Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2007, 14:46   #31
SRT31B
SF Candidate
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eglin Main
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDD
What happens in A-stan if we runaway from Iraq?
The same thing that has been happening up till now, only instead of just having problems primarily in the southern sectors it will expand to encompass the entire country. Instead of having two different arenas for foreign fighters to pick from, they will gravitate to the one area we still maintain a major presence in.

I cannot speak for Iraq as I have not had to take that trip yet, but as for good old IROA, I can say fairly confidently that a withdrawl in Iraq will serve only to intensify the conflict there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
Pulling out of Iraq would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan and potentially, to win decisively.
No Sir, I do not see that as a possibility. The only way to win decisively in Afghanistan is if the United States were to take complete control of everything there. The reason for this: AFGHANISTAN IS JUST A BATTLEFIELD.

I know thats a bold statement to make... but it didn't come from me. During my stay at lovely BAF, I had the opportunity to work with some of Afghanistan's finest... as well as Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and a host of others. From their point of view, Afghanistan has always been, and will always be just a battlefield. Its just the "hotspot" for everyone to go to fight there battles. Of course, the presence of the United States in the area intensifies the draw to foreigners looking to please allah, but none the less it would be the same without us.

Perhaps in 20+ years after a continuous CA/PSY OPS presence the hostilities of the locals will have broken down and as the children and women have been educated by the schools we've built and treated by the hospitals we've established, but even then that won't "decisively win" anything.

9 out of 10 Afghans I saw had ZERO education (and they're all "only farmers" too, LOL). In order to affect change in Afghanistan (and other muslim countries) their religious beliefs must be "watered down" through secularism until they don't grow up believing that Americans are infidels and the only way they can be assured heaven is by dying in a jihad. That will happen over time with a continued presence on the ground until the current generations children's children are old enough and intelligent enough not to take verbatum what the mullah puts out.

How long did it take for people to get used to the idea of desegregation in this country? Even today we still have people in the deep south that hold on to that history of violent, extremist racism and it will never totally disappear. In the same way, you will never totally eradicate fundamentalist islamist bent on destruction of the west. But over time, and with the necessary support, the popular opinion of muslims can change just as American's opinions did after the civil rights movements.

Just my opinion.
SRT31B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 15:10   #32
kgoerz
Quiet Professional
 
kgoerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NC for now
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
It would be better for us internationally to kill everyone in Iraq as a statement of power than to cut and run declaring the war lost. If we pull out before killing every bad guy there (and more arrive or are created every day), then we are going to see the NKs, Iranians, and their ilk developing nukes full speed ahead in clear violation of any treaty we might negotiate with them. Because we will be seen as weak
To go even further then the above. Theoretically our foreign relations and other dealings with the world. Would be better off if we Nuked Iraq and completely decimated the country. Making it inhospitable for years. Instead of retreating. As bad as it sounds. The message would be. Even if you defeat our ground forces. You will lose in the end. Make victory for the enemy impossible. Send the message that if we can't win, no one can. Anything is better then retreating. This tactic may be to extreme but this type of attitude is needed to win.
__________________
Sounds like a s#*t sandwhich, but I'll fight anyone, I'm in.
kgoerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 15:41   #33
SOCOM8721
Asset
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Current AO - Home on Leave
Posts: 41
Thus McCains statement early this week, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iran"....
__________________
SOCOM8721
"Always strive for the best, expect the worst and save for that rainy day."
William Andrew Davis III
SOCOM8721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 15:56   #34
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgoerz
To go even further then the above. Theoretically our foreign relations and other dealings with the world. Would be better off if we Nuked Iraq and completely decimated the country. Making it inhospitable for years. Instead of retreating. As bad as it sounds. The message would be. Even if you defeat our ground forces. You will lose in the end. Make victory for the enemy impossible. Send the message that if we can't win, no one can. Anything is better then retreating. This tactic may be to extreme but this type of attitude is needed to win.
Concur.

