[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So lets talk about Iraq (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/5/2008 2:30:57 AM EDT
|
Yeah, yeah, the election was all about the economy. Fine. I just wonder when the country will remember that the real world is still spinning.
I'll be spending most of 2009 in Iraq and I don't expect my tour to be cut short since there will be some institutional inertia that will be hard to overcome, even in the face of Congressional action to "bring em home". I am curious about the transfer of authority with the Iraqi Parliament. What are your thoughts and amateur predictions on how this will go down, and on how Iraq as a nation will fare? |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, yeah, the election was all about the economy. Fine. I just wonder when the country will remember that the real world is still spinning. I'll be spending most of 2009 in Iraq and I don't expect my tour to be cut short since there will be some institutional inertia that will be hard to overcome, even in the face of Congressional action to "bring em home". I am curious about the transfer of authority with the Iraqi Parliament. What are your thoughts and amateur predictions on how this will go down, and on how Iraq as a nation will fare? If we leave before they have a functional military (this means tanks, jets, and heavy artillery) then they are fucked, and we are all fucked with them... Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. Nothing we do in Afghanistan will make up for losing Iraq, and nothing we could have done there would have made up for not going to Iraq, had Bush not done so.... |
|
Quoted:
DON'T LEAVE THE WIRE! Seriously, it sucks, you are putting your ass on the line for a war our president elect has already declared lost. Lots of guys here are kinda wondering why they are bothering. Can you blame them? 58,000 dead in Vietnam and the fucking country walks away when we've almost finally attained victory. All died in vain. 4190 dead in Iraq and the fucking country not only walks away, but flushes the Republic itself along with it. All probably died in vain. What is the point anymore? I don't see one. Fuck fighting for anything. The people are just gonna wait until it's almost won, and then plop a knife in your back. That any asshole with a birth certificate who's 18 years-old can control this country and drive it off a cliff is a fucking social calamity and it needs to be stopped. I don't know what's to be done about our form of government, but it's become obvious that as-is it's become completely broken. |
| I am over here with a contractor. Not KBR, Anyway we have contracts for another 24 months on projects here, doesnt mean they wont cancel them, I came over here to put this under my belt so if they tell us to leave tommorrow really wouldnt care. I figure the hammer will fall around next sept on some things, but by then my contract ill be up anyway. |
|
Quoted:
DON'T LEAVE THE WIRE! Seriously, it sucks, you are putting your ass on the line for a war our president elect has already declared lost. Lots of guys here are kinda wondering why they are bothering. And think what this is gonna do to our military? I predict there will be lots who just get out when their enlistments are up, the remainder will be demoralized, underfunded, underequiped. At a time when we need them the most, America just fucked over our military 
|
|
Quoted:
Wonder how many people will end up in Africa on "humanitarian" missions I think you mean propping up his commie cousins in Kenya missions. This is bullshit. Quoted:
And think what this is gonna do to our military? I predict there will be lots who just get out when their enlistments are up, the remainder will be demoralized, underfunded, underequiped. At a time when we need them the most, America just fucked over our military Like I said in another thread, what the fuck is the point of trying to pursue a career in a gutted military being led by someone I wouldn't trust to lead men in building a barn? What are you going to get out of it, except for contempt from your C-in-C, and your life thrown away on some future bullshit that doesn't matter. God, I hate every single person who voted BHO with the most singular, focused, crushing hate I've ever had. |
|
To all active duty military personnel reading this thread:
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service and sacrifice to our country. You are the backbone and muscle of this nation. Without your courage and honor we would not have a place to call home (at least not one worth living in). I for one am sorry that we have failed you and elected a marxist, socialist president to serve as your COC. But please remember that we, THE PEOPLE, stand behind you 100%. There are still millions of us that salute the flag, cherish our liberties, and appreciate the sacrifices of your brothers in arms for the past 200 years. Now, go KICK SOME ASS!! 
|
|
I don't post often because I'm more of a reader, but here it goes.
