- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'American War Generals' a sobering reflection on U.S. failures in Iraq
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:41 am to Poodlebrain
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:41 am to Poodlebrain
Poodlebrain - Exactly the way I feel. 
0
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:43 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Really? Thats your response...
Yes. Because those are terrorist attacks, by jihadists on American soil, period.
Both on Obama's watch and in response, he did, NOTHING.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:52 am to Ace Midnight
Thanks for your insightful response and yes to a degree, this, as a political stance this makes sense. We did lose support for the wars over time.
And I agree with most saying the politicians have been using military force as a pawn for some time.
I also agree with the sentiments that we did not lose militarily but on the world front may have lost, depending on your world view.
And I agree with most saying the politicians have been using military force as a pawn for some time.
I also agree with the sentiments that we did not lose militarily but on the world front may have lost, depending on your world view.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The invasion went so well, that we just assumed the occupation would too.
I think at this time we could successfully invade anyone. But what then? Invading Iraq was the first mistake, all subsequent bad decisions were just piling on.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 9:54 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Fort Hood? Boston Marathon?
As well as the failed attempts - Times Square bomber and the underwear bomber.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:05 am to Wolfhound45
quote:I believe we had the will to win, but we limited our campaign to avoid the kind of criticism Israel routinely gets for civilian casualties. And of course there was a small, but very vocal, segment of the population who questioned even our very restricted rules of engagement. Once we destroyed the Iraqi military and adopted rules of engagement that gave insurgents the initiative in every engagement it became an inevitable drawn out effort without realistic victory conditions. Victory would only have been possible if the Iraqi people formed a government satisfactory to a sufficient majority of the population that they would identify and eliminate any violent dissent. And we never had the will to undertake that open ended mission.
Correct. It is a contest of wills. And you have to have a cause that people are willing to sacrifice for. Did we? I honestly doubt it.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:05 am to Wolfhound45
We had two different decisions to make.
One was what to do with Afghanistan, a country who harbored and supported AQ. After 9/11 the question was how best to punish and destroy the bad guys and how best to destroy their operations.
Bush decided to invade. I think the country supported this.
The problem is what do we do after we win.
Second question is Iraq. Remember Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened SA. They were sanctioned by the UN and signed a treaty that they refused to follow. Two presidents, members of two cabinets, and members of both parties in Congress told us Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and were a theta to use them.
Bush unwisely decided to invade Iraq a second time. We know that now. We didn't know that then.
Again we win military style and again we are left with the problems of being a conqueror of a mess of a nation.
Each country was an entirely different problem, but the results are much the same. No one knows the alternative to not invading Afghanistan or leaving Saddam in power. But we know now conquering countries and bringing them democracy isn't working. Sometimes people can not get along with their neighbors and thst is evident across the Middle East. You see thst problem between nations and inside of nations and even inside cities.
One was what to do with Afghanistan, a country who harbored and supported AQ. After 9/11 the question was how best to punish and destroy the bad guys and how best to destroy their operations.
Bush decided to invade. I think the country supported this.
The problem is what do we do after we win.
Second question is Iraq. Remember Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened SA. They were sanctioned by the UN and signed a treaty that they refused to follow. Two presidents, members of two cabinets, and members of both parties in Congress told us Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and were a theta to use them.
Bush unwisely decided to invade Iraq a second time. We know that now. We didn't know that then.
Again we win military style and again we are left with the problems of being a conqueror of a mess of a nation.
Each country was an entirely different problem, but the results are much the same. No one knows the alternative to not invading Afghanistan or leaving Saddam in power. But we know now conquering countries and bringing them democracy isn't working. Sometimes people can not get along with their neighbors and thst is evident across the Middle East. You see thst problem between nations and inside of nations and even inside cities.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:17 am to cwill
quote:That is debatable.
Invading Iraq was the first mistake
The stupidity of the Nation Building Occupation is not.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:31 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:44 am to NC_Tigah
A big part of the problem was installing ivy league dandys like Bremer in positions of authority where they almost immediately let the situation get out of control
Posted on 9/13/14 at 11:42 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Yes. Because those are terrorist attacks, by jihadists on American soil, period.
Both on Obama's watch and in response, he did, NOTHING.
So you are suggesting that our enemies in the middle east have planned and carried out additional attacks on US soil? And the best they could muster was Ft Hood and Boston Marathon? I'd say, in light of the disaster of 9/11 and the potential for massive terror scenarios that are available to would-be jhadists, our war in the Middle East has been massively successful at keeping attacks away from our homeland. Try gratitude once i awhile, its better for your soul.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 11:58 am to Poodlebrain
quote:
The American public and Congress act like war is simply a contest between two militaries. It is not. It is a life and death struggle between groups of people.
The public and Congress (but really financial elites) can act like this since the all volunteer military gives them the ability to send a "professional" or "mercenary" army to conduct policy, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never "peoples" wars from the standpoint of Americans.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:02 pm to Wolfhound45
What's comical about Iraq is that never before has a large scale US military operation been met with so much protest and resistance before it even began.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:02 pm to Wolfhound45
Bush I and Scocroft both wrote and spoke of why they chose not to invade Iraq and the reasons why came to fruition when Bush Ii invaded. Scocroft warned Bush Ii but his warnings fell on deaf ears.
We could have put a $100 billion bounty on Saddam's head and gotten rid of him. Would have saved $1 trillion and thousands of lives.
We could have put a $100 billion bounty on Saddam's head and gotten rid of him. Would have saved $1 trillion and thousands of lives.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:04 pm to OleWar
quote:
The public and Congress (but really financial elites) can act like this since the all volunteer military gives them the ability to send a "professional" or "mercenary" army to conduct policy, so the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never "peoples" wars from the standpoint of Americans.
We do not fight wars to win and occupy. We are not an empire. We fight to disrupt and destabilize.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:06 pm to Robin Masters
The prevention of attacks on American soil has been because of heightened security and intelligence. Not from killing thousands of people.
Had we had the same awareness pre 911, those attacks would have been prevented. I'm not blaming any administration but there were those who warned both, namely Dick Clarke.
Had we had the same awareness pre 911, those attacks would have been prevented. I'm not blaming any administration but there were those who warned both, namely Dick Clarke.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:25 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
We could have put a $100 billion bounty on Saddam's head and gotten rid of him.
We wouldn't have needed to make it nearly that high.
I had the idea of a OBL "powerball" to force his inner circle's hand. Start it at $24 million, then up it every week by $2 million until somebody cashed in.
Could have done the same with Saddam.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:28 pm to Wolfhound45
I'm not reading the thread, but I just set my DVR for this.
I love documentaries and this one seems interesting.
And howdy Wolf
haven't seen you in a while.
I love documentaries and this one seems interesting.
And howdy Wolf
haven't seen you in a while. 
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:30 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I would argue, using public support as a criteria, that the war in Iraq is lost and the war in Afghanistan will ultimately be lost.
I would argue the war in Afghanistan was won.
We went there to kill Bin Laden.
Bin Laden is dead.
All the rest of it is noise.
The troops should have left country 24 hours after Bin Laden was killed.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:33 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Fort Hood?
Boston Marathon?
Really? Thats your response...
They were attacks...on our country.
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News