Play ball with us, or get the bat shoved up your 4th POC.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 16:47   #35
TF Kilo
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nevada
Posts: 213
They do manufacture directional drill-heads for oil drilling... we can just go at it sideways. LOL

Why play fair when the enemy isn't.
TF Kilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 19:33   #36
x-factor
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF Kilo
They do manufacture directional drill-heads for oil drilling... we can just go at it sideways. LOL

Why play fair when the enemy isn't.
Illegal slant drilling was one of Saddam's justifications for invading Kuwait. Probably his only legitimate one. lol
__________________
The strength of a nation is its knowledge. -Welsh Proverb

X
x-factor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 19:54   #37
futureSoldier
Asset
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ft Lewis, WA
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reaper

It would be better for us internationally to kill everyone in Iraq as a statement of power than to cut and run declaring the war lost. If we pull out before killing every bad guy there (and more arrive or are created every day), then we are going to see the NKs, Iranians, and their ilk developing nukes full speed ahead in clear violation of any treaty we might negotiate with them. Because we will be seen as weak, and the only way we can shake that is to show some power on a grand scale, like nuking the shit out of the Iranian or NK nuclear sites. They will attack us overseas and here at home, as our demoralized and defeated military hides in shame.



TR

Regardless of how you feel about the religion, it seems to me that a great deal of insight into our current situation in the Middle East can be found in the Old Testament (even from a strictly historical standpoint). You had a small tribe (Israel) that somehow defied the odds and survived amidst the great powers of the world. The main reason that Israel survived was because of their battle tactics-kill the enemy in a violent and thorough way (i.e. wipe them out). The book of Joshua details this method of warfare and its effects. Moreover, what problems they during these times and afterwards came because as ruthless as they were, they were not thorough enough. That is, according to the OT, the Israelites were not as harsh on the enemy as they should have been (as God commanded) and their lack of follow through ended up being the cause of future trouble and wars.

Years ago, before our current wars, I asked my dad why God would command this and teach this lesson. My father, who has a Doctor of Theology, explained that it is not to teach us to go and kill and be blindly violent, but rather to teach us that evil, in any form, cannot be negotiated with.

I believe that you all (TS, TR especially) have hit the nail on the head with regards to the consequences of us leaving and the lack of resolve of our nation. I just wanted to give a little bit of ancient support for your modern argument.


"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9






Joe
__________________
"There is no reality except action" -Sartre

"Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." -C.S. Lewis
futureSoldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2007, 21:30   #38
tk27
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: RI/MA
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by futureSoldier
Years ago, before our current wars, I asked my dad why God would command this and teach this lesson. My father, who has a Doctor of Theology, explained that it is not to teach us to go and kill and be blindly violent, but rather to teach us that evil, in any form, cannot be negotiated with.
Not only can “evil” be negotiated with, it can be an ally. In fact we would be a lot better off if we had retained some “evil” on our side in the past couple years.

“Evil” Syria was a great help after 9/11, their help saved American lives, and they were more then willing to get their hands dirty for us. Killing the Muslim Brothers is a national pastime in Evil Syria. If it was like a playground game of dodgeball and I was picking a team for a round of ‘Crush the Jihadi’, I would pick the Alawites in the first couple rounds. Right up there with Mattis, and some steely-eyed Mongols vintage 1258.

We could use an Evildoer dictator in Iraq right now. We should grab some evil Baathist that we have in lock-up, give him the keys to Maliki’s office, have em squash some uppity Shia, get him Sarkis Soghanalian’s Dictator-Deluxe Starter Package of Chilean cluster bombs and dual use CBW infrastructure, then have him go kick the Iranians in the teeth a couple times.

I swear the neoconservative “we don’t deal with evil” is more dangerous than liberal dogooderism.

“A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him.” – George Orwell
tk27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 08:26   #39
futureSoldier
Asset
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ft Lewis, WA
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk27
Not only can “evil” be negotiated with, it can be an ally. In fact we would be a lot better off if we had retained some “evil” on our side in the past couple years.

