The war was NECESSARY, the WMD's and the 15 other reasons were the excuse....

The goal was to produce a reasonable democracy in a strategic area, in short to transform the Middle East.  And that made the war necessary, Saddam's WMD programs and his failure to comply with the UNSC made it POSSIBLE.

 

To install a democracy, you need to kill Saddam. Your argument thus as a lawyer or a physicist would say "is incompetent."  Strategy is incidentally POLITICAL in war. You just made the same mistake Darth usually does

 

I'd say you were the clueless here, strategy is INHERENTLY political, hence the statement "War is politics by other means."  We DID kill Saddam, BTW or hadn't you noticed?  And we tried to kill him in the war, but failed.  And the death of AN individual is not a legitimate goal in war.  Had we killed Saddam the nation of Iraq would not have been made into a democracy.  The goal of the Second World War (in Europe) was NOT to kill Hitler, but to uproot the Nazi regime in Germany.

 

And I'm not sure that a lawyer or a physicist would label any argument "incompetent."  But you keep throwing out the big words if it makes you feel better.

 

Stick around for the floor show. After BHO screws up in Afghanistan let's see what happens to Malarkey.

The PM of Thailand? when SAIGON fell???

As for failing/not failing in the "Gan", that remains to be seen. Only two peoples have ever "taken" them, and that was through eliminating about 80% of the population. That is not an option, to convince the people there that we are not trying to conquor them is going to take some serious work.

Herald has it that IF Afghanistan fails, THEN Maliki in Iraq is doomed...

 

Well Saigon fell in 1975.  Did the government in Thailand change?  They were neighbors and supporters of the US and Vietnam in the war, the US lost and it's client fell, did Thailand go Communist?

 

So because Kabul falls, then Baghdad does, too?  I'm not so sure I buy that argument.

Ah well, another guy who cannot read the news or a map!

 

Herald

 

Herald.

 

Man it was informative and enlightening...the logic breath-taking, the evidence supporting it voluminous.  How can I respond?

 

To such a lame and silly retort?

 

I guess it just goes to show, all Herald needs to do is make a statement and it must be TRUE, a FACT...

 

So it is written, so let it be done.  Thanks Yul, all is clear now.

 

As to the fellow suggesting Thailand wasn't a neighbor of Vietnam, well you're right, and Iraq's not a neighbor of Afghanistan, either.  So the Fall of Kabul does not mean the fall of Baghdad...unless you or Herald wish to provide a little better argument than has already been presented.

 

Can't we all just get along?

and others you'll realize that no we aren't all going to get along.

 

To avoid "Gotcha" moments....I say that Thailand was a neighbor to Vietnam, in that it was in the neighborhood, and close enough that it was the base for many US operations against North Vietnam, bombing, covert op's into Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam...certainly the North had no love for Thailand and the Thailand had been a US proxy, and YET Thailand did not fall...

 

And Iraq has even less connection to Afghanistan, so why a defeat of Karzai in Afghanistan is going to spill over into Iraq, not bordering and not a proxy state in that civil war, just doesn't compute.  Now it's true I really don't "care" for Herald, but if he or you or someone can present a theory and some facts to back it up, I'd be willing to listen.  Heck you might be right, but right now I see it as an assertion, not a theory...

I was not trying to be sarcastic or superior, sorry if it came out that way. It's just that alot of people do not always know their geography. As to the point of your second paragraph, the fall of either gov't at this time very well could encourage descent within the other lands and cause insurgency increases vs Nato/US gains made so far.
Dave

Several things. If anyone is suggesting our goals in Iraq were limited to WMDs or that there was no reason to be there in the first place or that we gained nothing from it, I'd say they were rather confused about the events of the last 5 years. In any event, this has strayed FAR OFF the topic. As it stands, the only valid criticism of the Army in this entire thread is the one from stabrnco and that is not any kind of "dire" situation but rather the result of a "tired" Army as another mentioned. Just something the CSM's need to get together and address in detail. Sorry Herald, you really don't have much to stand on in this one.

Basic lesson in geography again.

 

IRAN.

 

Not withstanding that BHO isn't going to lose Afghanistan in Afghanistan (He'll lose that war in PAKISTAN), the same concept of enemy operations is underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wait us out til we pull out, and then exert national regional pressure to turn the Malarkey government or overturn it for one that is Tehran friendly. The Karzai government is closer to the precipice with Istanbul and Tehran both racing to see who will pick up the pieces.

 

Only a fool cannot see this. To hold them both off, we have to STAY in place-for generations of necessary. V^2 in another posting pointed this little obvious STRATEGIC truth out but I just spelled it for you in BLUNT English. 

 

Now then, you don't have to like it, when I tell you that the politicians and the generals who got us into this mess were, and are INCOMPETENT strategists, but that is not my problem. It is a plain assessment.

 

How we got here, JFKY, and the science fiction that was used to get us here is no longer relevant either, NOW.

 

What do we do about it?  Neither you, nor Darth suggest one sensible thing in progress or on the horizon that indocates to me anything but a strategy of cut and run, defeat, and failure. Instead you criticize me for criticizing the situation. Ad-hominems don't make for good strategy. Why not address the situation for once?

 

As I just did.

 

Herald

 

ploy.  An oldie and a goodie.  Of course Iran has LOST in Iraq, and I don't know if they can WIN in Afghanistan.  As the Iranian puppet al-Sadr is no longer a factor and the openly ISLAMIC parties haven't done that well in the South of Iraq, and their militias have been crushed, and the fact that violence has pretty much faded from the Iraqi scene...I'd say to anyone but the most hopeless Paleo-Con or Code Pinker, that Iraq is in the "Win" column and Iran LOST there.  So, I'm not so sure that I'm not the one reading the newspapers, here.  Mayhap Herald might want to read a few and then get back to us....

 

As to Afghanistan, which seems to come in two parts, will the US "lose" and will Iran "win."  The two separate conditions might occur.  Though I would grant that IF the US wins, then Iran will have suffered a defeat, not as large a one as they suffered in Iraq, but they will have been defeated.  But I'd like for you to define a Iranian "win" in Afghanistan.  IS it merely the fall of Karzai and the retreat of US forces?  Which IS possible, or do you posit that the Iranians will be able to "control" Afghanistan?  If it's control, then you're sadly mistaken, that a bunch of Shi'i are going to run a predominantly Sunni

nation or set of provinces....the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and Pushtu tribes may all agree with Iran that they don't want a bunch of foreigners in-country, but as soon as we're gone, I'm pretty sure the Iranians will be the foreigners and they'll be shoved out forthwith.  So, please define Iranian victory....

 

As to the US losing, it's possible...but it assumes that Pakistan falls to the Islamic insurgents.  That's not a foregone conclusion.  And certainly if we don't lose Pakistan, I'm pretty certain we won't lose Afghanistan.

 

Bottom-Line: one-half of your conclusion(s) about Iranian "victory" in the Middle East is obviously based on a false reading of the news, and based more on either a Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian/Progressive "need" that the US lose in Iraq, rather than on any objective evidence from Iraq.  Or as Herald is wont to say, "These are the FACTS, cretin."  (Please note, I'm not calling you a cretin, merely that if someone else had posted something so OBVIOUSLY not in accord with the facts, YOU'D call them a "cretin.").  And that your second declaration of Iranian victory in Afghanistan is too vague, right now to be judged.  What do you mean by "victory"?  And I am not convinced that the US will lose in Pakistan or Afghanistan.