[excon]

Hello:

The rightwingers think Bush won the war with the surge. I say the surge just kept the lid on a civil war that will eventually break out.

So, do YOU think keeping 130,000 of our combat troops in Iraq means we won?? I'll bet some of you do...

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

No winning would mean that their government runs itself and follows the will of the people, ( even if that will is not what we want)

[ETWolverine]

Fr Chuck's definition of "winning" is interesting, and I'm not going to discount it.

But if that is the correct definition, then it seems to me that we did win.

It was based on an agreement with the Iraqi government, (one that commanders on the ground generally disagreed with) that we have now pulled our troops out of urban areas and have placed them in rural areas. At the same time, the Iraqi security force has grown to roughly 600,000. Ergo, by Chuck's definition, the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny, whether we like it or not, which is an indicator that we did indeed win... at least under his definition.

Keeping 130,000 troops in Iraq means absolutely nothing. Just as the following military deployments (as per Wikipedia) mean absolutely nothing in terms of winning or losing wars.

• South Korea – 27,014
• Japan – 32,803
• Philippines - 95
• Diego Garcia - 311
• Jakarta, Indonesia - 27
• Singapore – 125
• Thailand – 96
• Malaysia - 15
• Australia - 140
• Marshall Islands - 17
• New Zealand - 5
• Germany – 57,080
• Souda Bay, Greece - 386
• Italy – 9,855 [15]
• United Kingdom – 9,825
• Spain – 1,286
• Norway - 81
• Sweden - 12
• Turkey – 1,594
• Belgium – 1,328
• Portugal – 826
• Netherlands – 579
• Greece – 363
• Greenland - 126
• Qatar – 411
• Bahrain – 1,495
• Antigua - 2
• Colombia - 123
• Saint Helena - 3
• Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – 932
• Ecuador - 36
• Netherlands Antilles - 10
• Kuwait - 10
• Oman - 36
• United Arab Emirates - 96

The fact that there are troops in these places indicates NOTHING to anyone except you.

But I guess to you having 57,000 troops in Germany, 32,000 in Japan, 10,000 in the UK and another 10,000 in Italy is an indicator that we're losing WWII. After all, it's the same logic... if the troops are there, it must be an indicator that we haven't won.

So, do you think we're losing WWII? After all, we still have roughly 110,000 in WWII AOs.

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

Is eventual civil war considered the Iraqis being in control of their own destiny, and can we still say we won?

[excon]

Keeping 130,000 troops in Iraq means absolutely nothing.

• South Korea – 27,014
• Japan – 32,803
• Philippines - 95
• Diego Garcia - 311
• Jakarta, Indonesia - 27
• Singapore – 125
• Thailand – 96
• Malaysia - 15
• Australia - 140
• Marshall Islands - 17
• New Zealand - 5
• Germany – 57,080
• Souda Bay, Greece - 386
• Italy – 9,855 [15]
• United Kingdom – 9,825
• Spain – 1,286
• Norway - 81
• Sweden - 12
• Turkey – 1,594
• Belgium – 1,328
• Portugal – 826
• Netherlands – 579
• Greece – 363
• Greenland - 126
• Qatar – 411
• Bahrain – 1,495
• Antigua - 2
• Colombia - 123
• Saint Helena - 3
• Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – 932
• Ecuador - 36
• Netherlands Antilles - 10
• Kuwait - 10
• Oman - 36
• United Arab Emirates - 96

The fact that there are troops in these places indicates NOTHING to anyone except you.

Hello again, El:

I don't know. Seems to me that if we withdrew our troops from any or all the countries on your list, none of those countries would erupt into civil war. Iraq would.

If you're right about ME being the only one in the world who GETS that distinction, then the world better catch up with this exconvict.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Actually, if we withdrew from any of several locations I listed, the result would be war.

For instance, the only thing keeping North Korea from invading or bombing South Korea is our presence in South Korea and Japan. Ditto any invasions from China.

There are quite a few similar situations around the world where our presence is the only thing preventing a war.

If we measure success by what would happen if we pull out, then Afghanistan is ALSO a failure, because if we pull out, Afghanistan falls into civil war against the Taliban.

BTW, by that measure, Kosovo and Bosnia are failures too.

So... if our presence in Iraq is preventing a civil war, doesn't that indicate that our presence there is EFFECTIVE in a positive way? Why would that be an indicator that we are losing in Iraq? Our presence there is keeping a civil war from happening... that's a measure of SUCCESS, not failure.

Or do you always measure the prevention of wars and invasions as failures?

Seems to me that you have a very screwed up measurement for success and failure in the military arena.

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

Actually, if we withdrew from any of several locations I listed, the result would be [civil] war.

Civil war is a bad thing? What about the one in this country way back then?

