It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't America pull out now?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Everyone may not see it yet but statiscally we are
dead on in Iraq for things turning out like vietnam.
Our reasons for not pulling out are the same as
the reasons given for not pulling out of Vietnam
"it would create a vacuum that would be filled by terrorsists"

Let's not forget that Iraq has a 7,000 year headstart on
governing over the U.S. if they wanted a Democracy they
would install one themselves. It makes no difference how long we stay
as soon as we are gone there will be no democracy or what we create
won't last long..

For the troops "sorry to be so pesimistic but you were sent there
on false pretense, and hopefully soon you will be able to come home"

geo




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If the U. S. pulls out of Iraq now or in the near future, we would be sending the rest of the world a dangerous message. In pulling out we would admit defeat and that is just what the rebels are wanting. Their tactics are meant to de-rail our resolve and once that has been accolimpished, we would be the laughing-stock of the Arab world. This of course would have the trickel down effect with England following close behind. As much as I would like our troops to come home and the bloodshed to end, we must stay the course and ensure that a democratic style govt. is installed in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Are the new Iraqi police and army so inept that the US is unable to pull out right now?

Inept, perhaps. Corrupt and actually counter agents, definitly. The police and army are filled with agents of the insurgents. During the fallujan episode, the police were supposedly aiding the insrugents. They have weaponry and control. (or perhaps it was a raid on mosul, don't recall). If the US leaves now, it looses and Iraq goes into anarchy, and probably emerges out of that as a theocratic islamic republic with experience in chemical weapons and connections with nuke capable nations.


The insurgents tactics aren't likely to change minus a US presence

Without the basically unbeatable US military (by that I mean that they can't defeat them conventionally and in the field), the insurgents will be able to overthrow the weak interim government, prevent elections, and install a dictatorship.


it may give the soon-to-be-elected Iraqi government and military more legitimacy to not have us there.

There is no 'soon to be elected' government. The january elections are to select representatives to a constitutional convention. The only thing that cna give the government that will come out of it legitimacy is for the west to not interfere in the process and simply make it so as many people as possible can participate in the elections.

Sur

But why are we needed there anymore?

Because no one else has the will or ability. It'd be like leaving germany after defeating the nazis. It'd either fall to teh communists or turn into anarchy what with all those nazi-insurgent "werewolf" units running around murdering, ransacking, and sabotaging.


It's not as if the insurgents are a massive army - they're just guys that run around and set off bombs and throw grenades and fire mortars at buildings.

And the iraqi army and police are little more than that right now.


It seems highly unlikely that the insurgents have better weapons, training, or funding then the Iraqis.

They probably do, plus they are experienced and motivated.


Heck, these Iraqis are defending their country from traitors. They should have the heart to win, no?

They probably do but they can't effectively do it when entire military and police units are made up of insurgent agents and former baathist generals. They have zero reason, right now, to think that their country isn't going to be abandonedand that the insurgents and baathists aren't going to take revenge on 'collaborators'. Hell, they are able to kill patriotic police and election workers as is, why would it get any better in the future, especially with the US having a history (at least after wwii) of backing down when things get tough.


aape
iraqis are the insurgents if you havent noticed.

Most of the insurgents are native iraqis, but lots are foreigners. zarwarqiri is a jordanian. Syrians and iranians have been captured. Hell frenchmen have been found over there. Look at chechyna. Arabs are found along with the natives. And albanians have been found in afghanistan and probably iraq too. There is an international jihadist element.


quango
Okay - elections Jan 30th, two months to set up, so March 31st, we begin sending the majority of US troops home.

Lets be serious for a moment. The US is still in kosovo and the balkans, and that was years ago, against a much weaker army and without any real insurgency. The US is going to be in iraq for a very very long time, irregardless of how effective the government over there is. ITs going to take time.


frith
despite having an incredibly visible Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, inciting a violent rebellion.

Sadr's role is interesting. His milita, the 'Medhi Army' (ie the army of the islamic messiah) was never really 'attacked'. The US prefered to get them to stop being violent rather than destroy them. They're still armed and still vocal, but they don't appear to be very active. Sadr will probably be elected to the national constiutional assembly, along with sistani and others, to help create/influence a constiution and new govnerment, and will probably have a high office in that new government. The insurgents apparently realize this, and also loath the apostate devil worshipping shia, and are trying to coax them into vigilante rebellion against the sunni (by boming shia mosques). This will result in a sunni wide response against the shia, and there will be so much violence that elections will be immpossible.


Since the violence has been continuous and worsening as time progresses, there is no reason to believe peace will be achieved as long as coalition armed forces remain in Iraq.

Violence acheives more than peace. Violence overthrew the ottoman empire and established relatively peaceful mandates for the colonial powers in the middle east. Violence and occupation obviously work, not allways, but they do work.

But the US doesn't need violence and occupation. If it can prevent the elections from being invalid due to poor turnout, and if it can prevent the insurgents from destroying any government that comes out of it, long enough for the regular iraqis to join the army and police, then it'll've accomplished what it needs. It doesn't need to stay in iraq until there is 'peace'. Indeed, their very pressence will allways elicit a response. They just need to keep the insurgency occupied, protect the civil government, and purge the agents from the army/police. No small task, but not immpossible. Theoretically they can reduce their own numbers along the way. Eventually the iraqi government will have to use the iraqi army and police to fight the insurgents, they're not going to be 'handed' a peaceful country to administer.

jsobecky
They are funded and sheltered by Syria and Iran, and aided by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The fact that they are obviously supplied doesn't require that it be any of those above. They are quartered in baathist cities and sectors. They are supplied by the public. Undoubtedly, they are receiving foreign support. But the supply problem is also an issue of the iraqi public. Cooperative populations will have to be controlled.


quango
how can we know if insurgents have infilitrated the police and military?

