do agree that we implemented this operation with too much ambiguity.  I don't see the problem as being from the coalition though.  Some key members of the coalition have left (like Spain), but overall, most of the failures have been on the diplomatic side.

America has plenty of military skill and force to throw around, but we aren't familiar with the cultures of the area.  Very few of our personnel can even speak Arabic.  An aspect to the first Gulf War that is rarely mentioned but was very crucial to our success was that we had the support of the Islamic World in fighting Saddam that time around.  There were plenty of Islamic cultural advisors and diplomats aiding us in less combative roles throughout that operation.  We need their help this time around as well.  That's why I'm less leary of letting Syria and Iran handle certain aspects of this than I otherwise would be.

Yes, we have proof that both of those countries have aided the insurgency, but we also have to admit that this is their home turf.  Much of the Middle East is as alien to us as our culture is to them.  It helps to have people that at least bear some similarities to the cultures present when attempting to nation-build.

As for the resistance here, that's a very understandable movement.  Millions of Americans have begun to notice how far this whole operation is pushing us into debt.  This is why many people want us out of Iraq as soon as possible.  Unfortunately, I question the ability of the Democrats to actually accomplish withdrawal by the time of the next election.  It would seem that the "cut and run" rhetoric has actually started to work on the Democrats.  They seem afraid to withdrawal, despite how much it would save us financially.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

So you really don't think we can win this war if the colaition stopped fucking around politically and went in there and got the job done?..THAT can happen if politics were put on the back burner, Bush can not fight to fronts of this war, Iraq, and home fronts.

Well, I do agree that we implemented this operation with too much ambiguity.  I don't see the problem as being from the coalition though.  Some key members of the coalition have left (like Spain), but overall, most of the failures have been on the diplomatic side.

America has plenty of military skill and force to throw around, but we aren't familiar with the cultures of the area.  Very few of our personnel can even speak Arabic.  An aspect to the first Gulf War that is rarely mentioned but was very crucial to our success was that we had the support of the Islamic World in fighting Saddam that time around.  There were plenty of Islamic cultural advisors and diplomats aiding us in less combative roles throughout that operation.  We need their help this time around as well.  That's why I'm less leary of letting Syria and Iran handle certain aspects of this than I otherwise would be.

Yes, we have proof that both of those countries have aided the insurgency, but we also have to admit that this is their home turf.  Much of the Middle East is as alien to us as our culture is to them.  It helps to have people that at least bear some similarities to the cultures present when attempting to nation-build.

As for the resistance here, that's a very understandable movement.  Millions of Americans have begun to notice how far this whole operation is pushing us into debt.  This is why many people want us out of Iraq as soon as possible.  Unfortunately, I question the ability of the Democrats to actually accomplish withdrawal by the time of the next election.  It would seem that the "cut and run" rhetoric has actually started to work on the Democrats.  They seem afraid to withdrawal, despite how much it would save us financially.

Yes I agree with you, I think I pretty much said the same thing only, you are more politcally correct than I ever will be....... YOu say they have a very different culture that we daon't understand. I say their culture is destructive, degrading toward women and animalistic, nut yer right, we don't understand it.

Spain was bullied out of the coliation by a bombing. They are appeasers, that cower in the sight of a threat. Just like our liberal leadership wants us to do..

One of the protocalls is that if a civil war starts then we pull out. Well according to the violence I'd say a civil war has started. The unemployed are taking up "jobs" and causing enough violence that we can just "say" tere is a civil war and pull out. Fuck'em. We fucked up enough going there in the first place. Let's not stay.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes I agree with you, I think I pretty much said the same thing only, you are more politcally correct than I ever will be....... YOu say they have a very different culture that we daon't understand. I say their culture is destructive, degrading toward women and animalistic, nut yer right, we don't understand it.

Spain was bullied out of the coliation by a bombing. They are appeasers, that cower in the sight of a threat. Just like our liberal leadership wants us to do..

Well, I would agree that the extremists and ultraconservatives among their religion are destructive and degrading, but I think the average Iraqi is merely....  outdated.

I would argue that our reason for withdrawal is much more valid than Spain's.  Spain wasn't footing such a large portion of the bill as we are.  Spain didn't contribute the amount of troops we have.   Spain had far less reason to leave than we do.

