Pudding-The situation in Iraq

[Octavius Valorius]

I'm telling you man, the war is going to be worse than Vietnam. I believe Bush's plan of action is as bad as Nixon's during Vietnam. By the time this war is out, there'll be more casualties than Vietnam, at least 60,000. Guess what, Pudding!:eekout:

[Rhah]

Interesting post , but i fail to see what your getting at.
And what does pudding have to do with it.

Although i think the situation in Iraq is pretty terrible (and likely to get worse) I cant really see the US suffering casualties in any way near to 60,000. I'd be surprised if it topped 6000 to be honest.

[Dionysios II The Great]

Iraq is won, just geurilla fights now.
Yeah, there have been lots of American casualties though.

[Red Harvest]

Iraq is won, just geurilla fights now.

We welcome Donald Rumsfeld to the discussion...

It's been "just" guerrilla fighting for 3 years. Now if it was trailing in intensity, I might agree, but it moved the opposite way and has stayed roughly the same.

I'm telling you man, the war is going to be worse than Vietnam.

No, it's not really going worse than Vietnam, but it is not going well. Vietnam had a lot more fighting. We aren't prosecuting this war the same way. Unfortunately, Dubya's lack of boots-on-the-ground plan did let the insurgency take root. Infrastructure could not be rebuilt quickly enough, and the economy could not get back on its feet. That was a recipe for civil war, but Dubya thought it was a celebratory cake instead.

I believe Bush's plan of action is as bad as Nixon's during Vietnam.

Nixon actually concluded it was time to get out...so in some regards Bush's plan has been worse. If Bush were in Nixon's place we would still be fighting in Vietnam.

We aren't likely to suffer more than about U.S. 1,000 deaths in Iraq per year, because despite what Bush thinks, we aren't going to stay if it descends into complete chaos. And if we aren't making progress we will leave, because the American public is leary of repeating the Vietnam scenario. I put the likely total as around 4-5,000. That assumes that we start withdrawing the bulk of our forces under a new president in 2009.

[General Sun]

We welcome Donald Rumsfeld to the discussion...

It's been "just" guerrilla fighting for 3 years. Now if it was trailing in intensity, I might agree, but it moved the opposite way and has stayed roughly the same.

It was most definitly not "roughly the same". 3 years ago we did not have a rebuilt infrastructure (there still is a lot left to be done, but we're getting there. Resumed oil production, a revitalized free-enterprise capitalist economy complete with its own stock market, basic ultilities back up...), a 150,000 men Iraqi paramilitary, a completed parliament with a completed and agreed upon constitution, and the first demoratic vote in the history of Iraq which left the majority in power.

No, the situation is far from "roughly the same."

I agree that we'll likely see 4000-5000 allied deaths when we pull up in 2-3 years, but we will return victorious, having left a bastion of strong democracy in the middle east.

This war is far from a mistake, and anybody who even dare think of us losing it is an unpatriotic coward.

[Red Harvest]

It was most definitly not "roughly the same". 3 years ago we did not have a rebuilt infrastructure (there still is a lot left to be done, but we're getting there. Resumed oil production, a revitalized free-enterprise capitalist economy complete with its own stock market, basic ultilities back up...), a 150,000 men Iraqi paramilitary, a completed parliament with a completed and agreed upon constitution, and the first demoratic vote in the history of Iraq which left the majority in power.

I was speaking of the military situation. Militarily, we have not progressed, and saying it is still "roughly the same" was BEING GENEROUS!

However, since you brought up infrastructure...the lack of security has made the progress feeble in comparison to what was NEEDED and what was stated to be part of the plan. Basic utilities are still only partially available. There is no security--unless you consider 1200 civilian deaths in Baghdad alone EVERY MONTH secure. The current economy appears to be almost entirely revolving around supporting the occupation--and with the way contracts are awarded it is anything but "free enterpise capitalist." Unemployment is through the roof...enough in itself to fuel a civil war. Oil production is a fraction of what was expected by the planners. The Iraqi military still isn't doing much and the govt. has no real leadership and is not even really accepted by many Iraqi's. Not to mention that the Sunni's still oppose the constitution.

If you want to scorecard this, it will mostly be failures at this point.

This war is far from a mistake, and anybody who even dare think of us losing it is an unpatriotic coward.

That's a ridiculous thing to say, but typical of the name calling from those who support an Administration view--folks who have illustrated they don't know the first damn thing about planning or running an operation like this, and can't even tell when they are in trouble. When they disagree with reality, they call somebody unpatriotic for pointing out the obvious. Or call them a coward. Or better yet, both.

People are not unpatriotic cowards for realizing their leadership completely fouled this thing up. I don't see a good way to fix the mistakes that have already been made.

EDIT: And there is something particularly wrong about a 19 year old kid calling folks with far more experience than him unpatriotic or cowards. Criticizing the actions of ones government is not unpatriotic. Realizing it is possible to lose is not cowardly.

What will be the eventual result? That's still debatable, but winning is anything but certain. The price keeps getting higher and right now the total cost looks like it will hit a trillion dollars...and that's just the economic portion. If it hits a trillion we will be paying about $50 billion/yr interest in perpetuity for this operation.

