Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Hello??!!! What more do you need to see to be convinced??"
I suspect that if Bush 41 had simply moved into the Southern zone and given weapons to the locals, they, with American airpower, would have been sufficient to put Saddam out of business. He didn't do this because (a) he'd promised that he wouldn't do that to our Arab allies and Bush 41 wasn't a liar, and (b) he figured that Saddam would fall naturally.
As of now, you should be the one who is asked how much more do you need to see to be convinced. Three years on and the death toll keeps mounting.
Re: "Iraqis are lining up day after day to join the army and the police, and are prime targets for suicide bombers for their efforts."
The unemployment rate is 25~30% for 2005 according to the CIA:
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
In addition to the many reports of Iraqi troops refusing to fight and deserting, it's also widely held that their forces are riddled with insurgents.
Re: "There are over 150,000 Iraqis in uniformed service in Iraq. And yeah, some of them are more loyal to their tribes than they are to the central government."
The reports I've read state that the Kurdish units are just biding time collecting pay until the civil war. Great. We'll have armed both sides. Again.
Re: "But overall, they are starting to take charge of providing the security of their country while US forces stay in their encampments, or provide security in areas still not fully secured by local security forces."
Since early in the war we haven't had much over 150,000 soldiers. With the Iraqis now providing 150,000 themselves, we should be completely out. Evidently the insurrection has grown about as fast as we've been training Iraqis.
Re: "Would the American rebels against the British empire have succeeded without the help of the French Monarchy at the time?"
Changing the subject? Great debating tactic! But there are a huge number of differences between Iraq and the colonies of 1776. Probably the most obvious is that France did not invade the colonies, LOL.
Learn more about your country's history, then come talking about historical precedent. The simple fact is that the Iraqis didn't do squat to liberate their country, and even without French assistance, the British would never have subjugated a wilderness 3000 miles long. Before the French got involved, the British had already been kicked out of the vast majority of the territory of the US, and had already been forced to surrender many thousands of soldiers. US warships were capturing several British ships per day and Lloyds of London raised insurance rates accordingly. The situation was not at all similar to Iraq in any way. The Iraqi rebels never hurt a flea.
Re: "They wouldn't have stood a friggin' chance!!!"
Bite your tongue, patriot wannabe and historical moron. The French only got involved in the fight after the US had badly bloodied the British at Bunker Hill (when US forces had bottled up the British in Boston), captured the cannons at Fort Ticonderoga and used them to force the British to EVACUATE Boston (and seek refuge in Nova Scotia), captured 1000 Hessian prisoners after crossing the Delaware river, defeated Burgoyne in Vermont with the loss of 1000 British soldiers, then forced Burgoyne to surrender at Saratoga (often called the turning point of the war), thwarted Clinton's effort at capturing South Carolina. Before the French were even involved, British occupation of the colonies was minuscule. Most of the Southern states were untouched.
So you claim that without French assistance we wouldn't have made it? The only reason the French came in was because it was obvious that the British were so much in trouble that France knew that they wouldn't lose any troops here. Most of the US was untouched by the British except for the port cities and the blockade.
US privateers were ripped the heart out of British trade, capturing 2283 British ships. "Together, the Continental Navy and privateers captured 16,000 British prisoners, a substantial contribution in comparison with the 15,000 prisoners taken by the entire Continental Army before the surrender at Yorktown."
www.usmm.org/revolution.html
To put this into perspective, you should know that Britain in 1750 had a population of about 9 million, by 1780 maybe a population of 12 million. We kicked their ass. Dude, it wasn't even close. To Britain, 31,000 prisoners was a lot of people. Scaled to the present US population of around 300 million, that would amount to roughly a million US citizens captured in wartime. (Note that there were prisoner exchanges going on during the war.) And the majority of those were not captured by the French. Half of them were captured by US ships.
Re: "And the similar situation is that France maintained their troops in the colonies until they realized they were no longer required, over a year after Yorktown, and left."
