As far as the tired "mistakes are made in every war" argument, it's lame.  There's a difference in making mistakes versus just plain failing.  The administration made some huge mistakes that are just plain failures.  DeBaathification that cut too deep.  Disbanding the military, and doing it in a fashion as to be completely insulting.  Failing to deploy enough troops such that Iraq has never been secured.  Senior leaders on the ground counseled against these moves.  Pre-war studies and planning made it clear that some of the above policies were abysmal failures from the get go (and the ensuing strength and depth of the insurgency bore this out).  Instead to heeding counsel, the administration instead offered a stiff arm and pursued tactics that would silence constructive criticism and tried to paint anyone who opposed them as unpatriotic and politic.  How ironic is it that the Administration is now fighting a political battle over making sure that they can fund and support Iraq, when it was the Administration that failed to fund and support Iraq at an adequate level during the first years of the war? 

Fair enough...to an extent.

Strawman, lame, whatever. I agree. However, that would further suggest additional discussions/debate about validation of said war 3 and 1/2 years into it inconsequential to where we need to go. And that is the point. It is nice to realize the 'lameness' of the specific straw argument (re: mistakes in wars) so we we don't have to continue down such strawmen roads. Right?

 

If only...

 

And what I highlighted in red in the above quote of yours is still a) complete speculation and b) faulty inference. Especially about the "...paint anyone who opposed them as unpatriotic...". That is hogwash and you know it.

by the way, i'm an idiot.

there. that saves everyone time.

 

"The points that reefdiver made in his opening post are all correct. The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, wars are not fun things to lose, we have a lot to lose by surrendering to the bad guys, we don't need to surrender because we can win and the Democrats should stop giving moral aid and encouragement to the enemy purely to score political points back home." -advance australia

 

Well stated.

Long energetic whining of others doesn't rebuke the points made in the original post.

In fact, the energetic whinning doesn't even address the original points; but just rehashes the same tired coulda-shoulda-woulda, what might have been. Stop giving moral aid and encouragement to the enemy purely to score political points back home. Stop being part of the problem. Step up and try being part of the solution.

  

We're in it. Let's win it.

 

BadNews,

I've already shown you to be wrong on your "retention rates are only being covered in DoD press releases" claim.  I don't know if you're military or not or associated with DoD, but if you are, read the EarlyBird on a daily basis, and you'll see that the good news stories do get picked up in the MSM.  Maybe not as much as you'd like, but they do.

As far as the soldier's perspective, is that really the full news?  Does a successful raid that captures or kills some insurgent a victory?  Maybe on the micro-tactical level, but what strategic effect did it have?  If it was the elimination of the last insurgent cell in a small village, then it's absolutely a strategic victory as you can now win the populace over.  However, it was just one cell of a network, all it is a micro-tactical victory with no change to the strategic outcome.  What about a clinic dedication?  Does the soldier that reports this know whether its being used?  Have insurgents blown it up?  Have insurgents threatened to kill anyone who's used it, and so it is just another symbol that the government and coalition forces can't protect them?  Are their doctors and medicines to man it?  Just as in the kill/capture scenario, it becomes a story when you can collate all of the above together, and while a soldier can justly be proud in having afforded an opportunity by making sure the clinic was secure during construction, that's not the full story.  So, DOD press releases can provide leads, but they are not necessarily "newsworthy" in and of themselves.

 

Lastly, the tired Vietnam analogy fails.  A Republican president won on a platform that he would achieve peace in Vietnam and bring the troops back home.  He won in 1968 on the basis of a non-existant secret plan to do this, and was reelected in 1972 thanks to the fig leaf known as the Paris Peace Accords that did not achieve victory, but rather "peace with honor," and provided a decent interval before the fall of the corrupt South Vietnamese government.  It kept northern forces in charge of southern territory and mandated the removal of American forces.  The American public was happy with this result, as it ended our Vietnam involvement.  The defunding of Vietnam occured after our troop withdrawal and was a defunding of the South Vietnamese.  Thus, you have to get the history wrong or else simplify to the point of being inaccurate to see the analogy.

Reefdiver,

A good post here.  I recommend that you read David Kilcullen's "COIN Redux" article that's in the current edition of Survival magazine, as I think you'd enjoy it and it would give you some good information to expand your thoughts.  In particular, focus on all the audiences that the Islamists are looking to influence, and not just the American/Western domestic audience.  You can also see him in a recent New Yorker article written by George Packer, which is excellent:

 

"http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061218fa_fact2"

 

As far as why we haven't taken on the militias is that we've never had enough troops.  We weren't even able to keep pace with the Sunni insurgency, let alone decide to take on more action.  During the fight in Fallujah in April 2004, we also we're fighting the Mahdi Army all across central and southern Iraq.  We had to pull troops out of the fight from other areas and had to extend units from 12 to 15 months just to be able to have the force necessary to win the military fight (but remember, COIN is not just about defeating the enemy, but it is primarily about winning the population so that you can win the political battle).   

Anuts,

I didn't address this earlier.  This is wrong.  Iraq is where it's at because of all decisions that have been made.  Thus, when you analyze why things aren't going according to what you wanted, you look back at those decisions that led you to where you are and then you change them as necessary and as situation allows.  This is true with any endeavor - to figure out the path forward, you must figure out what got you to your current situation.  So, to find success, you must find where you failed and avoid that and correct when possible. 