Is the U.S. the world's policeman?

[450donn]

Is the U.S. the world's policeman?

Yes, since the ineffectual United Nations decided a "DO NOTHING" policy was the best policy. The rest of the World would be content to sit back, stuff their collective heads in the sand and let terrorism and unstable dictators do what ever they want, IE, kill millions of their own people, because it is not in their back yard yet! The reasons that is trus is a topic for a future thread.

[paraclete]

Donn you don't have the right to be the world's policeman because you suck at it, sometimes causing or escalating conflicts so you can control those places politically. The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa. Let's face it; the US, Russia and China have been behind most of the big conflicts since WWII the other side shows have involved some smaller players but one senses their hand there too.

You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

[tomder55]

Victory in Iraq should've been declared sometime around Nov 27 ,2008 . On that day the Iraqi Parliament ratified a security agreement that set the course for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The pact replaced an expired U.N. mandate. It gives Iraq authority over about 150,000 U.S. troops in the country, who withdrew from all towns this month and will completely withdraw by 2011 (although Obama insists all US trrops will be out by August of next year). Iraqi forces have already taken the primary responsibility in policing and their security . U.S. troops will return to the cities only if asked by the Iraqis . The U.S. military will continue combat operations in rural areas and near the border, but only with the Iraqi government's permission.

If you like we could declare VI day on June 30. That was the day we completely withdrew from Baghdad.
Al-Maliki declared a public holiday and proclaimed June 30 as "National Sovereignty Day." There were fireworks celebrations in the city .

[zippit]

It has always been the objective to bring democracy to irag.
Irag being the step for iran.

[excon]

Hello z:

Funny. I thought the objective was to find and destroy WMD's. Plus, I don't think the way you bring democracy to a nation is to attack them. I just don't think that works very well. You do?? Well, you think snooping is cool, so I guess attacking a country that didn't attack us and wasn't a threat to us is cool, too. I don't. The world doesn't either.

excon

[speechlesstx]

The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa.

Yes Clete, and when they do decide to take action it's to "deplore" the situation which is meaningless. Either that or UN 'peacekeepers' get busy raping the local population.

You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

I suppose North Korea, China, Russia, Iran etc. are no longer a threat?

[tomder55]

I for one would be happy if we quit defending Munich beer halls . As for the rest ;just like currently in Iraq,we are there with the blessing of the nation's government .The Aussies did not want us to stick around and we didn't .

[ETWolverine]

donn you don't have the right to be the world's policeman because you suck at it, sometimes causing or escalating conflicts so you can control those places politically. The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa. let's face it; the US, Russia and China have been behind most of the big conflicts since WWII the other side shows have involved some smaller players but one senses their hand there too.

You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

I think you are quite correct, Paraclete. We are absolutely terrible at being the world's policemen. Sending the world's most powerful military force to act as policemen is like sending tanks to do the job of cars... we can move the people from place to place effectively enough, but we're going to make a huge mess of the roads in the process, it is going to be slow going, and the people are going to be uncomfortable during the ride. The US military makes a lousy police force because it was never created to be a police force.

So why does the world keep calling on us to do that job? The UN, the EU, NATO, etc. all keep calling on us to be the one who enforces the rules they impose.

Saddam Husein invades Kuwait. Who does the UN call on to be the force that pushes him out? The USA.

Russia invades Georgia. Who does the EU call to sort out the mess? The USA.

Problems in Kosovo. Who becomes the major military force to keep the ethnic factions at bay? The USA.

China is rattling its sabre again. Who does the world call on to get them to think twice? The USA.

North Korea is testing nuclear missile technology. Who does the world call on to put a leash on them? The USA.

Iran is secretly making nuclear weapons and shooting pro-democracy protestors in the street. Who does the world turn to for a strong statement on the issue? The USA. (They didn't get it this time, but that's a different story. They still LOOKED to us.)

In fact, every time there's any sort of emergency, whether it is military, political, diplomatic, or a natural disaster, the world calls on the USA to fix it.

In every year of the past 2 decades the US military has handed out more food, water and blankets, created more temporary shelters, filled and placed more sandbags, and provided more engineering and logistical support in disaster situations than all of the world's disaster recovery and refugee assistance charities combined (including the Red Cross and all its affiliates).

So perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should stop playing the world's police force.

But without us to do it, who will? If the USA says no, who will the UN, the EU, NATO and all the countries of the world call on to take up the slack?

Face it, Paraclete. Like it or not, WE are the ones your Australia turns to when they need someone to act as policeman to the rest of the world. They may hate doing so. YOU may hate doing so. But there ain't nobody else big enough to do the job. That's the problem with being the largest economic superpower and the only remaining military superpower. We automatically become everyone else's policeman.

