Iraq conflict passes WWII

[Amelia]

Iraq conflict passes WWII

Cynthia Banham

Agence France-Presse

November 24, 2006

THEY were America's days of infamy, 60 years apart - Pearl Harbour and September 11. The first led the US into World War II, a conflict it endured for 1348 days; the second was followed by a war that from tomorrow will have lasted even longer.

America's involvement in Iraq will reach that milestone at a time when the clamour for withdrawal has never been louder, and the possibility of achieving it has never seemed so difficult. The decisive end of World War II in 1945 delivers no lessons that could be applied to a very different war in a very different era.

If anything, things seem to be getting worse, the options less appealing. Baghdad is reeling from the deadliest assault on Iraqi civilians since the start of the US invasion in March 2003. At least 200 people died and more than 250 were injured after six car bombs, mortar attacks and missiles battered the Shiite Muslim slum of Sadr City.

Plumes of black smoke and anguished screams rose above a chaotic landscape of flames and charred cars, witnesses said.

Violence later spread to other neighbourhoods in retaliatory attacks across Baghdad, even as politicians and senior religious clerics appealed for calm.

The Iraqi Government locked down the capital with an indefinite curfew and shut the airport to commercial flights.

It is a long way from Mission Accomplished - the banner that decorated a US aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003 as the US President, George Bush, proclaimed the end of "major combat operations". Forty-four months on, Americans still count the cost of the war: more than 2860 US soldiers dead, more than 21,000 injured.

Those figures do not compare with US casualties in World War II, when 406,000 American soldiers died and 671,000 were wounded. But the Iraq campaign has become a symbol of the pitfalls of a new style of conflict - a war against an ill-defined enemy with no end in sight.

American politicians have not failed to note the symbolism of the milestone.

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, pointed to it as he pushed for a phased withdrawal within four to six months.

"We are 3 years into a conflict which has already lasted longer than the Korean conflict and almost as long as World War II. We should put the responsibility for Iraq's future squarely where it belongs: on the Iraqis."

In Canberra, the Prime Minister, John Howard, acknowledged Iraq was "going through a bad phase" and that nobody was "other than horrified at the continued loss of life". Mr Howard said any change in the role of Australia's troops would depend on "what's involved in any possible British reduction" of its commitment.

"We haven't agreed to anything else and if there are any proposals that we do something differently, well they will have to be assessed on their merits and according to our judgement as to whether it's appropriate."

[bevin]

The news of the violence in Iraq this morning makes it abundantly clear the country is in civil war.

Burning people in the street while soldiers look on!?

There is no way we can solve this mess - we made it, but the Iraqi people are going to have to fix it.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think it is fair to say "we made it" although I know those are popular talking points that are out there. Iran and Syria have been feeding the insurgency and I think they are more responsible for it than the US. What the US did over there was remove a ruthless dictator that killed off entire villages rather than put people on trial. He cut people's tongues out with razor blades and feed people feet first through wood chipping machines. He would have died eventually and there would have been a power-grap then. The answer does lie in either getting Iraq grounded enough to take care of the problem themselves or partitioning the country.

[Neil D]

Quote:

There is no way we can solve this mess - we made it, but the Iraqi people are going to have to fix it.

Quote:

I don't think it is fair to say "we made it"

Hmmmm...Colin Powell told us that if we break it, we are responsible...And yes, WE BROKE it, therefore we are responsible.

We needed teachers over there to teach 25-100 people per villiage the various political processes available to the people at this time. Those students will become teachers to thier familys and friends as the information is deciminated. Unfortunately, since the country is in the midst of conflict, it is gonna be difficult for the people to listen...

For an honorable way out of this conflict, we either need to pull out, or put more troops in there...If we have to put more troups in, we might as well take over the country well....But it will mean more body bags.... If we pull out, I am not sure that there will be other places, ie Afganistan that will begin boiling over with conflict like Iraq. Syria is definately a threat to the region.

[Neil D]

U.S. Participation in Major Wars

Nov 25, 12:20 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press

America's major wars and the length of U.S. participation:

_Vietnam War: eight years, five months (August 1964 to January 1973).

