0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 02:56 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Frank, your predictions may very well prove accurate... but unless you have a crystal ball (actually, even if you do :wink:) those are still just a guesses at this juncture. Your un-provable prediction of the eventual outcome does NOTHING to substantiate your comparison today. Today, you're comparing two efforts at their respective beginnings... NOT the ends.


Well...you are MISTAKENLY supposing that I am confining my comparisons to Vietnam JUST to the possible outcome.

But that ain't so.



Here is a list of Robert McNamara's 11 items of mistakes we made going into the Vietnam misadventure.


Quote:
In 1995, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara published In Retrospect, the first of his three books dissecting the errors, myths and miscalculations that led to the Vietnam War, which he now believes was a serious mistake. Nine years later, most of these lessons seem uncannily relevant to the Iraq war in its current nation-building, guerrilla-warfare phase.


* We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

* We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

* We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

* Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

* We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

* We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.

* After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

* We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

* We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

* We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

* Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.




Look them over, Bill.

I mentioned that the end game will be the same as Vietnam...but don't for a moment think that the steps leading up to the invasion were not the same mistakes as were made in the Vietnam situation.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:15 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Vietnam is a terrific comparison.


in the first couple of years, "vietnam" wasn't "VIETNAM". it was over the course of time that it became clear that the intended objective wasn't being achieved.

what was being achieved was a huge loss of american lives, physical and mental injury, big spending and an absolutely polarized american public.

sure seems familiar to me...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:18 pm
Quote:
We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:30 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has outlived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers. Rolling Eyes

Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:39 pm
Thinking like you on this issue, Bill, is gonna get our country doing a Groundhog Day on these kinds of wars.

I'll leave it be.

Your side seems to need to feel this war is not like Vietnam.

Whatever spins your top.

But the similarities are startling!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:42 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.


An American said that? I'm impressed. Amen.

Quite a lot of people recognised that GWB is not omniscient though, I seem to remember. He's not even partially scient. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:43 pm
And this is from April 2004 on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/bush.highlights.1/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:48 pm
Quote from the above link, Bush: "I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment."

Rummy, "You fight a war with what you have, not with what you think you need."

There seems to be some disconnect all the way around between the president, abizaid, and rummy.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:56 pm
Bush is lucky his nose does not grow with every lie he tells. If it did it would have reached Iraq by this time. Bush and the truth are virtual strangers.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 03:58 pm
Bill, you're fond of accusing people of avoiding your questions, but you avoided my last.

Here it is again: The US is building new large modern military bases in Iraq and an embassy which is unprecedented in size, 3000 staff or so, so it's more of a control centre than an embassy.

The Iraqis are having an election, and we are told that Iraq will be independent as soon as possible after that.

Question: What will the US position be if the new (it's to be completely independent, remember) Iraqi government says

"Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your money nor your offers of further help, we want to be friendly with our neighbours the Iranians. Please leave our lands now, and by the way we want to market our oil in Europe and China."

In other words, how independent can the US afford to let the new Iraqi regime be?

Puppet?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 04:05 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has outlived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers. Rolling Eyes

Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth? Shocked

You only answer with rhetoric and expect your assertions of truth to be valid just because you say them. I assume you have done such a google search and can supply the group with the results .... to bear out what you claim to be factual, not just uttered.i
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 04:06 pm
McTag
I believe under that scenerio the US would be hard pressed not to comply. What a kick in the face that would be for Bush and unfortunately the US. Imagine with all the American blood spilled and treasury expended we would have to leave with our tail between our legs.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 04:14 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
revel wrote:
bill

The US military is big and powerful. If most of the Iraqi's really wanted us to succeed they would help us knowing that we could with their help squash the insurgency. We have lost the war of the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people when we failed to get a handle on the security problem and failed to restore their country to at least workable conditions with electricity and running water and gas and the prison abuses and other unsavory things that our military has done has not done us any favors in winning the hearts and minds so now they have turned against us because they don't believe in us and turned to the insurgecny.
Revel, repeating that heartfelt drivel doesn't back up your argument at all. Did Ican sum up your reasoning for doubting that the insurgents are a small minority of Iraqis?


http://www.sundayherald.com/46389



US admits the war for ?'hearts and minds' in Iraq is now lost


Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor



THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the "self-serving hypocrisy" of George W Bush's administration over the Middle East.
The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank "strategic communications" report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds", the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended".