I'm going to commission in May 2010. Nobody knows what state the US and the world will be in then. If people who are currently in the military choose to get out ASAP, I can't blame them, this could be a rough 4 years. But my hope is that it will only be 4 years. America will still need a military, and I don't think anyone thinks the GWOT is going to be over before then. I've already signed my contract, so I can't quit if I wanted to, but we can and will get through any tough times ahead if we want to. America has been through worse, and if we want to get through this, we need to stick to our guns, literally and figuratively. |
|
Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. You are FOS. Al Qaeda never moved to Iraq, though Zarquawi started a group that became an Al Qaeda franchise. Was it important to defeat AQ in Iraq, yes. Would defeating them there end Al Qaeda as a threat? Fuck no. We never really cleaned them out of the border area with Pakistan, and it's a far more secure location for them (what with the geographic isolation and ISI support), than in Iraq. Obama or not, we were on our way out of Iraq, and tanks, jets, and heavy artillery will not help them against insurgents. It would shelter them from Iran, but I suspect even without a SOFA we will have adequate assets to deter them for the next few years. |
|
Quoted:
I don't post often because I'm more of a reader, but here it goes. I'm going to commission in May 2010. Nobody knows what state the US and the world will be in then. If people who are currently in the military choose to get out ASAP, I can't blame them, this could be a rough 4 years. But my hope is that it will only be 4 years. America will still need a military, and I don't think anyone thinks the GWOT is going to be over before then. I've already signed my contract, so I can't quit if I wanted to, but we can and will get through any tough times ahead if we want to. America has been through worse, and if we want to get through this, we need to stick to our guns, literally and figuratively. Good for ya for sticking to your guns. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder how many people will end up in Africa on "humanitarian" missions I think you mean propping up his commie cousins in Kenya missions. This is bullshit. Africa is and will be very important, it's the last major region of lawlessness where transnational terrorists can seek refuge. Way before this election, we stood up AFRICOM and a base on the Horn of Africa, and are already running all over the place establishing security relationships. |
|
Quoted:
I work with the Iraqi's everyday, and they are terrified they will be kicked to the curb before they are ready to protect themselves. The Sunni's in particular are afraid of a wholesale slaughter if we leave. They should be scared. Just look at what happen to the Vietnamese when the Democrats got their way. We have a strong record of cut and run. We are not very reliable as a nation. We don't have the guts to stick it out and complete the mission. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I work with the Iraqi's everyday, and they are terrified they will be kicked to the curb before they are ready to protect themselves. The Sunni's in particular are afraid of a wholesale slaughter if we leave. They should be scared. Just look at what happen to the Vietnamese when the Democrats got their way. We have a strong record of cut and run. We are not very reliable as a nation. We don't have the guts to stick it out and complete the mission. Plus our enemies have learned the surefire way of always beating us. Just keep your forces intact and do hit and run on us and eventually we will give up and leave.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. You are FOS. One of you is full of shit, but it isn't him. Show me any indication that any of AQ's core leadership relocated to Iraq. AQI was a franchise, much like the franchises in England and Spain that launched the attacks there. That's how AQ operates - they support and sponsor local groups in exchange for directing their political angle. AQI is an arm of AQ, nothing more. It would no more defeat AQ than conquering Italy defeated the Axis. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, yeah, the election was all about the economy. Fine. I just wonder when the country will remember that the real world is still spinning. I'll be spending most of 2009 in Iraq and I don't expect my tour to be cut short since there will be some institutional inertia that will be hard to overcome, even in the face of Congressional action to "bring em home". I am curious about the transfer of authority with the Iraqi Parliament. What are your thoughts and amateur predictions on how this will go down, and on how Iraq as a nation will fare? My hypothesis is (roughly in order of occurance): 1) Funding for the Wars will be cut to the point of making them unsustainable, this will happen asap. This will be hidden behind the guise of "budget cuts" and the media will play along. 2) Our forces will be forced to withdraw before Iraq of A-stan are self reliant. This will in turn lead Iranian Quds Forces creating civil war/sectarian violence. Ultimately Iran will invade and capture Iraq's oil fields under the guise of "promoting stability in the region". The other surrounding countries will get a slice of what the Iranians don't want. The UN and media will play along. 3) The military will be cut by an additional 25% and military projects will be shelved (this is right from the Messiahs mouth). This "extra" cash will help "balance the budget" on paper. (alah Bill Clinton economics from the 1990's). We won't have the strength to fight a war with Mexico, much less project force across the globe. The Democratic Socialists and the complicit media will blame all of the resulting catastrophe on the GOP and the bulk of the public will believe them. I see all this happening in the first term. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. You are FOS. One of you is full of shit, but it isn't him. Show me any indication that any of AQ's core leadership relocated to Iraq. You have no fucking idea how AQ is organized or you wouldn't say something that fucking stupid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. You are FOS. One of you is full of shit, but it isn't him. Show me any indication that any of AQ's core leadership relocated to Iraq. You have no fucking idea how AQ is organized or you wouldn't say something that fucking stupid. Illuminate me, then. I explained in my freaking post how AQ is organized. |