_Revolutionary War: six years, nine months (July 1776 to April 1783).

_Afghanistan: five years, one month (October 2001 to present).

_Civil War: four years (April 1861 to April 1865).

_World War II: three years, eight months in the Pacific (December 1941 to August 1945).

_Iraq: three years, eight months (March 2003 to present).

_Korean War: three years, one month (June 1950 to July 1953).

_War of 1812: two years, six months (June 1812 to December 1814).

_U.S.-Mexico War: one year, 10 months (April 1846 to February 1848).

_World War I: one year, seven months (April 1917 to November 1918).

_Spanish-American War: eight months (April to December in 1898)

_Persian Gulf War: one and 1/2 months (January to February in 1991).

[Dr. Shane]

Realistically the war against terrorism is better compared to the Cold War or the Indian wars that went on for decades.

If America broke something I don't know what it was. Iraq was not peaceful haven under Saddam. He started wars with his neighbors and killed many of his own citizens without a trial. His days were numbered and there would have been a power-grab eventually. The US just made it happen sooner rather than later and before he got a nuclear bomb.

[gina i]

There is no war against terrorism - have they caught ANY terrorists? Oh Sadam - wait - he wasn't even involved in 911.

So where are the terrorists? In this war of terrorism? Innocent children & people being killed. Iraqi's killing their own people.

WWJD?? Once again, what would he do? No one seems to be answering that question!

[Dr. Shane]

Where are the terrorists? Guantamano Bay and secret prisons throughout the world. Saddam not a terrorist? Not every terrorist in the world was involved in 9/11. Saddam trained and sponsored terrorism. There is was an undisputable connection between Saddam and Hamas. The connection that was not a direct one was between al Queda and Saddam.

[Neil D]

Quote:

WWJD?? Once again, what would he do? No one seems to be answering that question!

I don't know if I should answer this question...because I do have an answer to the question....But you aren't gonna like it...

[John317]

I hate to say this but here's the real truth:

The US could win this war just as it could have won the war in Vietnam, but in both cases we have refused to do what was really required to win them. The thing we haven't learned is that if we go into a war, we need to do it with the intention of winning, not just containing it. We lost Vietnam on the streets of Amerca, and it looks like the same thing could happen again in Iraq. In Vietnam we won every battle, and the VC took huge loses, but we still lost the war because we let politicians run it from Washington.

America doesn't have the guts to win this kind of war and in war the winner is the one who is willing to accept the most causualties. The enemy knows we have the best and most modern equipment, but they are counting on our not having heart, and having heart is the most important thing in any war. They're counting on us being only concerned with comfort and on our being morally corrupt and materialistic and disunited. We're not any of those things, now, are we? You betcha. (Not saying this about everyone, of course, but just stating a general truth.)

You gotta know why you're fighting and America doesn't know any more, if it ever did know. The Islamists, on the other hand, just like the Viet Cong, know exactly why they're fighting and they don't mind dying, so take a wild guess who's gonna finally win this one?

[Neil D]

I know that this is prolly gonna land on deaf ears....But I gotta ponder this philosophy ....winning at any cost.

At what point does winning a war cost too much? And what are the ramifications of winning at any cost? Ask your wife if your son is worth the fight and winning any war..... I suspect the vast majority of mothers would desire thier sons alive....the individual dead and the country the victor or the individual alive and the country defeated....Which would you rather have?

And then there's the country that has won all it's wars but only at a bloody cost...Surrounding countrys will tend to be less willing to start the war, granted, but terrrorists never are... And what of the PR issues of a country that suppresses conflict with reckless abandon? We have seen where the death of people will act as seed to a philosophy that is contrary to the leading/stronger country....

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Ask your wife if your son is worth the fight and winning any war.....

Yes, my son is worth fighting for. My wife is worth fighting for too. If a man breaks into my house and threatens the life of my family, I will die trying to save them. And if they fly airplanes into buildings, I should also be willing to die in order to stop them from doing it again. Is it worth the fight? Absolutely!

That isn't even what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not the way we are going about the fight is the most effective way. Most certainly it is worth the fight. But is the fight doing any good?