“Evil” Syria was a great help after 9/11, their help saved American lives, and they were more then willing to get their hands dirty for us. Killing the Muslim Brothers is a national pastime in Evil Syria. If it was like a playground game of dodgeball and I was picking a team for a round of ‘Crush the Jihadi’, I would pick the Alawites in the first couple rounds. Right up there with Mattis, and some steely-eyed Mongols vintage 1258.

We could use an Evildoer dictator in Iraq right now. We should grab some evil Baathist that we have in lock-up, give him the keys to Maliki’s office, have em squash some uppity Shia, get him Sarkis Soghanalian’s Dictator-Deluxe Starter Package of Chilean cluster bombs and dual use CBW infrastructure, then have him go kick the Iranians in the teeth a couple times.

I swear the neoconservative “we don’t deal with evil” is more dangerous than liberal dogooderism.

“A tragic situation exists precisely when virtue does not triumph but when it is still felt that man is nobler than the forces which destroy him.” – George Orwell
Agreed. Like I said, we should not kill everyone who is "evil"-that is exactly the thought process that makes turns the Islamists into the killers that they are. My point is that you cannot negotiate or back away from evil that confronts you. If we leave and do not finish the job the world will see that we do not abide by this standard-that we are willing to negotiate with the evil that is threatening us. In other words, we are afraid and are giving into the fear, or we are blind and refuse to see the reality of what faces us. Either way we are weak and everyone will know it. The leader of the dog pack is only the leader as long as he asserts himself as the leader-otherwise he is attacked as weak.

Joe
__________________
"There is no reality except action" -Sartre

"Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." -C.S. Lewis
futureSoldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 10:24   #40
tk27
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: RI/MA
Posts: 230
I hear what you’re saying.
My concern is that this is what UBL wants. Draw us into a pit of quicksand where any “success” becomes pyrrhic due to resource, treasure, and moral costs. He has explicitly stated this, Afghanistan was the original aim, but Iraq has instead become it. Even Gen. Petraeus has stated that there is no military solution to Iraq.

UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response. We are in a dire financial position. The dollar is on the verge of tanking, massive amounts of mortgage foreclosures are just a shot away, and energy cost and dependency will be doing nothing but increasing for years. I think any direct confrontation of Iran would be the tipping point of our nation’s implosion.

What would Fabius Maximus do?
tk27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 10:45   #41
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk27
I hear what you’re saying.
My concern is that this is what UBL wants. Draw us into a pit of quicksand where any “success” becomes pyrrhic due to resource, treasure, and moral costs. He has explicitly stated this, Afghanistan was the original aim, but Iraq has instead become it. Even Gen. Petraeus has stated that there is no military solution to Iraq.

UBL’s goal to is cause our internal decay and collapse from the cascading effects of our response. We are in a dire financial position. The dollar is on the verge of tanking, massive amounts of mortgage foreclosures are just a shot away, and energy cost and dependency will be doing nothing but increasing for years. I think any direct confrontation of Iran would be the tipping point of our nation’s implosion.

What would Fabius Maximus do?
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from what General Petraeus said. There is no solely military solution without the accompanying political, informational, and economic efforts. They will not work without a complementary military component.

I disagree with your assessment of our domestic position. The dollar is at a low, as it is periodically in a recurring cycle. A few mortgage lenders who overextended to people with marginal credit are in trouble. The vast majority of mortgages, particularly the fixed ones, are fine as long as people have jobs, an unemployment is, and has been, at near record low levels. As we have debated, ad nauseum, alternative energy sources should be pursued aggressively, as well as additional domestic reserves offshore and in the Arctic. I disagree about confronting Iran, though the effects on the energy market and our economy would be global and serious.

Not sure as to your Fabius Maximus question. Is he on our side, or the opposition's? Probably delay and attrit, in either case.