Again. France did not invade the colonies. The French were not the subject of guerilla attacks. The French contributed nothing to the establishing of US government. And, like you just admitted, the French didn't have to stay in the US (after the end of "major hostilities", anywhere near as long as the US has already stayed in Iraq. Simply put, with the French, the fighting was against the British before the British collapsed. With the US, the fight was with Saddam before he collapsed, and now, with the end of that short battle, a new war is continuing against us. The French intervened in a civil war.
We invaded a country that will probably dissolve in civil war after we leave. France intervened in a civil war and, with the (quick and one sided) victory of the Americans, left. If you can't tell the difference between these two things you may have other difficulties, like putting your pants on before you put on your underwear. We'll have a chance to intervene in the Iraqi civil war later. My guess is that we won't want to.
Re: "And we CERTAINLY should stay until we're assured that Iran and Syria have ceased to be an effective force in destabilizing Iraq. After all, how can our presence be considered any more illegal than that of THEIR intelligence officers?"
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you saw someone raping little old ladies would you insist on your right to do it too? Do you mean that two wrongs make a right even when the second wrong isn't even committed against the person who made the first wrong? From a moral or ethical point of view, I can't see any point that you are making here. It's like you're secretly arguing for my side on this, LOL.
On the other hand, if you're willing to adjust your morality, and insist that it is right for the US to do that which you are condemning the Iranians and Syrians for, (LOL), then you need to argue on the basis not of morality or legality, but instead on the basis of efficacy. Unfortunately for us, Syria has a close tie to Iraq in terms of race, religion, geography and language. Iran is closely tied with geography and religion and has substantial minorities that share language. For these reasons, it is impossible for our efforts to equal the efficiency of the Syrian and Iranian efforts.
As a matter of practical expediency, the world is divided up into "zones of influence". There is no way in hell that Syria or Iran would have a prayer of meddling in Mexican politics, for example. There is no way that they could invade successfully Cuba or Canada. Since we have a very strong military, we can afford a certain amount of operations far overseas, but the simple fact is that the locals are far more effective at it than we are.
The history of the world is filled with examples of superpowers that succeed in controlling events in states that are adjacent to them but fail at attempts far beyond their borders. The reasons for this are obvious. First, the motivation is higher when things are geographically near. Right now, US motivation to fight is so low that there isn't even a discussion of starting a draft.
Second, understanding of foreign cultures typically decreases with distance. (How many US soldiers speak or read even elementary Arabic? How many US soldiers speak or read elementary Spanish? How about French? Now do you see why we have advantages getting military involved in places like Haiti and Panama that the Syrians or Iranians wouldn't have a chance at?)
Third, the expense of military engagements increases with distance because of logistics. And one is more likely to meet unfamiliar diseases, etc.
So if you suddenly realize that your argument that we should do it even though its immoral is contrary to the concept of "death before dishonor" that the US military should have drilled into you, and switch your argument to one of efficacy you will have a hard time making a case.
A great example of a world power getting involved in a stupid guerilla conflict halfway across the world and getting their butt kicked by rag tag locals is the American revolution. We captured 15 percent of the British merchant fleet. Fortunately, the Arabs can't do the same, but they do have the ability to run the price of oil high enough to do us comparable damage.
In the 18th century, Britain probably COULD NOT have kept the colonies. Trying to keep them would have meant a war lasting decades, (take a look at how long it took them to pacify Ireland), at a very long distance from home, with a constant loss of merchant shipping (to the best sailors, marines and seamen in the world), on a country that stretched for thousands of miles. Both the US and Britain knew this.
In the 21st century, the US probably CAN NOT keep Iraq from going Islamist and aligning against the US. Trying to keep them from doing so would mean a war lasting decades, (take a look at how long it has taken Israel to pacify the Gaza strip), at a very long distance from home, with a constant damage to our economy (and fighting against an enemy who are the best suicide bombers the world has ever known and, what's more, continue to get better), in a country that is surrounded by impossible to maintain mountainous borders with other, even larger countries that are also hostile to us. Both the military strategists in the US and the Arabs know this and they know that the US will be forced to pull out.
-- Carl |