Quote:

And what of the PR issues of a country that suppresses conflict with reckless abandon?

Is this a reference to Saddam using chemical weapons on the Kurds? China and Tiananmen Square? Russia and the Chechen rebels? I am not following this comment at all.

[Bravus]

Quote:

That isn't even what the debate is about. The debate is about whether or not the way we are going about the fight is the most effective way.

Well yes, I guess at this point it is... but that's largely because the debate about whether this particular war (which, remember, has *zero* to do with people flying planes into buildings) was worth having in the first place never really happened.

The US, Australia and the UK *should not be there*, but given that they are, there now has to be a debate about how to escape with as little damage as possible.

[John317]

I know that this is prolly gonna land on deaf ears....But I gotta ponder this philosophy ....winning at any cost.

At what point does winning a war cost too much?

It depends entirely on what returns a nation thinks it gets from fighting a war. It may be compared to the value of some marketable item. You won't pay more for it than you believe it is worth. We gladly fought WW II because the nation was convinced that any price we paid was worth the freedom we'd have to surrender if we did not win. I don't think there was any price we would not have been willing to pay in order to keep the Japanese and German military machines from taking over the United States.

Quote:

And what are the ramifications of winning at any cost?

War is all about death and dying. It tells something of a nation's values; that is, it demonstrates what a people value highly enough that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to gain or retain it.

Take WW II as an example. A study of that war shows that the United States was willing give up any number of its sons in order to win the war against Germany and Japan. The war planners believed it was likely the US would lose approximately one million men in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. (It would also have cost the Japanese about the same number of its citizens.) However, before the invasion could take place, the US ended the war by the use of the hydrogen bomb, which killed a fraction of the number that would have been killed had the invasion taken place.

That is the price we were willing to pay for freedom. We valued freedom more than life itself. Our commitment to the war was really a statement to the world that we would rather die as free men than live as anybody's slave.

Quote:

Ask your wife if your son is worth the fight and winning any war.....

"Any war" signifies that you don't think a parent would give their son to die in any war, but that is not true. Plenty of mothers and fathers gave their son or sons to the war effort not only in WW II but in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and all the other wars the United States has fought. It's the price we pay for our freedoms. Freedom does not come cheap, and those unwilling to fight for their freedom don't long remain free. That is one sure history lesson.

Quote:

I suspect the vast majority of mothers would desire thier sons alive....the individual dead and the country the victor or the individual alive and the country defeated....Which would you rather have?

You're helping make my main point: if you have doubts, you don't go to war. You only go to war when you have no doubts that you're willing to die until you win. Because really, as said before, war is all about dying. It's not so much about your enemy dying as it is about you-- or your son, uncle, cousin or best friend-- dying.

Your questions, though, help make another point: the Islamists are convinced that Americans don't have anything we'd consider worth dying for except our TVs, couches, beer, pizzas, porno, cars, boats, houses, etc, i.e., soft, easy living. That is why the Islamists are sure we Americans won't fight until we win; we will only fight until we get tired of seeing our children's dead bodies, and then we will pick up and leave.

On the other hand, consider the Islamists. Will they fight to win at any cost? No doubt about it. In fact, they show that they believe their cause is so much the more holy by virtue of their dying for it. They demonstrate for everyone that their religious convictions are everything that matters to them and that they are more than ready to blow up their bodies for the sake of their idea. It shows the power of the idea.

Is there any idea that Americans believe in so powerfully that we are as willing to die for it as the Islamists are willing to die for theirs? If not, then I don't think there's any doubt who will eventually win this war and who will lose it.

[bevin]

Quote:

You're helping make my main point: if you have doubts, you don't go to war. You only go to war when you have no doubts that you're willing to die until you win.

History actually tells us that

(a) soldiers actually fight to save their lives and the lives of their buddies in the squad

( countries fight because (i) their politicians are simultaneously stupid AND persuasive, or (ii) they are being attacked by another force caused by such a politician.

