F-16 Down over Iraq!

[dcunning30]

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?  

[dcunning30]

Ivan, great post!

[Ivan]

Ivan, great post!

Shame that a lot of people dont read anything longer than 2 alineas... Some of the replies are really good while others are missing the point by miles

[Woodlouse2002]

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?

[Chris_F]

Winable really depends on the reasons for getting involved in the conflict.  Despite what the politicians, media, and special interest groups say Iraq isn't about Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Oil.  If it were any of these it would have made much more sense to invade some other country (Iran, Korea, Venezuela).  Instead Iraq was a statement to the world that the US was going to be an active policeman on the world stage.  Effectively Iraq was an attempt to erase Somalia, Bosnia, and the other recent instances where the US showed the world that it didn't have a taste for committing to armed engagements (beyond perhaps bombing a few huts).  Iraq is about keeping countries like Iran and Korea in line and show the various despots around the world that the US will commit to armed engagement against you if you do something stupid, like support terrorism.  Iraq was just politically and militarily the easiest target.  Compound that with the bad intelegence already mentioned and we are where we are today.

Now combine that with dcunnings argument and now its obvious how dangerous the Iraq situation is: disengaging (which we most certainly will do) will show the world that we do indeed have a lack of commitment for such engagements.  Perhaps that's a good thing (as I'm no fan of being a tax payer funding the policing of the world, nor do I enjoy having my friends and family members in harms way), but perhaps it will embolden those same rogue states we wanted to scare.  Time will tell.

So is Iraq unwinable?  Depends on the intent.  I think Iran and Korea would be much more active and dangerous today if we hadn't gone to Iraq, I think Iraq delayed them significantly.  Perhaps the engagement has already had the desired effect.  But perhaps it won't.  I can't tell the future...

[Chris_F]

Thats not really using logic. Guadalcanal was winnable, all you have to do is remove Japanise resistance from the island. The current war, the "lets get rid of world terrorism" war cannot be won. Therefore there is no point in fighting.

At the time of Guadacanal remember that we (the Allies) thought we'd have to invade Japan and kill just about every man, woman, and child on the island.  Remember, these folks were fanatical.  Winning in Japan seemend just as remote as winning against terror sounds, though perhaps more neatly packaged.

However I don't understand the argument "we shouldn't even fight".  Okay, perhaps we shouldn't fight in Iraq, maybe that particular conflict was poorly chosen (not that I believe it, but I'm not arguing that point).  But "not fighting" against terror means either we accept terror attacks, or give in to whatever the terrorists want (not possible since many demands conflict), or bury our heads in the sand and ignore the world.  Do we stop gathering inteligence on terrorists?  Do we stop breaking down appartment doors, disrupting terrorist cells, and arresting terrorists?  Do we un-freeze the frozen financial assetts linked to terrorists?  Or should we only do those things because the loss of life of these activities is small.  If that's the case then is it merely the calculus of body counts that makes the fight against terror unpalitable?  If that's the case then how much is freedom worth in terms of bodies?  I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about doing anything risky to fight terror (sending people under cover to gather intelegence is risky, paying locals for information puts them at risk, etc).  Exactly how low is your risk tollerance?

Or are your comments purely about Iraq?  If they are then that's not the war on terror (despite claims by the politicians).

[Woodlouse2002]

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

As for not fighting, no I don't think we should stop gathering intelligence and disrupting terrorist cells etc. Invading nations though is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[dcunning30]

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?

[Woodlouse2002]

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?

[dcunning30]

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

When we fail to know the history, we end up contradicting the history.

So, post WWII, the world readily depended on, and openly encouraged the US to play the role of the world's policeman.  And once the world has more-or-less gotten back onto it's feet, with some help from the marshall plan, no doubt, suddenly the world resents the role it has encouraged just a generation previous.

Big fat YAWN!  

[dcunning30]

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?

[expat]

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

When we fail to know the history, we end up contradicting the history.

So, post WWII, the world readily depended on, and openly encouraged the US to play the role of the world's policeman.  And once the world has more-or-less gotten back onto it's feet, with some help from the marshall plan, no doubt, suddenly the world resents the role it has encouraged just a generation previous.

Big fat YAWN!  

America does what America will regardless of what the rest of the world wants, does or thinks. America does nothing on the world stage without first very carefully calculating just how much benefit it can gain. No president has ever done anything for or to another country unless it has brought political gain. Post war building, the Marshal plan had one thing in mind, a nice buffer between America and the Soviet Block. So however it is painted, the post war role of the USA was exactly what the USA wanted and controlled.
Today the difference is that due to modern communications, people are able to ask questions and have an opinion about what is happening. Post war it was possible to read all about it in the papers a week after it had happened, that dulled peoples interest in things. They where too far apart from what was happening to be able to do anything about it.

[dcunning30]

Heck, during the battle of Savo Island, the Japanese Navy handily ate the US Navy's lunch.  It wasn't just a loss, it was a naval disaster!  So we have this picture:  The Marines on shore lacked supplies and naval support due to IMHO the timidity of Admiral Fletcher.  Then the very first surface engagement occurring the very night of the American invasion, the US and Australian naval vessals were soundly beaten by the Japanese Navy.  It was a very, very bleak picture.  But they ultimatelu came back to win.

Now, put that into the context of today's vast array of criticism, there would be calls from the media and armchair generals getting their "intelligence" updates from the BBC and from CNN to pull out, the Pacific War was unwinnable.

[dcunning30]

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

When we fail to know the history, we end up contradicting the history.

So, post WWII, the world readily depended on, and openly encouraged the US to play the role of the world's policeman.

[dcunning30]

[quote]
So is Iraq unwinable?