If you are so pessimistic, why do you bother? Do you really hate this country and our leadership that much? Is the solution to surrender, pull back to Fortress America, and hand the keys to the UN?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 12:27   #42
x-factor
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 462
I'm with TR on the economy. We're at near-full employment and our productivity remains the highest in the world. Even the national debt, which I think is too high, is still very manageable when looked at as a percentage of GDP.

Plus, the energy costs argument cuts both ways. If we pull out of Iraq and the country goes mega-Lebanon, gas isn't exactly going to get cheaper.

Furthermore, Iran is in a peculiar situation with regard to oil. While they produce a large amount of the world's crude, a lack of refineries means that they actually import a lot of their petroleum. There's a reasonable argument that says Iran can't afford to use oil prices as a weapon and any threat to is just a bluff.

More broadly, I think we do the Iran question a disservice if we frame it as a simple confront/appease choice. Without rehashing the argument from the War With Islam thread, I think there's a middle ground where we can firmly contain Iran (especially by leveraging the Iranian population's discontent with the hardline government without necessarily escalating to a full scale conflict.
__________________
The strength of a nation is its knowledge. -Welsh Proverb

X
x-factor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 12:53   #43
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
I think there's a middle ground where we can firmly contain Iran (especially by leveraging the Iranian population's discontent with the hardline government without necessarily escalating to a full scale conflict.
We needed to "contain" the USSR and stem the spread of communism and we did to a point.

iran containment, I'm sure they're happy with that while they go on developing their nuclear capabilities.

We are not going to be able to "contain" iran from exporting terrorism on a global scale, or training terorists, or funding terrorism.

Containment works great for those countries that seek world domination, not those that would welcome being left alone to their own devices.....

Who's making those "sophisticated" IED's and supplying them to the terrorists in iraq? oh, that's iran, not much containment there I guess. Please spare me the containment strategy......

What was your day job again?
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
Team Sergeant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 13:46   #44
x-factor
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
I'm sure they're happy with that while they go on developing their nuclear capabilities.
As I said in the other thread, I'm including nuclear weapon denial as a cornerstone of the containment strategy.

Quote:
We are not going to be able to "contain" iran from exporting terrorism on a global scale, or training terorists, or funding terrorism.
I disagree with this completely. We've never attempted to comprehensively address Iran.

Quote:
Containment works great for those countries that seek world domination, not those that would welcome being left alone to their own devices.....
Iran is seeking regional domination and world power status. They haven't gone turtle waiting to get a nuke. Quite the opposite.

Quote:
Who's making those "sophisticated" IED's and supplying them to the terrorists in iraq? oh, that's iran, not much containment there I guess. Please spare me the containment strategy......
Did I say containment = status quo? No. Iran is currenlty completely uncontained. Thats the problem.

Quote:
What was your day job again?
You're ascribing way too much passivity to "containment" than I mean.

When I say containment I'm talking about everything short of large-scale overt military action (unless its the only way to stop them from getting a nuke) to check Iranian influence: arming and training regional allies (under a formal anti-Iran alliance if possible), support to Iranian dissident groups (financial, diplomatic, etc), extensive and aggressive information operations to leverage Iranian public discontent, seizing weapons shipments to and from Iran, special operations against Iranian-backed terrorist groups outside Iranian territory, etc.

You know, a lot of the stuff you do on your day job.
__________________
The strength of a nation is its knowledge. -Welsh Proverb

X
x-factor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2007, 14:31   #45
echoes
Area Commander
 
echoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: OK. Thanking Our Brave Soldiers
Posts: 3,614
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-factor
Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.
Greetings. I am not even going to try and be informed enough to have a worthwhile contribution to this thread, but if I may ask a question?

x

I was just cuious if you had a copy of A Border Passage: From Cairo to America--A Woman's Journey
by Leila Ahmed

Strangely, I thought I had read your above post somewhere? Maybe it is just a strong similarity.

Holly
echoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:14.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies