What does she actually think? Does she think?

[Erich]

personally governments in general have no balls or puebs making this a generic statemnt

[Lunatic]

We should not have gone into Iraq!

The whole Bush plan for Iraq is fatally flawed. It assumes that, undeath, the Iraqi's are "just like us". They are not!

To defeat an enemy, short of wiping them out, you have to understand them. The Bush Admin does not undertand the Arab Islamics so it has no chance to defeat them.

First off you have to understand the Arab mindset. It is fundimentally different than ours. Ingrained in their culture and religion is the idea that it is better for a man to die violently than from old age. Look at the whole marrage relationship in Arabia. A "man" has a harem. This means there must be many more women than men, or you will have a lot of men without women. This is accomplished through raids and minor wars between the Arab tribes. The male population is depleted in these activities allowing the surviors to accumulate women. All Arab men aspire to have a harem wether they admit it or not.

Lets look at Saudi Arabia. The population is approx. 22 million. Approximately (very rough) 6.5 million are males between 18-35 vs. about 5 million women in the same age group. Over 75% of these men have no means. In SA a man cannot not even speak to a woman without an introduction via a cleric and her family, and of course men w/o means do not get such introductions. This means that almost 4 million men have no access to women. The religious leadership points at who for this? The United States of course! We support the SA government, a small percentage of the population who have huge harems and provide no future for the average SA man. This is why 13 of 18 of the terrorists came from SA. If I were a young man and had not been even allowed to talk to young women and my leaders were pointing at someone and saying "they are responsible" I might have flown a plane into a building too!

The root cause of our problems in the ME is Israel. As long as we support Israel we will have no peace. The reason for this is that the one shinining moment of Arab unity in history is when Saladin united the Arab tribes in 1219 (I'm pretty sure it was 1219 but don't have time to verify the date) to repel the first Crusade and retake Palestine from the Europeans. Now, 750 years late Europeans have taken Palastine for purely Eurpean justifications, which is unacceptable to Arab pride. As long as Israel exists the Arabs feel defeated and this is something they really cannot live with.

Anyway, getting back to Iraq. The problem in Iraq is that the country is deeply divided. The only way Peace (of a sorts) can be maintained is with an Iron fist. This is what Sadam provided. Yes he was brutal, but that is what is required to maintain a unified Iraq. The only question is which group will dominate the others. In the end we will either see a new dictator in Iraq, or we will see a Theocracy (probably Shite). If the Bush Admin did not see this and expect the insurgency they were fools. And the idea that the Iraqi security forces are going to be the solution is also foolish. As soon as the number of US forces drop low enough, the Iraqi security forces will align themselves in the civil war and probably be the power behind the new totalitarian regime which is Iraq's destiny. One that will probably be more dangerous to the USA than Sadam's Iraq.

At this point the only realisitic option would be to divide Iraq into 3 districts and allow each to be pretty much independant. Of course, this will probably not fly because the oil is not distributed evenly throughout the country. But there is really no other solution that can have any chance for long term stability.

We should not have gone into Iraq. We were not prepared to use the level of force required to control the country (and the International community probably would not have allowed it). Bush's assumption that the Iraqi's would jump at "freedom" was pure foolishness - he still does not understand or accept the fact that they just think differently than we do. "Freedom" does not mean to them what it means to us. His fundimental belief that all people will embrace freedom is true - but either it must come from within (i.e. the people in question must demand it) or a full generation must pass to allow the concept to be understood by an occupied peoples.

[Erich]

interesting you are almost quoting thoughts of myself and Chris and few others that have seen first hand what has been shaping mid-east history since 1980.

point is simple all the western world not just the Bush admin doe not understand the eastern way of thought, dress, neither personalities.

problem is WE ARE THERE, so get the heck over it. Time to take more severe action if we want our men/women home, or just simply say we are stuck and no way out. guys my age are still in service for this country and we can get "caalled" anytime for short durations behind and on the front lines ........ do I want to continue this ? NO, NO, NO

these people will not talk at the bargaining table they know war as they have been doing this for centuries and will do it till times end on this planet of dust.

the mideast will be one unified overall threat to the world, Iraq and even Iran will not exist as seperate masses but joined even as enemies against Israel and the free world. The vision is there, the Muslim nations are not together in focus ............... not yet

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

We should not have gone into Iraq!

