HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SHOCK & AWE!

[nmainguy]

As we celebrate the 3rd anniversary of the Iraq war, here are a few quotes from the media at the beginning of the war.

http://www.plankity.com/

Two of my favorites:

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington." (Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray." (Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

[Jeebus]

Well sure the war was quick and painless for us, but someone forgot to mention the indefinite occupation. That's what's killing our troops - sitting and waiting.

[nmainguy]

Well sure the war was quick and painless for us, but someone forgot to mention the indefinite occupation. That's what's killing our troops - sitting and waiting.

Jeebus-not trying to be provocative here but do you consider the war over? In my opinion as long as our soldiers are still fighting and being killed, we are still at war-perhaps with a new enemy but still at war. It may be a matter of semantics but to me another dead American rises above the level of semantics...you know the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, etc..."

[RedScare]

Here's a tragic article on the'law of unintended consequences', and how so many decisions, some political, have caused so many deaths.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810053/

I suppose all wars are political in nature, but few seem as political as this one, from the reason to go to war, to the decision to keep troop levels as low as possible, to the belief that Iraqis would welcome us. I hope that future conflicts are carried out by government leaders who make fewer decisions for political expediency, and more decisions based on what will end the conflict quickest with the fewest casualties. This may include sacrificing their political careers, but I believe that if you are going to ask soldiers to place their lives on the line, the least you can do is not make decisions based on the ballot box.

[Jeebus]

Jeebus-not trying to be provocative here but do you consider the war over? In my opinion as long as our soldiers are still fighting and being killed, we are still at war-perhaps with a new enemy but still at war. It may be a matter of semantics but to me another dead American rises above the level of semantics...you know the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, etc..."

Well, per our illustrious president, the war is over. To be at war, you need an organized enemy to fight. There exist no enemies in Iraq, only criminals. Our soldiers have been acting as police - not as combatants, for the last two years.

Since we're having our infantry, cavalry, armor, and artillary act as police, why don't we just put them on our border - where we actually need police.

[RedScare]

Well, per our illustrious president, the war is over. To be at war, you need an organized enemy to fight. There exist no enemies in Iraq, only criminals. Our soldiers have been acting as police - not as combatants, for the last two years.

Since we're having our infantry, cavalry, armor, and artillary act as police, why don't we just put them on our border - where we actually need police.

We've gotten into a lot of trouble over the years by refusing to admit who the enemy really is. Defining away the insurgents by calling them criminals, foreigners, terrorists and dead-enders (remember THAT one?), doesn't change the fact that they have guns, explosives, and more organization than we'd like to admit. We like our wars "clean", with nice uniforms with a country's flag on the sleeve. When the enemy does not oblige, we often find ourselves getting picked off one at a time.

[Jeebus]

We've gotten into a lot of trouble over the years by refusing to admit who the enemy really is. Defining away the insurgents by calling them criminals, foreigners, terrorists and dead-enders (remember THAT one?), doesn't change the fact that they have guns, explosives, and more organization than we'd like to admit. We like our wars "clean", with nice uniforms with a country's flag on the sleeve. When the enemy does not oblige, we often find ourselves getting picked off one at a time.

By the actions of our military, they are refusing to recognize an organized enemy. Therefore, there is no enemy. If there was an enemy, then there would be an objective for our military. Currently there is no clear objective for our military but to stand-fast in their current defensive holding position. Hunting down random people throughout the countries of Iraq & Afgahnistan is not a military action - its a police action.

You posted as if you have a clear picture of who the enemy is & perhaps how they function as a unit. Can you identify the enemy in Iraq & Afgahnistan?

[westguy]

I think the Pottery Barn Rule applies here.

[nmainguy]

In rethinking, I may have used the term "war" too loosely-but again, it's all semantics. Jeebus is right to ask who the enemy is. Perhaps we should call them "guerrillas"-the most dangerous of warriors-willing to fight to the death indefinatly.

In reality, the Bush administration has shoved our collective ass in a deep crack. I find it ironic it took a Democrat like Murtha to suggest the most competent and realistic solution to date: re-deploy across the borders and stand by to help if needed.

Not abandon or cut and run as Cheney and Bush's operatives term it but re-deploy, stand ready and reduce our losses; ie. our kids. I don't think that's a Liberal or Conservative stance...I just think it's a logical move at this time because "staying the course"-whatever the course de jour is-isn't working out so well.