|
Quoted:
Iraq was our only chance to actually beat Al Queda. You are FOS. Al Qaeda never moved to Iraq, though Zarquawi started a group that became an Al Qaeda franchise. Was it important to defeat AQ in Iraq, yes. Would defeating them there end Al Qaeda as a threat? Fuck no. We never really cleaned them out of the border area with Pakistan, and it's a far more secure location for them (what with the geographic isolation and ISI support), than in Iraq. Obama or not, we were on our way out of Iraq, and tanks, jets, and heavy artillery will not help them against insurgents. It would shelter them from Iran, but I suspect even without a SOFA we will have adequate assets to deter them for the next few years. Al Queda doesn't need A-stan or Pakistan... The Taliban does - but not Al Queda... Afganhistan, weather 'The One' admits it or not - is NOT vital - or even really important - to the over-all destruction of Al Queda... They *DO* need the Middle East, and if they 'win' Iraq, they get the ME.... Just like Saddam playing his survival of ODS as a 'victory', the damage done by AQ 'winning' Iraq (or Iran 'winning' Iraq) will be severe - and probably fatal to our efforts at controlling Islamic terror... Weather the 'Core Leadership' moved to Iraq or not does NOT matter! This is not fucking WWII, where if you kill Hitler you win the war... The only way to beat Queda is to marginalize them to the point where they can't get funds or recruits... And that requires utterly humiliating them in combat, in the MIDDLE EAST (eg IRAQ).... If we leave WITHOUT them being utterly obliterated, and they stage a comeback, then we are FUCKED world-wide in our efforts to destroy them... The need for the Iraqis to have heavy equipment is PRECISELY to hold off Iran... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Amusing. All you can do is claim I'm wrong but you don't post anything of substance. You yourself posted how AQ operates, but you still don't understand why your initial statement was ludicrous? What? That defeating AQ in Iraq will not defeat AQ? That Iraq is far from our only hope of defeating AQ? That AQ isn't even the second biggest threat in Iraq? AQ in Iraq is a red herring. It may not be so if the country destabilizes, but there are much bigger fish to fry today (in Iraq, anyway). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Amusing. All you can do is claim I'm wrong but you don't post anything of substance. You yourself posted how AQ operates, but you still don't understand why your initial statement was ludicrous? What? That defeating AQ in Iraq will not defeat AQ? That Iraq is far from our only hope of defeating AQ? That AQ isn't even the second biggest threat in Iraq? . Yeah, those. Ludicrous. AQ as a worldwide organization operates on one currency: reputation. If you think that their fate in Iraq is not tied to their worldwide power base, you're insane. |
|
Quoted:
Al Queda doesn't need A-stan or Pakistan... The Taliban does - but not Al Queda... Afganhistan, weather 'The One' admits it or not - is NOT vital - or even really important - to the over-all destruction of Al Queda... They *DO* need the Middle East, and if they 'win' Iraq, they get the ME.... Just like Saddam playing his survival of ODS as a 'victory', the damage done by AQ 'winning' Iraq (or Iran 'winning' Iraq) will be severe - and probably fatal to our efforts at controlling Islamic terror... The need for the Iraqis to have heavy equipment is PRECISELY to hold off Iran... "They" are not automatically going to win Iraq if the country destabilizes - Iraqis have pretty much turned wholesale on AQI - they just haven't stopped turning on each other. All this is premised on the belief that Iraq will become the new AQ haven - which hasn't yet happened yet even when Zarqawi was strong, because they already have a great one under the noses of the ISI. If we win there, we deny them a new sanctuary. If we lose, they may gain a new one. But neither amounts defeating or losing to AQ, when they are comfortably ensconced elsewhere. They may not need A-stan or Pakistan, but that's where the core of the organization still lies. If Iran rolls them over, it still won't be friendly territory for AQ. The solution to stabilizing them is political - heavy weapons won't do a damn thing. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, those. Ludicrous. AQ as a worldwide organization operates on one currency: reputation. If you think that their fate in Iraq is not tied to their worldwide power base, you're insane. Except that the Iraqis have rejected AQI and with their help we have practically defeated them - not really helping their reputation. Yet, AQ as an organization has not been defeated by the failure of their Iraq franchise. They are weakened, but far from defeated. AQ also operates on real currency, too. That was their other major asset, and those lines don't pass through Iraq. I dispute that Iraq is the "only chance to beat Al Qaeda", not the importance of winning in Iraq. The former is just hyperbole. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, those. Ludicrous. AQ as a worldwide organization operates on one currency: reputation. If you think that their fate in Iraq is not tied to their worldwide power base, you're insane. Except that the Iraqis have rejected AQI and with their help we have practically defeated them - not really helping their reputation. Yet, AQ as an organization has not been defeated by the failure of their Iraq franchise. They are weakened, but far from defeated. AQ also operates on real currency, too. That was their other major asset, and those lines don't pass through Iraq. I dispute that Iraq is the "only chance to beat Al Qaeda", not the importance of winning in Iraq. The former is just hyperbole. Are you purposely being dense, or are you really this bad? Because I'm seeing light bend toward you, and it's freaking me out. Regardless of how or why, AQ is in Iraq, and so are we. We've torn AQ a new asshole. We've damaged the HELL out of their reputation to the point where they're practically a joke except to the hardcore fanatics, they've wasted tons of their funds trying to beat us and have nothing to show for it. They're pretty much beaten. Now, we pick up and run away from Iraq, they're gonna wave the victory flag, and all the towelhead news organizations are going to run "OSAMA BIN LADEN DEFEATS THE GREAT SATAN IN OPEN COMBAT" 50 times a day for 20 years until everyone believes it. |
|
Really? Because it seems like they were tearing the hell out of us until the Anbar Awakening when the Iraqis turned on them. We are leaving (regardless of Obama) because the Iraqi government wants us out so they can run their own affairs. If they collapse (big if), AQ may move in, but that's hardly "AQ defeats US in open combat" even if they claim it as such. That's also assuming we wouldn't reengage if things turned to shit.
AQI is beaten. They were a franchise. AQ is not - we are getting bloodied and steadily taking more and more casualties in A-stan. Parts of southern A-Stan are looking as hostile as Anbar in 2004 and 2005. I don't hear about Marines dying in Iraq anymore - lately they've been from A-Stan. Iraq is a dead issue. Inertia prevents us from leaving overnight and the Iraqi government already wants us to leave faster than we physically can. If no agreement on a SOFA is reached by the new year, we may be stuck in our bases on Jan 1. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Al Queda doesn't need A-stan or Pakistan... The Taliban does - but not Al Queda... Afganhistan, weather 'The One' admits it or not - is NOT vital - or even really important - to the over-all destruction of Al Queda... They *DO* need the Middle East, and if they 'win' Iraq, they get the ME.... Just like Saddam playing his survival of ODS as a 'victory', the damage done by AQ 'winning' Iraq (or Iran 'winning' Iraq) will be severe - and probably fatal to our efforts at controlling Islamic terror... The need for the Iraqis to have heavy equipment is PRECISELY to hold off Iran... "They" are not automatically going to win Iraq if the country destabilizes - Iraqis have pretty much turned wholesale on AQI - they just haven't stopped turning on each other. All this is premised on the belief that Iraq will become the new AQ haven - which hasn't yet happened yet even when Zarqawi was strong, because they already have a great one under the noses of the ISI. If we win there, we deny them a new sanctuary. If we lose, they may gain a new one. But neither amounts defeating or losing to AQ, when they are comfortably ensconced elsewhere. They may not need A-stan or Pakistan, but that's where the core of the organization still lies. The Paki Afgany border is important to AQ no doubt and their future resides on how Iraq plays out. If we stay in Iraq and the country is stablized and proteced from inside and Iran then it will play negatively on AQs ability to recruit. However, everyone is missing the real objective and that is cutting off the flow of money that keeps AQ dangerous on the worldwide scale. The money runs directly through Saudi Arabia and until we cut off the true funding source for AQ we cannot cut off the head. |
|
Quoted:
That Commie fucker will pull us out of Iraq at the earliest possible politically expedient time, regardless of whether the country is ready or not. He'll paint a pretty face on it, but Iraq will be in a civil war months after we're gone. He is not goin to do that... he never was going to. |
| Oh, and I guess the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a pussy coward socialist because he asked to pull Marines out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan earlier this year. There's work to be done in Iraq, but the fight's in Afghanistan. Leave it to the Marines to march to the sounds of gunfire. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Commie fucker will pull us out of Iraq at the earliest possible politically expedient time, regardless of whether the country is ready or not. He'll paint a pretty face on it, but Iraq will be in a civil war months after we're gone. He is not goin to do that... he never was going to. This will be Obama's first broken promise. He is not going to hang a defeat around his own neck. I wonder if this is one of the things Biden was talking about when he told the Obamunists to "Gird their loins" |
|
Quoted:
Oh, and I guess the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a pussy coward socialist because he asked to pull Marines out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan earlier this year. There's work to be done in Iraq, but the fight's in Afghanistan. Leave it to the Marines to march to the sounds of gunfire. Don't misrepresent the Commandant. YES, he wants to leave Iraq, and take the Corps to Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean he wants the United States to leave Iraq. He made Anbar relatively peaceful, and doesn't want Marines doing police work. Police work IS essential to fighting a Counterinsurgency, but the General wants to pursue the more kinetic fight. Iraq can still be lost. If so, it will be a victory for Al Qaeda. That victory will create a euphoria amonst the Jihadist community across the globe. That's a BAD thing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That Commie fucker will pull us out of Iraq at the earliest possible politically expedient time, regardless of whether the country is ready or not. He'll paint a pretty face on it, but Iraq will be in a civil war months after we're gone. He is not goin to do that... he never was going to. This will be Obama's first broken promise. He is not going to hang a defeat around his own neck. I wonder if this is one of the things Biden was talking about when he told the Obamunists to "Gird their loins" No that was this morning when the Russian threw a gauntlet in Obama’s face… Binden six months ended up being six hours. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, and I guess the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a pussy coward socialist because he asked to pull Marines out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan earlier this year. There's work to be done in Iraq, but the fight's in Afghanistan. Leave it to the Marines to march to the sounds of gunfire. Don't misrepresent the Commandant. YES, he wants to leave Iraq, and take the Corps to Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean he wants the United States to leave Iraq. He made Anbar relatively peaceful, and doesn't want Marines doing police work. Police work IS essential to fighting a Counterinsurgency, but the General wants to pursue the more kinetic fight. Iraq can still be lost. If so, it will be a victory for Al Qaeda. That victory will create a euphoria amonst the Jihadist community across the globe. That's a BAD thing. My point was not that he wants the US to leave, but that the principal theater today is Afghanistan. Iraq can still be lost, but as the Iraqi government continues to assert itself, less and less of that is in our hands. The danger of losing Iraq cannot be discounted, but winning it does not defeat Al Qaeda, as was asserted earlier in this thread. I have never said that we should be in a hurry to leave Iraq, but it's not wholly in our control (and that's a good thing, as Iraqis start making their own decisions), and it certainly is no longer the central front against Al Qaeda proper. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, and I guess the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a pussy coward socialist because he asked to pull Marines out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan earlier this year. There's work to be done in Iraq, but the fight's in Afghanistan. Leave it to the Marines to march to the sounds of gunfire. No, actually more than anything that was a move to add political relevance to the USMC- since there has not been a real fight that is keyed to amphibious short term operations in thelast 10 years. Instead of fighting piecemeal under Army commaders, he wanted to have an all USMC fight- or at least one commanded by the USMC. there woudl still be lots of Soldiers in Afghanistan under his plan, the USMC couldn't handle that fight alone. That was not "marching to the sound of gunfire" that was an attempt to buy more politicla relevancy in this day and age for the USMC. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a brilliant mov eon his part, all in all, but it had ZERO to do with "where the real fight is". Your ignornace of these matters is astoudning. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, and I guess the Commandant of the Marine Corps is a pussy coward socialist because he asked to pull Marines out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan earlier this year. There's work to be done in Iraq, but the fight's in Afghanistan. Leave it to the Marines to march to the sounds of gunfire. No, actually more than anything that was a move to add political relevance to the USMC- since there has not been a real fight that is keyed to amphibious short term operations in thelast 10 years. Instead of fighting piecemeal under Army commaders, he wanted to have an all USMC fight- or at least one commanded by the USMC. there woudl still be lots of Soldiers in Afghanistan under his plan, the USMC couldn't handle that fight alone. That was not "marching to the sound of gunfire" that was an attempt to buy more politicla relevancy in this day and age for the USMC. Nothing more, nothing less. It was a brilliant mov eon his part, all in all, but it had ZERO to do with "where the real fight is". Your ignornace of these matters is astoudning. Those factors did have a role to play, but are you disputing that the violence has been steadily increasing over the past 2 years in Afghanistan? He saw that Anbar was ready for a turnover and recognized that Afghanistan was taking a turn for the worse. You can't seriously be so cynical to think it was a purely political move with no consideration for how the theaters were developing? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I work with the Iraqi's everyday, and they are terrified they will be kicked to the curb before they are ready to protect themselves. The Sunni's in particular are afraid of a wholesale slaughter if we leave. They should be scared. Just look at what happen to the Vietnamese when the Democrats got their way. We have a strong record of cut and run. We are not very reliable as a nation. We don't have the guts to stick it out and complete the mission. Sad truth, here.
|