An American soldier in Iraq said - "THIS WAR WILL NOT BE WON MILITARILY"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 3:55 PM GMT
    Today a Slate article headlines that - "THE SURGE IS NOT A SUCCESS" It seems to me that the "SERGE" while quite apparently has brought down violence. But looking closer it appears that during this surge the already commenced seperating of the Sunni's from the Shiites is pretty well complete, which is greatly behind decreased violence, as well as our bribing Sunni's with money to fight Alquida in Iraq. While this surge was to give the Government of Iraq time to get the two sides togehter, it has totally failed to do so. With these factors in mind it seems to me that the surge really hasn't done its intended purpose, but has just dug us deeper into HOLES making it even harder to solve this war. It appears that Iraq will end up divided in three religiously governed areas (Sunni's, Shiits, Kurds) What will happen when the money dries up for the Sunni's helping us now.(previously AlQuida in Iraq was paying them) This seems to me to be a false success, a bottomles shaft, and we are being pulled down into it at great spead !!!!! Are their soldiers among us who can shed light on this? What are you guys opinions? Whoever the next President is, will have one hell of a mess to fix !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 5:10 PM GMT
    l do not understand why you all did not see that before you went in and bombed the shit out of them?

    Maybe your politicians should Travel more and get to know how people are and think and what there likes and dislikes are! lts so obvious Sunnis hate Shias and vice versa and always will! Saddam did some bad things to his people and thats a fact but he kept them down and he did not have WOMD either! What did Saddam do to the USA tell me please? Poking your nose in other countries gets you into deep water and now look at Iraq worse than ever and now the whole world is in turmoil and ask yoursef Why!

    Let countries sort themselves out and charity begins at
    home i believe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 6:10 PM GMT
    Kebab, I completely agree with you !!! I've traveled t Europe 4 times and while going from country to country I had many a conversation with people about this subject of the USA staying home and minding its own business. Actually I am very ashamed (Angry is a better word for my feelings about this)of our leaders for what they have brought down on Iraq, and our world. It is so unnecessarry and just wrong !!!! Most informed citizens here are very much against this war, and believe the "WAR ON TERROR" is just a front for trying to get control of OIL. But we are there !!! How to get out in a way not to make it worse for the Iraqi people. This FIASCO is the worst possible scorge on the USA and the world, to my mind the Bush REGIME are criminals and should be taken to the HAIG and tried and punished as such !!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 6:24 PM GMT
    Forgive my neo hippy rhetoric, but this war will be over when both sides stop fighting.

    Hate produces more hate.

    Death produces more death.

    War produces more war.

    The cycle isn't over until we stop trying to attain the illusion of winning, accept things as they are and move on. Sure, we won't get what we want, and maybe they won't either, but it's better killing for oil, power and control.

    /inserts flowers into barrel of machine gun*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 6:28 PM GMT
    The Sad thing now is Americans are hated all over europe and other countries because of his politics and there are a fine bunch of people in America and it saddens me! You educational system needs an upheaval and more people should get out and travel around the world or maybe watch more documentary programs on the rest of the world and not so much crap TV! World politics and people and Geography should be Rammed down there throats!

    l must say when i was in Florida staying with an english lady who lives there the TV was total crap except are you being served as thats all i watched?

    Oh Larry King i did like !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 6:30 PM GMT
    So BoyWunder are you saying bring back "Flower Power"
    Wow i remember that so well and i had the afghan coat to boot!!!! Did not do drugs or smoke though and never will! My boots always killed my feet!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 6:34 PM GMT
    I agree with boiwunderkind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2008 7:08 PM GMT
    Actually it is a known fact that military power can only go so far in stopping an insurgency. What is required is the government (Iraqi) must increase its validity amongst the the Iraqi people. Even the US military teaches this. Whatever your opinion on going to war is, the US military has done everything it can to stop the fighting and give the Iraqi government a chance to come in a exert some influence. Unfortunately they are weak and totally serving selfish interests.
    I don't support a protracted presence of US troops in Iraq but if we were to pull all our troops out now it would be as bad as Bosnia. Then we sent troops back in to stop the fighting? Stand by and watch them slaughter each other?
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 26, 2008 7:31 PM GMT
    This long ago ceased to be a war in any conventional sense. What we have now is a low-intensity civil war, and we are standing between the parties preventing a wholesale slaughter of the Sunnis by the Shia. Once we are gone, they will go all sub-Saharan Africa (Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, now Kenya) on each other and we'll probably be blamed for the bloodbath that will happen in the power vacuum we leave.

    This is a no win situation for us...
  • asupas

    Posts: 234

    Feb 26, 2008 9:08 PM GMT
    I think that a majority of the American public didn't think that adding more troops to the situation would help much, if at all. The problems in Iraq run much deeper than #'s of troops vs # of insurgents.