If America chooses to leave, it's out of common sense, not out of appeasement.  This just isn't working to our advantage.  It's been a failure for most of the time we've been there.  Sometimes, you just have to know when to give up.  Vietnam should've made that obvious by now.

Vietnam was lost politically, so it will be in Iraq.

Well, to be more accurate, LBJ's micromanagement of the war probably hurt our efforts more than anything else in Vietnam.  Yes, the press obviously had an agenda, but that wouldn't have had as powerful of an effect if LBJ had been more competent and let the military do its job properly.

Similarly, the press may tend to support withdrawal, but the power of their message wouldn't be as significant if Bush and Rumsfeld had come up with a better plan for the nation-building process.  I just find it strange that you would attach more blame for our failures to politics than you would to strategy.

I guess I just see it differently.  To me, most of the Democrats are speaking out against what they see as incompetence on the part of the administration.  Obviously, some of them are doing it strictly for politics, but that argument only works for so long when you notice a lot of Republicans are also speaking out against Bush.

John Warner's rejection of Bush's policies in Iraq are probably the strongest rebuttal to "staying the course," since he was once one of the strongest advocates for the invasion of Iraq.

Ess wrote:

I do agree with many of the posts here that Middle Eastern politics are totally different to Western politics.
Iraq has an ancient tribal culture which is almost impossible to control with a democratic government, as the Brittish found out in the 50's.
I am not in any way condoning the way Sadaam's methods, but they were incredibly effective in maintaining control over the Sunni / shia / kurd populations and preventing civil war. Very few Middle Eastern countries have a true democratic government.
I am still amazed that the UK/USA coalition went into this with absolutely no idea of the possible chaos and civil war that could erupt if the rule of law were removed, and no strategy to cope when it did.

Yes. How do we get Sunnis and Shi'ites to stop killing each other? How do we get Iraqis to think of themselves as Iraqis, not clan members? "Winning" means altering the culture(s) of Iraq. I don't think that would be possible even if there were no anti-US insurgents.

i love chai

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

Yes. How do we get Sunnis and Shi'ites to stop killing each other? How do we get Iraqis to think of themselves as Iraqis, not clan members? "Winning" means altering the culture(s) of Iraq. I don't think that would be possible even if there were no anti-US insurgents.

What a joke! 'Changing their culture' : what are you the nazi mind police?!! Their culture is several millennia older than American or even European culture - to think that non-muslims from thousands of miles away can 'change their culture' is patronising and hilarious!

That was pretty much my point when I said "I don't think that would be possible even if there were no anti-US insurgents."

lowing wrote:

Their plan was sound and humane and positive. Iraqi's could have finally had peace and prosperity and chose their own individual destinies. Bush is guilty of underestimating the will of Iraq to really want to be free after Saddam, they would rather be lead and controlled and manipulated.

Our govt. is/was rebuilding Iraq with modern facilities, hospitals, schools,....... etc the trouble is, apparently they don't want it. For me the problem is not Bush or Rumsfeld, but the back ass-wards thinking of the people of Iraq and those that refuse to let peace take hold.

Death means very little to the people of the ME, and life, apparentlly, doesn't mean much more.

Sound, humane, and positive.... Hmmm...  Well, removing Saddam was positive.  We have been humane to the Iraqi people compared to Saddam.  But sound....  I don't think so.

A sound plan would have involved more foresight.  A sound plan would involve employing the remnants of the Iraqi Republican Guard as the new police force of the country.   A sound plan would have acknowledged the history of ethnic conflict in the country and would have been ready for the rise of people like Muqtada.  There's nothing sound about this operation.

Our government is rebuilding many things in Iraq, but a good portion of this infrastructure is being destroyed by insurgents.  A good portion of this reconstruction has been steeped in scandals involving unscrupulous contractors who overcharge our government.

As much as I hate the blind traditionalism of so much of the Iraqi people, I can't totally blame them for rebelling.  As many posters have demonstrated here, if we put ourselves into the position of having an occupying force over us, it becomes very clear why so many Iraqis distrust us.

Out of practicality and the values I believe in, I still support America over these people, but I think the time has come for us to leave.  We've worn out our welcome among a nation that doesn't really deserve our help.