The U.S. people are not going to give this more than about another two years. If the Iraqi's haven't taken over by then they will be watching us ride off into the sunset, no matter what the situation is. Win, lose, or draw, that is what will happen.

[Tony83]

Iraq is won, just geurilla fights now.
Yeah, there have been lots of American casualties though.

The main military campaign is over but the peace is far from won.

Casualties are high amongst the policing military forces but they are dwarfed compared with civilian deaths.

If the exit strategy isn't handled just right the ensuing blood bath might make Saddam's regime look like a gentle culling exercise.

[Shaun]

Too much casualites just for the protection of oil, and it also shows that America is willingto go to war for buisness.

[Garbarsardar]

I edited the title for clarity...

[Hub'ite]

And what meaning does this thread have? Only time will tell if Iraq was a mistake. Thing seem to be doing better, the Iraqi Army is taking complete control over cities now. I doubt American casulties will reach 60,000, I'd be suprised if they topped 5,000.

[Shaun]

And what meaning does this thread have? Only time will tell if Iraq was a mistake.

Well 1000+ deaths for what?

[MaximiIian]

And what meaning does this thread have? Only time will tell if Iraq was a mistake.

It was and is a mistake. The men that have already died wouldn't have had to die if we didn't go in there in the first place. Two and a half thousand deaths, and for what? Absolutely nothing worth dying over.

[Hub'ite]

It was and is a mistake. The men that have already died wouldn't have had to die if we didn't go in there in the first place. Two and a half thousand deaths, and for what? Absolutely nothing worth dying over.

What if democracy flourishes in Iraq? I believe giving freedom to an oppressed country is a worthy cause.

[IamthePope]

What if democracy flourishes in Iraq? I believe giving freedom to an oppressed country is a worthy cause.

Not to mention removing a destabilizing regime from the middle east and allowing for the transformation of the region. Think about the long term effects of the war and realize the genius of the Bush Administration.

[Red Harvest]

Not to mention removing a destabilizing regime from the middle east and allowing for the transformation of the region. Think about the long term effects of the war and realize the genius of the Bush Administration.

You mean replacing an autocratic regime with an unstable mess that is full to the gills with terrorists now, but was not before the war. That is the problem. Right now those folks are focused on Iraq itself, but it won't remain this way forever.

Mishandling of this situation has made the region less stable, and less secure. Unless something changes that clears a lot up fairly soon, the legacy will be one of destabilization, even with Saddam gone. Saddam was a destabilizing force, but he was a *point source.* Now we have serious potential for a distributed threat, and that is much more destabilizing.

Saddam had to go eventually. Unfortunately, we needed to replace him with something stable. That sure as hell has not happened so far.

[Tiwaz]

What if democracy flourishes in Iraq? I believe giving freedom to an oppressed country is a worthy cause.

What if Togo wins Football world championship... It would make some people VERY happy and would be nice (their rate is 250:1 for Togo winning).

Those are two equally likely "what if" 's. Iraq will not become flourishing democracy. Why? Because they did not build it themselves. Why else? Because american coming and telling them to get along will NOT make centuries of tribal warfare and hatred go away.

Top this with destabilisation effect this incident has and potential to grow beyond civil war (which is more or less guaranteened) should for example kurdish part attempt to gain independence... It would be difficult to have worse results even if you actively tried.

[MaximiIian]

What if democracy flourishes in Iraq?

It's not. And it probably won't. The ethnic and religious tensions in the region will prevent that for the most part. There's too much of a history of those tensions for the people to forget it any time soon. Conflict will continue. The best thing to do is to just bug out and let it all simma-don-na (spot the reference).

[General Sun]

Uh, 60,000? What are you talking about? I see not even 2500 in 3 years.
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

I dare say that the overall trend is that casualties are going down. NOV 05-MAR 06, continous downward slope. It spiked up again in April, but falls again in May. I think this month is going to fall even more. We've already won Iraq, we just need to build the country. Once their bloody slow-butt parliament gets everything settled and the Iraqi army is retrained, we can leave.

This is NOTHING like Vietnam.

[akanoez]

This is NOTHING like Vietnam.

let's go to the experts on that one:

McNamara's 11 Lessons

In 1995, former U.S. secretary of defence Robert McNamara published In Retrospect, the first of his three books dissecting the errors, myths and miscalculations that led to the Vietnam War, which he now believes was a serious mistake. Nine years later, most of these lessons seem uncannily relevant to the Iraq war in its current nation-building, guerrilla-warfare phase.

We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . .

We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

[Red Harvest]

Uh, 60,000? What are you talking about? I see not even 2500 in 3 years.
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

I dare say that the overall trend is that casualties are going down. NOV 05-MAR 06, continous downward slope. It spiked up again in April, but falls again in May. I think this month is going to fall even more.

A questionable reading of that chart. There are seasonal variations in casualties. Compare to the previous year and you will find that casualties are actually about the same. Higher in some months, lower in others.

US casualties stand at 2481, total with coalition forces is 2707. U.S. wounded stands at 18,254. Iraq has a substantially higher percentage survival than Vietnam.

We've already won Iraq, we just need to build the country.

No, we've essentially blown our chance because we haven't already rebuilt and the security situation got away from us early on.

Once their bloody slow-butt parliament gets everything settled and the Iraqi army is retrained, we can leave.

We won't be there by then.