The whole Bush plan for Iraq is fatally flawed. It assumes that, undeath, the Iraqi's are "just like us". They are not!

To defeat an enemy, short of wiping the...

blah blah blah....

...His fundimental belief that all people will embrace freedom is true - but either it must come from within (i.e. the people in question must demand it) or a full generation must pass to allow the concept to be understood by an occupied peoples.

Looks like a cut and paste from Air America transcripts.

[Lunatic]

Yes, we are there (in Iraq). The question is what can we do from our current situation?

Well, first we have to look at what we cannot do.

• We cannot afford to keep spending $4-10 billion (and this is way understated) a month to occupy Iraq.
  
• We cannot afford to keep trying to police Iraq and loosing our troops doing so.
  
• We cannot afford to have our military tied up in Iraq hamstringing our capacity to deal with other threats.

Given the facts of the situation, we need to either occupy Iraq for real, and manage it in a much more severe manner, or we need to divide it up into 3 sub-nations and move the major ethinic groups into the appropriate zone. Alternatively we could just leave and let the chaos ensue.

Personally, I think what we should do is support Iraq's division into three autonomous states. Our efforts should then be focused on protecting the integrity of those three independant states, and let them straiten out their internal politics subject to a democratic structural requirement that ensures the populations be allowed to vote for their leadership at least once every 5 years. In order to make this palateable we would need to spend a fair amount in preparing each zone for tranferee's, but this would be much less expensive than continuing our current path, which will require us to stay in and police Iraq for at least another 17 years.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think either one is an option. We can not afford to rule it with an iron fist and we can not affored to allow Iraq to be divided. Personally I like the idea of dividing Iraq into 3 areas, but we can not affored to do it and I think in the end it would just make the region worse.

[mkloby]

Well I think of it in this respect: the world is safer with a neutered Iraq. As I have posted before, God only knows what would happen if Saddam passed out his weapons like candy to terrorist groups. Things may not have progressed as well as planned in the aftermath of the invasion, but the world is a safer place. The Intel Cmte can go to hell - apparently because they decide that Iraq has made America less secure, then it is so??? BS. The Americans over there know why they are there. Hell, I know why I'm busting my balls to get through flight school. I wish we were at peace - I don't want to kiss my wife and baby, and go off to war. NOBODY DOES! But, I don't want my children growing up having to deal with this crap either. My stepdad luckily survived 911 - he worked at the wtc. Didn't know if he was alive till about 10 hours later. We were lucky. WTF did he, or any of the souls there, or the other planes or the pentagon do to warrant an attack on them. Unfortunately, the only thing that the islamic world seems to respect is force. Israel understands this. When Israel negotiates, it encourages terrorists - they think it's a sign of weakness to negotiate with your enemy. Just like just getting out of Iraq would be seen in the same light. Our end state is to enable the Iraqi gov't to build up sufficient legitimacy and internal strength to be able to stand on their own, and be a constructive member of the global community.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with mkloby there. The World is much better with out Saddamn. As I have said before going to Iraq was just in my opinoin but the government fudged the post war plan.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

We cannot afford to have our military tied up in Iraq hamstringing our capacity to deal with other threats.

I assume you are in the military due to your knowledge that the US military's ability to deal w/ other threats is "hamstrung."

Only a small percentage of the USMC is deployed at any point in time. Sure, there are quite a few troops over in Iraq - but make no mistake about it - the US can still deal w/ any threat... unless you feel that over 100,000 Marines, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen that are not deployed are incapable of effectively dealing with any threat that may occur...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I assume you are in the military due to your knowledge that the US military's ability to deal w/ other threats is "hamstrung."

Nope he sure aint...

[ndicki]

Just to throw my two-pennyworth in, this started out as a thread on "are we safer from terrorism?" - not wanting to interrupt the above discussion, but - no, we aren't.

It's interesting to note that most posters either identify terrorism with aircraft hi-jacking (I assume that's because Americans have little first-hand experience of much else) or certain countries (I assume that's because Americans have little first-hand experience of much else)... This is a mistake. Terrorism is not confined in this way.