So... if we have such a good military, why is it so bad at being a good police force?

In order to understand that, you have to understand the nature of military forces throughout the world. There are basically three types of military forces.

1) Parade forces
2) Internal Security forces
3) Field armies

Parade forces are just that. They are created to look nice and make nice parades, but when it comes to actual battle, either internally or externally, they can't do the job. Other types of military forces can make parades too, but with parade forces, that is ALL they really know how to do.

Internal Security forces are essentially big police forces. They are trained to suppress civil unrest and stop coups. However, when it comes to open battle against an enemy military that is similarly armed and well trained, they fail miserably. These are the types of forces we saw in Iraqi military and what we are essentially seeing from the military in Iran. (Incidentally, because these forces are trained to suppress military coups by capturing key locations in a city like radio stations, telephone control stations, utilities control centers, etc. they are also particularly good at creating a coup as well. That is the problem with having such a force as your primary military force.) Internal security forces make great cops. They know how to suppress a coup by using the minimum amount of force necessary, but can ratchet up the casualties if they so desire in order to cow the civilian population.

Field forces, on the other hand, are created for a single purpose only. Their job is to meet any enemy on the filed of battle, regardless of the enemy's armament and training, and kill that enemy. They do not use "minimum force". They use the maximum force necessary to get the job done in the minimum amount of time. They ignore civilian casualties in favor of getting the job done (though the better trained field militaries try to minimize civilian casualties as well, even if it makes the job a bit harder). Because of their training, they make lousy internal security forces. When used as an internal security force, they tend to use too much force and end up killing civillians, which ends up causing more enimity than would have existed if they had stayed out of it in the first place.

The US military is 90% field forces. The only forces within the US military that are NOT field forces are the Military Police (MPs). That's why when things started looking bad in Iraq, the Generals on the ground were calling for more MPs to be sent to Iraq. The regular soldiers, good as they are at their own jobs, are not good policemen. They overreact to minor attacks that could be suppressed by non-lethal force and end up pi$$ing off the locals. Whereas MPs are trained to use minimal force like an internal security force.

Field forces and Internal Security forces can be parade forces when necessary. Parade forces can never be Field forces or Internal security forces.

Internal Security forces can sometimes be used as field forces IF the enemy is poorly trained and poorly armed. Against an equal opposing force, they fail miserably. The war gets drawn out and casualties rise, because Internal Security forces are unwilling to commit to battle in the way needed to win a war quickly.

A Field Force can act as an Internal Security force for very short periods, and only if they are protecting the area from a military enemy. If they are in that capacity in the long term, or if they are trying to protect the area from a civilian enemy, they will overreact and fail in their job.

So I think you are correct, Paraclete. The US military makes a lousy police force. It was never intended to act in that capacity. And yet the world still calls on us in that capacity. Who's fault is that?

[zippit]

Wmd's was the excuse to go in the objective was to spread democrisy as a stepping stone for us dealing with iran your short sighted on this one due to politics

[paraclete]

Do you really think there are winners in Iraq, that the US will leave Iraq any less corrupt than it was when they invaded.

What victory has the US achieved, stirring up old hatreds and setting the stage for civil war. So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising. The US would be better served by putting them all on the next plane to Afghanistan or even better still the US. But they cannot go home to add the unemployment queues so they may as well take their unemployment benefit in Iraq.

Elliot, the world doesn't call on the US, the US makes itself available, there is a big difference. The UN is a construct fully supported by the US as a means of exercising its political clout in the world. It gives them the excuse of being sanctioned while keeping others in check. It was devised as a check on Soviet Russia in WWII because the US foresaw that after the war Russia would be expansionist.

As to turning to the US, we didn't need you in East Timor, in fact it was convenient for you that we were here. We didn't need you in the Solomon's intervention. The fact is the rest of the world is willing and able to take action if you will stand back and stop antagonising states like Iran and Nth. Korea with your sabre rattling. Maybe Georgia needed a smack in the mouth, things aren't as clear cut as they might seem down there. In Afghanistan, we are all helping in what is really a US war, Al Qaeda didn't attack us but we all see that this sort of thing cannot be allowed. This is perhaps the one action in recent times that can be justified. I think it is good you stood back when Israel punished Gaza, if you hadn't it would have escalated, that is more that politics in the US was in transition rather than good judgment

[zippit]

. So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait,

Wow last I heard they were training iragi military,rebuilding schools protecting civil leaders
You know spreading democrisy.
Troops would be shocked to hear you say sitting around
I don't know were you get that from

[tomder55]

So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising.

My cousin has been in Iraq virtually non-stop deployed since OIF began. By his account they are not in any way demoralized. They see the good they have done and continue to do .

[zippit]

Talk about drinking the kool-aid