"American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies."

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East "hate our freedoms", the report says: "Muslims do not ?'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ?'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. "American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims." The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

"Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic," the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is "no more than an extension of American domestic politics". The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that "whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy".

The report says that the US is now engaged in a "global and generational struggle of ideas" which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make "strategic communication" - which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations - an integral part of national security. The document says that "Presidential leadership" is needed in this "ideas war" and warns against "arrogance, opportunism and double standards".

"We face a war on terrorism," the report says, "intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America's tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America's power to persuade is in a state of crisis." More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

"The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe," the report adds, "weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide." This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

America's "image problem", the report authors suggest, is "linked to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent". The White House "has paid little attention" to the problems.

The report calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies "will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible".

American rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against "totalitarian evil" is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what is happening as a "history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world …(which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents - of which radical fighters are only a small part".

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. "The US finds itself in the strategically awkward - and potentially dangerous - situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive," the report says.

"Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.

"There is no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies … The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy."

The report says that, in terms of the "information war", "at this moment it is the enemy that has the advantage". The US propaganda drive has to focus on "separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical- militant Islamist-Jihadist".

According to the report, "the official take on the target audience [the Muslim world] has been gloriously simple" and divided the Middle East into "good" and "bad Muslims".

"Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent ?'superpower' that elevates values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam - by overwhelming majorities at this time - sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.

"In two years the jihadi message - that strongly attacks American values - is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out

Equally important, the report says, is "to renew European attitudes towards America" which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As "al-Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information", American has to adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim world - including writers, artists and singers - and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US "brand".

The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the "information war" to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: "Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism."

05 December 2004
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 04:27 pm
McTag wrote:
Question: What will the US position be if the new (it's to be completely independent, remember) Iraqi government says

"Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your money nor your offers of further help, we want to be friendly with our neighbours the Iranians. Please leave our lands now, and by the way we want to market our oil in Europe and China."


oh, no mctag. that couldn't happen. surely you're thinking of saudi arabia?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 04:32 pm
revel wrote:
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389



US admits the war for ?'hearts and minds' in Iraq is now lost


the Defence Science Board. obviously a bunch a liberals... Confused

good post revel.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 05:20 pm
McTag wrote:
Bill, you're fond of accusing people of avoiding your questions, but you avoided my last.
Nonsense. I answered you here.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
McTag wrote:
Suppose the new Iraqi authority decides that it wants the US to leave its new bases and go away; what do you think will happen then? Will the US go?
For starters; I think the question is a non-starter because it is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Before it would, I think we'll more than likely have negotiated some form of a long-term instrument (like a lease) in exchange for our assistance. I'm also guessing that they'll go for it. :wink:

IF, they adamantly want us to vacate their country so they could run it themselves, under a duly elected government; I think we'd declare victory and come home. We'd still have our bases in Kuwait… and no Iraqi will soon forget Saddam's fate… so we wouldn't be treated like impotent wolf-criers like we were in the past. Again, that's not something I expect to see come up anyway. In about a month you're going to have to admit that the majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave. Frankly, McTag, they'd be fools if they did.


McTag wrote:
In other words, how independent can the US afford to let the new Iraqi regime be?