The 11th September little lot used US domestic flights as a WEAPON, not as an end, and that is the major difference with previous hijacks. Deprive them of that possibility - effectively achieved, I agree - and they will find the next one. Witness the London bombs a couple of years ago; no, they could not have killed 3,000 people, but one or two of them per month could do as much psychological damage to the population. Look at the mess the IRA made of Britain in the 1970s - bombs. mortars, rockets, shootings, the lot.

Without wanting to be too explicit, terrorists will adapt their MO to the Security Forces reaction; as passenger aircraft are no longer a viable option, then we can expect to see some 'creative' lateral thinking in the future. It is the job of the Security Forces to get there before the terrs, and by-and-large, they are doing a fantastic job. But inevitably, they will miss something sooner or later.

As for bases, what bases do they really need? Shut down a training camp in one place, and they'll move. When the Palestinian activists were thrown out of Jordan by King Hussein (which proves to that sorry lot who claim to govern the Lebanon that it CAN be done), they moved next-door to South Lebanon.
They are still there.

A further problem is caused by the nature of the riposte on the part of the Western nations and their allies; by attacking the countries which host terrorist bases - Afghanistan or Southern Lebanon, to name but two - the conflict is broadened to include people who would not normally have been involved. When you shell someone's house on the pretext of wanting to get his neighbour, you have made another enemy. He will not wring his hands and say, "Never mind, it's insured". He will react.

Contrast this with the rather less blunt and brutal approach used by the Rhodesian Security Forces during, for example, the Green Leader raid into Zambia; the Zambian authorities were warned, very politely, to keep clear, and the raid, a major combined-arms assault, hit the terrorist base at Westfield Farm with NO collateral damage. This is pretty typical of Rhodesian anti-terrorist incursions into other countries. The locals were involved ONLY if they responded in an (unintelligent and) hostile way.

If we wish to confront terrorism effectively, we need highly effective Intelligence and policing - while RESPECTING the rights and privacy of the population, Mr Blair - backed up not with Vietnam style bludgeon tactics, but scalpel cuts into the world of the terrorist. Take the incertitude back to them. Let THEM live in fear. And you can't do that the way a lot of recent ops have been executed.

[mkloby]

unfortunately, ndicki, scalpel cuts as you called them, are not frequently possible due to the tactics that america's enemies have adopted. You seem to not be recognizing the nature of this conflict. Innocent life is not valued by them - and they use that to their advantage. Take examples of children used to stop convoys, mosques used as weapon armories, even rockets fired from an individual's home. Does a LCpl run over the 4 year old standing in the middle of the street to halt a convoy with the HMMWVV? There's a good chance all hell will break loose once the convoy stops? Do you drop a Mk 84 on the ancient mosque that's being used as a damned arms depot? They took out the monastery at monte cassino in WW2 - but apparently now you need to respect a religious site being used to engage in open hostilities.

I understand your point that collateral damage will help recruit more enemies of America - however - there are many that will be recruited for no other reason than that America exists, Israel exists, and Islam lost its place of ascendancy in terms of global power 500 YEARS AGO - and they still cannot deal with it. Pussyfooting around like you suggested will only limit the ability to respond to threats for fear of accruing noncombatant casualties. We would not want to - but due to the rules of engagement they abide by (ie none) that cannot be avoided at times.

Your statement that we equate terrorism with A/C hi-jackings is silly. We've had other attacks (WTC a decade ago, Oklahoma city, Marine barracks in Lebanon in 83, USS Cole, Iranian hostages) that people here understand. Please don't speak for what other members here identify or do not identify as terrorist attacks.

You served in Vietnam - so you can speak a first hand account of "vietnam style bludgeon tactics" i presume?

And if you truly believe we are not safer - how about some suggestions for a course of action the US and UK could follow, rather than your sensitive PC not incur collateral damage pipe dream suggestion.

[ndicki]

No, I didn't serve in Vietnam. But what I can say is that in Vietnam, the hi-tech approach singularly failed to carry the day. Air power was overused, and incorrectly used. Compare US tactics there with the wars in Malaya, Dhofar, Borneo, and Rhodesia, for example. Lo-tech infantry, with an emphasis on SKILLED patrolling and intelligence gathering, supported by surgical air strikes and helicopter insertion WON those wars.

