| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| susquesus |
Posted - May 01 2007 : 8:20:41 PM
There is a broad range of opinions/sentiments out there concerning the US's involvement in Iraq. Of the below listed reasons for staying or leaving which most closely describes how you currently feel about the war? Vote for one and tell us why you did. Also- how has your opinion of the war evolved over the past 5 years? |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Light of the Moon |
Posted - July 18 2007 : 10:05:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve S
British perspective...& from one with a son in Afghanistan & who's done two tours in Iraq.....It's just what we do..A hundred years ago we were engaged against "tribal" insugency in most of what is now the third world...Nothing changes.....Our Young men go off to fight & die in the wild parts of the world because they've chosen to be soldiers...And that's what soldiers do.
I do think,however, that an obssession with Iraq caused us to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan too early,allowing a resurgence of the enemy there.
Steve
 |
| Steve S |
Posted - July 12 2007 : 05:15:19 AM
British perspective...& from one with a son in Afghanistan & who's done two tours in Iraq.....It's just what we do..A hundred years ago we were engaged against "tribal" insugency in most of what is now the third world...Nothing changes.....Our Young men go off to fight & die in the wild parts of the world because they've chosen to be soldiers...And that's what soldiers do.
I do think,however, that an obssession with Iraq caused us to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan too early,allowing a resurgence of the enemy there.
Steve
|
| Dark Woods |
Posted - July 12 2007 : 12:38:06 AM
The population of Iraq is approximately 27.5 million. Successful Counter-Insurgency requires troop levels in the range of 1 troop per 10 residents to 1 troop per 100 residents. That means to achieve a military victory, Coalition forces would need to number in the range of 275,000 to 2,750,000. See notes at the end of this post, the counterinsurgency field manual reccomends a ratio of 2.5 troops per 100 residents which implies approximately 687,000 troops.
Since US/British forces world-wide in World War II were approximately 15 million, it is physically and economically possible for sufficient Coalition forces to be raised and supported in Iraq to win a military victory. I see no effort from the US or British governments to mount anywhere near those sorts of national efforts--efforts that would require substantial sacrifices on the home front. Since those in government are not proposing sufficient forces to win a military victory, the only conclusion I can draw is that the US/UK governments do NOT see victory in Iraq as vital to the survival of their nations.
Since the Coalition is mounting a military action in Iraq sufficient to secure merely a beseiged enclave in Iraq, the lasting effect will be to antagonize a new generation of persons against us, in addition to those who are already antagonized.
Excerpting from this link
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/ING5GP49UK902.DTL
"To get a better hold on territory, the new counterinsurgency field manual prescribes a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents -- or 120,000 people for security forces in Baghdad alone. But even after the 21,500 additional American troops are deployed, Petraeus will still have a security force of only 85,000 in Baghdad, and that will include Iraqi security forces, whose preparedness and allegiance are questionable" |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 07 2007 : 04:40:21 AM
Aye Lassie, and this would be five...
Also included is my other reason, as I have said here, so many times before, that we either fight them there or fight them here. My vote is to bait them over there, where the Americans they will face are for the most part professional warriors; who are highly trained, very motivated and heavily armed.
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Irishgirl |
Posted - May 03 2007 : 08:54:29 AM
Let's make that four WW. |
| richfed |
Posted - May 03 2007 : 06:48:03 AM
And then there were three! |
| Seamus |
Posted - May 02 2007 : 09:34:39 AM
Amen, WW. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - May 02 2007 : 09:09:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Monadnock Guide
We did beat them militarily, that part was over a long time ago. The problem I see, is that they can't seem to be trained easily enough to put up an "effective" army to hold there own. If they could, our presence would be extremely limited.
MG, as I see it you have hit the nail right on the head here. This is what "The Mission" is all about, Obediah. The goal of the U.S. is to get the country of Iraq to the point of being stable within its own government, and to a point where they can control the fighting between their own religious and political factions within.
Until that happens, I feel we must stay there. Yes, it will take years. I don't doubt that for a minute. But, if we pull out now, all Hell will break loose and we (the world) will be in far more danger than we were before. You think 9/11 was bad??? Hoo-boy. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 02 2007 : 07:10:57 AM
The question is about - your outlook. |
| Obediah |
Posted - May 02 2007 : 01:19:08 AM
I've heard Dubya say many times that the US needs to stay in Iraq "until the mission is completed," or words to that effect, but I have never NEVER heard him give any details on what "the mission" is!  |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 01 2007 : 8:59:26 PM
An interesting poll susquesu, and more complex than most folks believe IMO. Saddam was a true tyrant, and it's not a question of "he might be dangerous", he's proved it a number of times. Whether with his own people, with Iran, with Kuwait, firing missiles into Israel (who never got involved) during Desert Storm or setting every oil well on fire that was possible - he has clearly proven how dangerous he was. Looking ahead, - removing his two sons was probably more important that his removal, - they were both mental cases. If either one had come to power in a few years - what their old man did would look like "basic training". Taking them out of power was the right thing to do. Just wish an Arab country had stepped up to the plate and done it. Much like no European country had the cookies to remove Hilter in the 30's - even though is was clear what he was up to. ... Now what should we do from here? We did beat them militarily, that part was over a long time ago. The problem I see, is that they can't seem to be trained easily enough to put up an "effective" army to hold there own. If they could, our presence would be extremely limited. Instead we're involeved in fighting that they should be doing. Iran & Syria don 't make things any easier, - but they can't be expected to. ... I voted for "other". I think it may well end up being another Bosnia - keeping the locals apart, for who knows how long. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