Puppet?
Nope. IMHO, if a duly elected Iraqi government asks us to leave, we do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 05:22 pm
revel, Good post. All those in support of this war keep trying to compare it to Japan and Germany. They just can't see the fact that most Muslims now hate the US and our government like in no other time in our history. They thnk that the goodness of our heart is the primary motivation for this ill-gotten quagmire while we continue to lose our men and women in the military and our treasure in trying to force American-style democracy on the middle east. How they are able to continue the illusion that Iraq is anything like Japan and Germany is beyond any logic, but they continue to rationalize and rationalize until they contradict their own posts. But they're blind to all that too!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 05:27 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has outlived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers. Rolling Eyes

Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth? Shocked

You only answer with rhetoric and expect your assertions of truth to be valid just because you say them. I assume you have done such a google search and can supply the group with the results .... to bear out what you claim to be factual, not just uttered.i

Rolling Eyes Google searches return tons of information Gel. Some factual, some opinion, some utter nonsense. They neither prove nor disprove any claim to be factual. Great way to get familiar with topics you don't know about, though. Idea Your categorizing my condemnation of hostage-taking murderers for their despicable acts as rhetoric is making me sick. I will provide neither photo evidence of the victims who received bullets in their heads at point blank range (by their captors) nor read through a list of similar disgusting stories to locate some for your satisfaction. I got more than my fill when I read it as news the first time around. Don't believe me? Than go ahead and pretend the stories do not exist if it suits you. Those who read the news daily (probably including you Confused ) will likely remember reading the stories I'm referring to.

What do you hope to accomplish by denying the vile acts of these murderers anyway? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
posted December 27, 2004, updated 11:30 p.m.

Iraq officials reject US election proposal

Idea of 'special' seats for Sunnis called 'unacceptable' interference.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


A proposal floated by the US government and several prominient US senators Sunday to 'adjust' the outcome of next month's election in Iraq to ensure more Sunni representation has been rejected by the Iraq Electoral Commission (IEC). The Daily Star of Lebanon reports that IEC spokesman Farid Ayyar described the US proposal as "unacceptable" interference, saying: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election." Meanwhile, the BBC reports that Iraq's main Sunni party announced Monday it would withdraw from the January 30 election, all but ensuring an assembly overwhelmingly dominated by Shiite representatives. Iraq is composed of 60 percent Shiites, 20 percent Sunnis and 20 percent Kurds.


On Sunday, The New York Times reported that US officials in Baghdad had already raised the issue of special seats for top Sunni vote-getters with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric. The US is reportedly afraid that if the new assembly doesn't reflect the ethnic and racial mix of Iraq, then sectarian violence will continue, and the current insurgency will grow even stronger.

As if to underline this point, CNN reports that a car bomb exploded at the gate of the home of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Mr. Hakim is also the head of Iraq's largest Shiite political bloc of parties, and is expected to be one of the dominant figures in Iraq after the election. Although Hakim was not hurt by the blast, the Associated Press reports that at least 15 others were killed.

Last week, the BBC reported that attacks on top Shiite clerics and around many Shiite holy places like Najaf and Karbal are believed to be attampts by Sunni militants to provoke a Shiite reaction that would undermine both the January election and reconstruction efforts. So far Shiite leaders have called for calm and order after these attacks.

The International Republican Institute, a US government-funded nonprofit organization that promotes democracy worldwide and whose board of directors contains many Republican party foreign policy experts, has released a new poll of 2200 Iraqis that shows that nearly three-quarters intend to vote in the January election, and that a small majority believe the country is headed in the right direction.

But the poll also shows that significantly fewer Sunnis intend to vote. Respondents to the poll broke down roughly 60 percent Shiite and 36 percent Sunni, close to Iraq's actual ethnic makeup. The cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and Mosul were not included because of fears of violence against poll takers.

Finally, Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi author who was imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, writes in the Guardian that women in Iraq, long viewed as being the most liberated women in the Middle East, are now in danger of losing much of that independence in the upcoming elections.
Of all the blunders by the US administration in Iraq, the greatest is its failure to understand Iraqi people, women in particular. The main misconception is to perceive Iraqi women as silent, powerless victims in a male-controlled society in urgent need of 'liberation.'
Ms. Zangana writes of the growing gap between the average Iraqi citizen and the "cocooned" members of the US-led coalition and the interim government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. They do not understand, she says, that when Iraqi mothers want to quiet misbehaving children, they threaten, "Quiet, or I'll call democracy."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2004 05:35 pm
Just for emphasis. Quote, "Iraq officials reject US election proposal. Idea of 'special' seats for Sunnis called 'unacceptable' interference."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/14/2026 at 08:56:30