[RedScare]

You posted as if you have a clear picture of who the enemy is & perhaps how they function as a unit. Can you identify the enemy in Iraq & Afgahnistan?

Like most everyone else, I must piece my view of things from the information available...often filtered to favor one side or another. My best guess is that the enemy in Afghanistan is still Taliban and Al Qaida, though they appear to be stronger than they were a few years ago, when we were putting more effort into the fight. I believe we only have 15,000 troops deployed there now.

Iraq seems to be an ever-changing enemy...or the same enemy with changing targets and goals. Initially, the enemy comprised mostly former Iraqi army members, and sympathetic civilians, whose intent seemed mainly to disrupt and punish US forces for invading Iraq. If they inflicted enough casualties, we might leave and they might regroup.

As time went on, foreign fighters joined them with various agendas, ranging from Iran's help to Shiite militias to Syria looking for a political foothold, to Al Qaida's goal of controlling the entire region. All of these groups seemed to have a common thread of attacking and embarrassing US forces, even though their ultimate goals conflicted. According to miltary officers, Iraqis still comprised 90% of the insurgents.

Now, the insurgents appear to have largely separated into two groups along Sunni and Shiite allegiances, with the US mostly getting caught in the middle of attempts to create civil war. US attempts to control the situation will probably not be appreciated, much as two fighting spouses often turn against the police officer who arrives to help. If civil war in fact occurs, the best US action is probably to move to the sideline, in support of a UN force that will not draw as much attention as US troops do. However, a civil war for control of Iraq will, in reality be a civil war funded by outside interests, such as Iran and Syria. The Shiite Iraqis may win the war, but they will be controlled by Iran. So, even though the enemy may technically be Iraqi insurgents, it is quickly becoming the Iranian government.

[nmainguy]

You posted as if you have a clear picture of who the enemy is & perhaps how they function as a unit. Can you identify the enemy in Iraq & Afgahnistan?

There are numerous enemies. It would be impossible to identify them all-what is not in doubt is who the main target is. We are better than just a group of sitting ducks. Our kids and cousins and sisters and parents and brothers; husbands and wives are not worth the sacrifice in this fight. As I stated before, lets remove our most valuable resources-our own flesh and blood-from the mix; stand back but be prepared to act if necessary.

Should it come to civil war, can we take sides?

Rarely if ever do outsiders have any influence regarding civil wars.

I believe the seeds for any civil war in Iraq were planted well before Bush vs. Saddam.

No one can predict the future.

Anyone can make up a straw man to justify their actions-but that has no relation to what is reality-for better or worse.

I'm glad I started this thread even though it may only be the three of us that interact...it would be nice to have more participation but I just had a pang in my heart again this morning when I realised we have been sending our kids off to this mess for three years with no end in sight. My subjective orb is definatly at war with my objective orb...

:closedeyes:

[Jeebus]

Iraq seems to be an ever-changing enemy...or the same enemy with changing targets and goals. Initially, the enemy comprised mostly former Iraqi army members, and sympathetic civilians, whose intent seemed mainly to disrupt and punish US forces for invading Iraq. If they inflicted enough casualties, we might leave and they might regroup.

No. The initial enemy that the US military attacked in Iraq was Suddam Hussein's Republic Guard. Now that it has been defeated, we have no defined enemy. With no defined enemy, you're forced to re-write your strategy. The best Washington seems to have come up with is to just hang out & patrol the streets looking for "terrorist activity". Is that not the same thing HPD does everyday? The only difference is that HPD doesn't deal with IED's, snipers, or suicide bombers.

This conflict is the new Vietnam. This conflict also reveals the ugly truth about just how partisan our government really is. As for Murtha, God bless him for offering a band-aid, but this won't be right until our troops are along our border - and not along the border of a country halfway around the globe.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The war is over and it has been over for a very long time now. It has become a police action now. I dont think the job of the US military is to act as a policing power. The job of the US military is to kill people. When i was in there, thats what we trained to do, kill people. American lives should be committed to the battlefiled with the simple purpose of winning, by all means necesary. I f the leaders are not willing to kick it to the next level, then by all means do not get involved in sending the military into harms way.