 

So, let's look at some of the past mistakes I've brought up.  First, let's look at the decision to shut down the state factories.  A huge mistake with predictable results - unemployment that increased the potential ranks of insurgents.  If we spend $100 million, we can open them back up and take 150K people of the streets and potentially reduce insurgent ranks.  In doing so, we create potential targets for insurgents that we can use to further turn the populace away from the insurgents if they attack the factories.

 

The failure to deploy enough troops is something that we cannot turn the clocks back on, but it does demonstrate that we haven't resourced the "central front in our war on terror" properly, and that the surge change of endstrengt is not enough.  Now, we don't need to deploy the 375K that Cobra II called for because there are some reliable Iraqi units out there, mainly in MoD.  So, by analyzing the past, we can chart a better course for the future.

Lastly, we'll look at the disaster of de-Baathification.  Once again, we can't change how this decision fueled the insurgency, but we can push for the different Iraqi factions to pursue the reconciliation proposals that have put on the table by Maliki in the past, proposals which repeal de-Baathification edicts for all but the upper tier of the Baathist leadership.   The hanging of Saddam was a great chance to implement the reconciliation proposals, and we had leverage since we had Saddam in custody, but for whatever reason we didn't condition his release to Iraqi MoI custody for his execution.  Instead of a great opportunity to move forward, Saddam's hanging became a debacle.

So, in all three cases, by examining past failures, we can chart a better course for future maneuverings and actions.  In the case of the state-owned factories, we can fix our mistake at a low relative cost.

 

Tigertony,

 "All of your Bill Clinton ramblings are irrelevant."

 

  Thank you so much sysops for once again proving that people like Mr Littlefella and Sheky Green are indeed "The Ultimate In Hypocracy!". And tell me why i should except your analysis? So why would a man who would not even serve care to waste his money on a military he despised? You Sir, should as Mr Clinton, stay out of military affairs!. Well since you find no problem with Mr Bill dodging our draft and refusing to serve "While sending our brave to die in his place!!!". Oh and btw pal "I would suggest that it is you who better check up on that 30 battalion comment i made!!!". Funny, that like 3 years ago now it was well reported, and never refuted by any on here when i posted it!.

 

 

 Now i suppose a man like John Kerry running on a anti-war platform, while sending us to die in the 1st place "Was not aiding and supporting the then minor nuisance?". Please sell your military statistics to the Insurgency!. Well now the one thing i can state about this war, "Is that it was not GW who ever said we where losing, or that we where not continuing the fight to victory!". And Tricky Dick made his mistake by keeping that "Honrable Peace", when he should have just continued dropping bombs on Hanoi, and broke out John McCain from the Hanoi Hilton!.

 

 Again, i suppose ignoring Saddam thru 8 years,trusting a man named Arafat,refusing to stop both AQ and AQ Khan,doing nothing to these terrorist camps,nothing about all those Islamic Jihad schools spreading thru out all the Middle East "Was winning the GWOT or bringing future Mid-East peace"? Nope Mr Hypocracy, that's again called "Aiding and Supporting our enemies!".

 

 Now lets discuss why the USA is now being forced to play this chess game in the 1st place!. Because of my Clinton ranting "The USA has let CCP gain 10-15 years of high tech and nuke tech. Paid for courtesy of the cabinet of William Jefferson Clinton!". And btw, what was Mr Lee's punishment for destroying the USA?. I also wonder why GW is in such a hurry to deploy that ABM, and stated we would use a 1st strike nuclear option,as well as deploying nuke bunker busters to hit them super-bunkers below Beijing, and almost every major CCP city?

 

  Please Mr Green don't even compare the 3100+ GW has cost us, to the countless millions of American's Mr William Jefferson Clinton has killed". So tell me Mr Green "Just what side do CCP and KGB Putin support in the Middle East"? Try Iran,Syria,and Pakistan,and the Iraq Insurgency and Afghan Insurgency!. Again, sounds more to me like GW knew the real mess we are in, and has been using all the chessboard to finish the real game!. And military expert or not Mr Green "We will just see who is right about the destroyer of worlds Mr William Jefferson Clinton!".

 

  And sysop i do regret resorting to such posts, but i grow tired of a man "Who thinks he is Patton, but fails to see the real war we now face!!!". Well Mr Green "You will, and none of us are going to like the end result!". I, unlike you Mr Green, "Have seen into their war rooms as they have already planned our demise!". Oh, and this is also backed  by CCP and the Nine Commentaries of the Communist Party,as well as the actions of Mr KGB Putin in the Russian Federation!.

 

  Now you can call me "Crazy Tiger" but it will not change the result!. Unless of course we continue to counter their moves, like attack Iran next, and deploy our ABM right on the USSR and KGB Putin's borders, and get all Eastern Europe in NATO,and continue to befriend India!

 

                                               "Opps, seems to me GW is already doing all the above!"

 

                                                                    Have A Nice Day Mr Green!!!

 

                                    &nb

shek. you're  focused on numerous historical details that didn't match your expectation of perfection. and you're frustrated that your tactics are not being used. OK, you're unhappy.

 

Now can we get back to the points raised in the original post?

 

Everyone will concede that Iraq is not exactly like Vietnam. Here's another difference: the spelling.

There are hundreds or thousands more. But so what?

The original post drew a few specific comparisons. It never said they were exactly alike.

Do you have arguments for or against the points made in the original post, or are you just bloviating?

 

How do you see it:

  In general, is the media significantly biased?

  In general, does the media have a significant effect on public opinion or not?

 

And yes BF, I'm an idiot.

 

 

"We're in it. Let's win it."

 

 

 

"In the case of the state-owned factories, we can fix our mistake at a low relative cost."-shek

 

INTERESTING. BUT WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS THREAD?