    I would suggest that anyone interested in the war should read the blogs that were written by Iraqis who actually lived in Iraq during the liberation (see: invasion) and subsequent reconstruction (see: occupation).

    A good one is - an interesting young woman who taught me a lot about pre and post war Iraq.
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Feb 26, 2008 10:01 PM GMT
    My biggest problem with the ongoing Western presence in Iraq & Afghanistan-- at this stage supposedly for the purpose of democratizing them for the benefit of the Iraqi & Afghani people and the stability & security of the rest of the world-- is a philosophical one. However fantastic it may sound, consider the following: it's the American colonies, pre-independence, the people feel oppressed by the British government. Actions against it are harshly suppressed, other 'civilised' nations are considering supporting some manner of regime-change. Then, the day before the next heavily-taxed tea shipment is due to arrive in Boston harbour, a huge UFO appears in the sky. Aliens land and announce that they've been watching all of this, they don't like the British regime and its 'dangerous, aggressive behaviour,' and they want to liberate the American people. They declare that British troops have to surrender or leave, and when they don't the aliens use their overwhelming technological superiority to crush them, driving what's left of British power stakeholders into a guerilla-style resistence. And the ETs declare that they'll be installing a provisional government until the American people can establish their own democratic regime that will stand on its own once the aliens have left.

    Now when the aliens feel they've achieved their goals and they leave, how long is that version of America going to last? The people didn't have to fight for it, bleed for it, die for it. They're grateful, certainly, but how invested are they? How much do they 'own' their new independence, and therefore how much responsibility do they take for maintaining it?

    While it's admittedly a far-fetched, I think the point that this scenario is meant to make is legitimate: for a nation of people to *really care* about their government and support it and defend it against enemies foreign and domestic, it has to be theirs. They had to create it for themselves, forge it with their own sweat and blood. Which do you value more: the house that you built yourself from the ground up, or one that's given to you already furnished (maybe in colours you don't really care for)? If you built it yourself, you can be damn sure there'll be smoke alarms; if it was given to you, do you think to check for them? What about an adequate security home security system?

    So the problem is that swooping in and telling a people "you're free now" doesn't *make* them free, any more than the state telling an 18 year-old "you're an adult now" makes them an adult. Real 'freedom' and 'adulthood' are both a status that has to be earned through an internal struggle and process of growth and liberation and maturation. The illusion of adulthood un-earned is probably one of the biggest factors in reckless, irresponsible behaviour; so what can we expect from a "free & democratic" state that didn't come to its freedom or democracy internally, under its own power and initiative, by overthrowing its own oppressors and shaking off its own inequities?

    Whether all of this is moot now that NATO & the US are seemingly stuck in Afghanistan & Iraq (more or less respectively) for fear of each utterly imploding in the event of a withdrawl, who knows for sure. But maybe at the least it can be taken as instructional next time there's talk about invading some other country and 'civilising' them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2008 7:15 AM GMT
    "I think that a majority of the American public didn't think that adding more troops to the situation would help much, if at all. The problems in Iraq run much deeper than #'s of troops vs # of insurgents."

    The majority of the American public couldn't pass basic training. What the hell does the majority of the American public know about this? Political success won't come from the military but it won't happen without the military.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2008 11:39 PM GMT
    John !!! Please explain to us war doubters what constitutes success in this war in IRAQ. WHAT WILL BE WON? So far there have been no WMD found, ALQUIDA wasn't there until we invaded, there were no terrorist training camps, and there was no proof whatever of purchase of materials by Sadam Hussein to make WMD. There goes all BUSH'S reasons for going to war, except that he wanted to implant DEMOCRACY, after what has happened there in Iraq, they don't appear to want or need our brand of Democracy shoved down their throats. SO AGAIN JOHN, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WIN IN THIS WAR? PLEASE EXPLAIN !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 1:29 AM GMT
    What most people don't know is that the Iraqi's actually liked us immediately after the invasion. The trouble started because we allowed a complete looting of the country followed by a firing of ALL former government employees that could have given us insight into how the country was run and finally we disbanded a loyal military without pay which led to a looting of the munitions warehouses which were unguarded and thus the insurgency was born.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2008 1:56 AM GMT
    Yes, please (those who think things are going just fine with the (longest in US history) war), explain how exactly one goes about "winning" an ill-conceived venture such as this. Here we are paying $10 a day to tens of thousands of dissidents so that they will not shoot people, at the same time claiming we're somehow closer to "winning" the war because there's less violence (in some parts of Iraq). We're no closer to political stability in Iraq, which was ostensibly the goal of the "surge", than we were at the outset. Good grief, this is absurd!

    Here we are again going into an election cycle where the Republicans will attempt to frighten people into voting to stay the course. Makes me sick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2008 1:05 AM GMT


    War is about greed and/or money in the name of religion.

    Do your research -- you'll see.

    It is that simple folks.