There is no substitute for the infantryman's ability to close with the enemy and destroy him face-to-face. That must not be subordinated to political concerns as has happened in many similar wars. Air power can not give the same guarantees.

Further to that, establishing security but getting the population on your back is pointless. If you are going to occupy the terrain, it needs to be done intelligently and carefully. Half-educated troops maltreating the locals is not going to further your cause. This seems to be a major problem faced by some of the forces presently in Iraq - which is a different war. I would suggest that looking at Malaya, Rhodesia and Northern Ireland might help put things into perspective concerning the locals.

I quite follow your point about using civilians as shields, etc. Having said that, if the tactic had been fast strikes against Al-Qaeda bases, with no attempt to hold the terrain, then you would not have so many of the problems you describe. It is true, however, that in Iraq the terrs have set up in inhabited areas just for that very reason. All the more reason to favour the surgical strike over the mass assault. Where possible - I agree it isn't always.

And if dodgy strategy has got Allied Forces stuck between a rock and a hard place, that it not a question of political correctness. Also, do not confuse the fight against terrorism and the fight against Saddam Hussein; they are two different objectives. You will note I did not mention Iraq.

My point is not to be politically correct - if someone is in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's his hard luck. Should have chosen his mates more carefully. But what I can see here is a situation where poor strategy and undefined aims have meant that the soldiers are, once again, stuck in a sh*t-hole with no visible end to the celebrations. Not a good idea.

I feel it could have been done more effectively using less conventional methods, that's all. Now you need to work out what the job actually was. If the object of the exercise was to free the world of terrs, it failed. They just live in Bradford now, and want to avenge their brothers.

If on the other hand, the objective was to bounce Saddam, then that bit has succeeded. I still feel it's rather hard luck on the soldiers who are stuck in the middle of it with no end in sight. It is difficult to convince one's men of the interest of promoting one man - one vote democracy to people who visibly are not interested.

As for suggestions - well, that all depends on what the politicians are actually trying to achieve. And as they don't seem to know half of the time, it makes you wonder. I still maintain, though, that fast, hard surgical raids using helicopters where possible, and avoiding such things as artillery, for example, could be a better approach in many circumstances than, say, the armour and artillery used by Israel lately. When the IDF have mounted the kind of operation I mean, though, they have done it very nicely.

I fully support both our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention a few other here-and-theres, and the IDF in Lebanon - don't get that wrong. I am just unsure that the methods employed are the best, both from the soldier's point of view, and from the point of view of the civilians. What do the terrs think? Well, if the tactics are right, they're terrorized.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Having served in Iraq for 14 months I can say our methods there are the correct methods. The problem is just that we have failed to plan for Post War Iraq in all areas.

The commanders and the soldiers in Iraq are doing a damn good job, but polotics is getting in the way.

[mkloby]

Well bouncing Saddam obviously was an objective. Achieved. Point is - if we left right away - the situation may have led to dozens of factions holding small portions of the former state of Iraq. That was not a desirable outcome. Stay and attempt to stabilize is harder than anticipated - but still a better outcome than sacking Saddam's regime and withdrawing. We are hoping that Iraqi forces can sufficiently secure the country on their own, and allow the gov't to put down roots. That would be the most favorable outcome for the US. That would also be the least favorable outcome for several nearby states, such as Iran and Syria.

Surgical strikes with helicopters can also prove messy. Mogadishu is a case point. These Rangers were some of the best soldiers in the army, and it was supposed to be a quick raid... but murphy is always nearby. This is another example where the western reversion to killing children was used against us. My point is that I don't think relying upon "sugical strikes" is going to give us the results that we are looking for. A raid could not bring down saddam, and bring to power a gov't that would be responsible to the world community. A raid will not solve any of the problems we have w/ Iran.
It is going to take a lot of good old fashioned grunts to bring a lot of hate and discontent to these fanatical muslims that - as I stated before - cannot deal with the fact that islam collapsed and has been unable to recover from its fall hundreds of years ago.

Many people may say I'm wrong - But I believe it's cultural and that is the root of this conflict. I happen to be very on board with Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. If you listen to our enemy's rhetoric - they sure believe it's a cultural and religious war.