War has been a destroyer of wealth for the WINNING side for about 100 years now.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

soldiers actually fight to save their lives and the lives of their buddies in the squad

Important to note this is not a soldier's view. During the first Gulf War I volunteered for active duty apart from my National Guard unit which was not activated.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

remember, has *zero* to do with people flying planes into buildings

The Bush Doctrine was that the US would not distinguish between terrorist groups and nations that harbored them. Iraq harbored terrorists. They also funded and trained terrorists. While there was no official connection between al Queda and Saddam's government, al Queda was free to operate and train in Iraq. And there was an official connection between Hamas and Saddam's government.

[Bravus]

Um, no, factually and in detail, to all of those points. Need to check your sources.

[Dr. Shane]

Bush Doctrine: "No distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them"

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Quote:

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony...

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

Quote:

Soon after the war, the picture began to become clearer. The U.S. collected considerable evidence that Abu Musaab Zarqawi, a top al Qaeda planner who fled Afghanistan as the Taliban regime was ousted, moved in and out of Iraq and met with officials in Baghdad.

Saddam never moved against a huge al Qaeda presence on his own territory — the headquarters of Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq. This radical Kurdish group has ties to al Qaeda officials in Afghanistan. The U.S. smashed the camp in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

So it is true to say "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11." But that is not to say Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists or even with al Qaeda.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Neil D

I know that this is prolly gonna land on deaf ears....But I gotta ponder this philosophy ....winning at any cost.

At what point does winning a war cost too much?

It depends entirely on what returns a nation thinks it gets from fighting a war. It may be compared to the value of some marketable item. You won't pay more for it than you believe it is worth. We gladly fought WW II because the nation was convinced that any price we paid was worth the freedom we'd have to surrender if we did not win. I don't think there was any price we would not have been willing to pay in order to keep the Japanese and German military machines from taking over the United States.

The origional question, in many ways, is academic. Implied in the question is what values are we conveying to the world as we go to war. And what values are we individually willing to see survive us. It also asks the question on the individual, as well as the corporate, levels. The question does imply that you do not mix those levels. Another level of worth, culture...what cultures are going to survive the war...Concider the wars that the great empire Rome fought. They took and dominated everything until they got to the Greek empire. And while greece was physcially conqured, Greece also conqured Rome, culturally. There is no doubt in historians minds that Greece values survived Roman values.

Quote:

Take WW II as an example. A study of that war shows that the United States was willing give up any number of its sons in order to win the war against Germany and Japan. The war planners believed it was likely the US would lose approximately one million men in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. (It would also have cost the Japanese about the same number of its citizens.) However, before the invasion could take place, the US ended the war by the use of the hydrogen bomb, which killed a fraction of the number that would have been killed had the invasion taken place.

That is the price we were willing to pay for freedom. We valued freedom more than life itself. Our commitment to the war was really a statement to the world that we would rather die as free men than live as anybody's slave.

I don't believe that this is as accurate as you propound. History shows that the Americans, who were of age, knew that Hitler conquring was for the benefits of the Third Reich, and the german people. What you don't hear, is that the German people felt they had been dominated for nearly 20 years, by the allies of WW1 [AKA Europe and Russia]. They had been oppressed and could point to the problems of oppression of thier country. And any survey of the WW1 agreements will show that Germany truely was oppressed. By the time of Hitlers succession, the foundation for Germany's collective revengful mindset had been laid. So, when they began conquring, the german people felt that they DESERVED the spoils of war. And in some respects, 20 years of oppression, of keeping your citizens in poverty, of preventing the benefits for society that western civilized nations were enjoying, provided a fruitful mindset of hate, of anguish, poverty, racism, of oppression. They have nothing to loose but to go to war.

Quote:

On the other hand, consider the Islamists. Will they fight to win at any cost? No doubt about it. In fact, they show that they believe their cause is so much the more holy by virtue of their dying for it. They demonstrate for everyone that their religious convictions are everything that matters to them and that they are more than ready to blow up their bodies for the sake of their idea. It shows the power of the idea.

I am sorry, but I don't believe for a moment that what you are propounding is accurate. There are a couple of things that you are missing....

