BF2S Forums [Iraq War] September Or Bust in Iraq..

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

As a US citizen...I don't think we're going to get our money back out of Iraq.

My question is, at what point, or with what data can you say "Hey! It worked!"  ?

I agree, winning is undefinable. And every time a politician is asked you get some vague "when Iraq is secure response". But there is some encouraging news, especially in the Anbar province (home to Falluejah, Ramdi). The reason we are starting to see somewhat of a turnaround in that area has less to do with outside pressure and more to do with Iraqi's standing up against insurgents. The Iraqi's there actually see the Al queda groups as more of a threat than the west (Imposing Taliban like laws..etc). When you have a media source like the LA Times reporting that Iraqi police force is turning away recruits I have to see their eagerness as a good thing. Despite the recent attack the violence in Iraqs most dangerous province is down.

"Enlistments have grown, and the number of uniformed Iraqi police officers and provincial troops on Ramadi's streets has multiplied to 6,700 from only 200 in July. Security has improved correspondingly."

U.S. allows Shiite militia security role

The pros: obviously, like the Sunnis in Anbar, the local JAM know the area and its inhabitants better than U.S. forces do. If jihadi plans are afoot around the shrine, they’ll spot it faster than we can. Cooperating with the U.S. in security matters might help domesticate some of these nuts, too. Miska makes a point in the article of distinguishing between “extremist JAM” and the more tractable types who are less concerned with drilling holes in people’s heads than with Shiite security. The key, he says, is making nice with the latter while refusing to compromise with the former.

The cons: designating Sadr the protector of the Shiites’ holy places isn’t exactly going to hurt his standing in the community. (No surprise that his MPs introduced the bill to keep U.S. troops away from the shrine.) And depending upon how low you think he and Iran would stoop to instigate a civil war, it’s tantamount to letting the fox guard the henhouse. If AQ hits another revered place of worship a la last year’s Samarra bombing, the militias will have public support to run wild. Essentially, Sadr now controls the lever to make that happen: all his men need to do is look the other way if they see an attack coming. I’m skeptical that they’d do something that cynical, but then I was also skeptical that Iran might be giving money to Sunni jihadists and there have been numerous reports about that.

Why are both parties suddenly up for it? I thought only about 3 Repubs voted for the start pulling out by October thing?

ghettoperson wrote:

Why are both parties suddenly up for it? I thought only about 3 Repubs voted for the start pulling out by October thing?

REP's I'm sure have always had it in the back of their heads. They were just opposed to a bill announcing an exact date. So I think..

Petraeus is only the commanding general for the 101st, correct?

Ryan wrote:

Petraeus is only the commanding general for the 101st, correct?

Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Ryan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Petraeus is only the commanding general for the 101st, correct?

Yes, however that includes command over the entire MNF-I.

Ahh, alright.

More info on Petraeus.

David Howell Petraeus (born November 7, 1952) is a general in the United States Army and commander of Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I), the four-star post that oversees all U.S. forces in the country

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Reality hit them in the face.

We're losing, so now is the time to find a graceful way to exit.  Even the hardcore hawks are starting to understand that.

Define losing.

Losing = Sacrifying lives in a war with no purpose, now train the rest of the Iraqi police forces and then get the hell out, nobody want`s you there and you don`t really wan`t to be there - it`s no longer a war for liberating Iraq, foreign insurgents will keep killing and molesting US soldiers for ever.

The job is done and none will ever appriciate the lives lost no matter what, an entire generation got fucked in Vietnam, don`t ruin this one the same way .....

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Reality hit them in the face.

We're losing, so now is the time to find a graceful way to exit.  Even the hardcore hawks are starting to understand that.

Define losing.

Failing to establish a stable government after nearly 4 years of occupation, and spending $400 billion in the meantime.

We're losing this battle, but take comfort in knowing that it's mostly of no consequence to us in the long run.  Afghanistan is really the important battle.  Fuck Iraq.

k30dxedle wrote:

The question is, is it possible to achieve relative stability in Iraq while maintaining a presence, and if so, how and at what cost?

Only way would be some kind of pact or treaty allowing us to stay in their country and not fight each other.
That's like putting two 3-year-olds in a sandbox and hoping one doesn't throw the Tonka truck at the other one.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

As a US citizen...I don't think we're going to get our money back out of Iraq.

My question is, at what point, or with what data can you say "Hey! It worked!"  ?

unfortunately, one of the only things that worked was taking saddam out of power, and then capturing him.....thats what we know for a fact.



the other side of it is, that we will never know if american civilian lives were saved due to exporting a conflict. i like to think that accomplished something, but we can never know.

Ryan wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Politics in War suck. Defining how and when to fight wars is stupid as hell.
The military were restrained in their fighting and yet were told to win decisively.

Politics control every aspect of a war, except for when the soldiers decide to go take a piss, or clean their rifles.

You can't just have an army decide to go to war without anyone telling them to do so.

*sigh* I mean this: A real war should be the prez saying "we declare teh warz!" Then he should command his generals to wage war and back them up with the necessary resources. Now, the democrats are trying to do what they did in Vietnam: Tell Generals to wage wars on the politicians' terms so that they can get more votes. Bush is trying to do what he was doing all along. I don't like these cut and run tactics the democrats are employing. It makes America look even weaker. As Sun Tzu said "Restraining generals and making them fight your war is like tying up the hound of Han and bidding it to catch hares."

Kmarion wrote:

Sun Tzu also said "What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.".

Yes.  But...

If we would have just leveled Iraq, which we are very capable of doing.....that would have made him happy according to his rules.