The history of the area where these fighting jihadist are coming from-Most of these men are from poor familys. They are duped by a few power hungry[PH} men. These PH men actually educate these poor into radicals [AKA training camps]. The PH men ,if killed off, are replaced by well groomed radical-minded men. They are hand picked replacements by the radical religious cultural leaders. And the PH men are funded by various ways, like unknown "save the children" type funds [or some other type "donations" schemes] found all over the world, or thru well funded oil sheks, or thru some radical religious foundations like Hammas Bet you didn't know that Hammas was a religious foundation, didja? Do some digging on why Hammas is so well funded/liked in Lebanon and palestine areas. It's because they are taking care of thier poor. And the poor, being gratful for the handout and listening to the propoganda of Hammas, go to these training camps to help out the cause of Hammas.

John, you are missing the point of this whole conflict. Your idea is to fight conflict with conflict. Human nature is such that if you do, you only produce more conflict. To provide healing, you have to change people's minds...And they can only do that when there is peace....Sure, there is a time for war, but only when you are removing the heads of state that need to be removed, and you have the population that he is governing ON YOUR SIDE. If you don't have them on your side, then you are an oppressor... just another bully in a world of bullys.

[Dr. Shane]

The Treaty of Versailles was partally to blame for Germany's poverty but for the most part they were poor due to the Great Depression. The whole world was poor - even the U.S. of A. Hitler used that poverty for his own purposes.

The US' action in the War on Terror has been noble. However like any war, things happen that are not and cannot be anticipated. The management of the transitional period in Iraq obviously has not been handled well.

Would we be better off fighting the terrorists with propaganda instead of bullets and bombs? I think an agruement could be made for that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The Treaty of Versailles was partally to blame for Germany's poverty but for the most part they were poor due to the Great Depression. The whole world was poor - even the U.S. of A. Hitler used that poverty for his own purposes.

I would only add to the above that Germany had to not only endure the depression, but also the payments it made to Europe for damages that it caused. And the stigma that due to those payments, Germany was forced to endure ,did not help... I suspect that this weighed upon the minds of the German people to the point that when Germany conquerd those nations, the German people did not mind the spoils of war...

So, in essence, Shane, we agree.... Would you do me a favor? Would you take the temperature of Hell, Montana? I want to make sure that it didn't freeze over.....

Quote:

The US' action in the War on Terror has been noble. However like any war, things happen that are not and cannot be anticipated. The management of the transitional period in Iraq obviously has not been handled well.

Ummmmm...here is where we depart.... I believe in 'dirty fighting'...By that, I mean that one needs to put out as many fires as possible BEFORE they become conflicts....Clinton has done it..I don't know if Bush I did it, as I don't recall and Bush II hasn't the brains, in my opinion, to figure that sort of thing out. In my opinion, the US MAY have inadvertantly played into the hands of the current Islamic problems by

1] favoring Isreal under any circumstances

2] placing the economic powers of the US in other places instead of in the middle east

3] Not encouraging the use of knowledge to encourage enconomic output in the Middle East.

4] Not encouraging business to invest in the Middle East

These factors, among others, may have played into the hands of Hammas, Hezbollah,Shiites, Al Quada et al.

By providing the ecomonic prosperity for all those areas, or at least the appearance of it, political problems tend to subside. People become busy and they are interested in creating wealth for themselves. Hence, no time to listen to religious radicals who are removed from daily live of the average person.

Quote:

Would we be better off fighting the terrorists with propaganda instead of bullets and bombs? I think an agruement could be made for that.

Oh my goodness....Another agreement! Let's not get into poticulars, as I am sure we will disagree with which message to "propagante"...!

[Dr. Shane]

The US government or any such one from Europe can do very little to stimulate the economy of another nation, especially if that nation's government is corrupt. Industry typically doesn't like to invest in unstable nations. So the economic problems in the Middle East are not likely to be solved by any other nation other than those in the Middle East.

General Motors or Microsoft can build a factory in Mexico, Hong Kong or South Korea without having to worry that a war might take out bridges, railroads and ports or interupt its employees ability to get to work and feed their families. Also, if they have to bribe govenment officials to get permits issued and renewed, that tends to decrease the attractiveness of a place to build a new factory.