They absolutely and positively have. Not just infiltrated, but filled. Entire police units are insurgent units.


beretboy22
I think the best thing we can do stragegy wise is to train the Iraqi troops to a level comparable to American Army infantry and actually equip them with operational equipment.

The best thing the US and Coalition can do is slowly route out the infiltrators and weaken the insrugency. The iraqi army won't need modern american equipment and training to fight the insurgents.

aceofbase
with a full pullout by the end of 2005

I think that thats completely unrealistic, and I will be shocked and amazed if it works out that way. I'll be very happy about it too.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Here's what would happen...

1. The planned government and it's candidates would be assassinated.
2. Iraq would become an Islamic state, with a radical Islamic figurehead.
3. If you thought Saddam was bad, just wait till these guys came to power.
4. Now think what these same guys would do with the wealth of Iraqi oil.
5. The US would have basically flushed billions down the drain for nothing....we aren't exactly going to walk away from this.
6. We'd lose the base of operations for the War on Terror.
7. You'd see constant genocide of those opposing whomever "wins" in the Iraqi power struggle to fill the vacuum left after an American pull out.
8. Iraq would become THE hotbed for terrorists and terror training camps.
9. The Administration won't tolerate such a defeat in the eyes of the American public, or the world.
10. Imagine a nation forged by those who'd murder a woman who worked for charity to aid it's people. What would such a nation be like?

No, no matter what the losses ever become, it's far too late to walk away from this.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Pull out?! That doesn't sound very MANLY!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
A simple and short answer to the question " Why can't America pull out now? " could be...... because Ariel Sharon says so (or is that a bit cynical and inflammatory)



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Just a bit...



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The US would be stupid to pull out now. We have a MASSIVE financial investment right now with all the troops and equipment already over there. The correct strategy would be to hold the elections and provide security for one year. If during that year the Iraqi people do not step up to the plate and work with the US to remove the insurgents then we should pull out. If they do co-operate then we should pull most of our forces out and leave behind a few small bases for security in times of need.

Right now it is the Iraqi people who are hiding/feeding/supplying the insurgents and if they are not involved to that extent they are certainly not rolling over on the people who are.

However I have little faith Bush and his team have the intelligence to follow the correct strategy. The initial correct strategy would have been for the US not to invade but to maintain its dominant position over Saddam with the support of the UN and continued ground inspections/cruise missile strikes. When Saddam was overthrown from within or incapacitated due to old age the US should have then stepped in and "negotiated" with the new regime leaders. Seems so simple doesn't it???

Now if Bush wasn't such a short-sighted, arrogant fool I would suggest another option that may benefit everyone. The US should go to the UN and ask for help. Get the Europeans and fresh blood into Iraq. Europeans are very well respected in the middle-east as opposed to the hatred of Americans (lol remember the good old days when the French were the hated ones???) and they would stand a much better chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Problem with all of this is once the US pulls out Bush and his buddies no longer get to sip from the ultimate gravy train. It may just be in their best interest to keep this war and rebuilding process going as long as possible. Only time will tell.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
A simple and short answer to the question " Why can't America pull out now? " could be...... because Ariel Sharon says so (or is that a bit cynical and inflammatory)


You know what? I think Ariel Sharon probably isn't even saying a damn thing about what we're doing. I don't think he's at all concerned that people are dying on either side, but especially not the Iraqi's.

I think he's just kickin' back being happy that we're doing performing the slow eradication of the people that really want to destroy Israel.

He probably thinks George Bush is a message from Yehova that he still loves his chosen people. Since they're waiting for their Messiah anyway, they'll take any help they can get.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
Peace can not be given to a population through the barrel of a gun. The violence started by the United States and coalition forces with the "Shock and Awe" campaign has yet to cease and it will never cease. At least so long as there are Iraqis fighting against their occupational force. The end conclusion is that peace will never be created with U.S. and coalition forces staying in Iraq. Not to mention that soldiers are not peace keepers. They are trained only to kill and have no ability to peacefully deal with civil unrest of this magnitude.

Yes!!! Finally, someone else who gets it! Expecting a military to somehow bring peace is ignorant. That's not their purpose. Military action doesn't bring peace at all. Will we ever learn? The only thing the military is good for is delivering severe punishment, and that's what they're doing in Iraq. There is no humanity to this. Don't try to disguise this war as some humanitarian social service. It's not.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Frith
Peace can not be given to a population through the barrel of a gun. The violence started by the United States and coalition forces with the "Shock and Awe" campaign has yet to cease and it will never cease. At least so long as there are Iraqis fighting against their occupational force. The end conclusion is that peace will never be created with U.S. and coalition forces staying in Iraq. Not to mention that soldiers are not peace keepers. They are trained only to kill and have no ability to peacefully deal with civil unrest of this magnitude.

Yes!!! Finally, someone else who gets it! Expecting a military to somehow bring peace is ignorant. That's not their purpose. Military action doesn't bring peace at all. Will we ever learn? The only thing the military is good for is delivering severe punishment, and that's what they're doing in Iraq. There is no humanity to this. Don't try to disguise this war as some humanitarian social service. It's not.


What's this, some kind of revelation?

Ok, that was a wiseassed comment.

If this is how you feel, and you want to know more about why our government is doing things the way they are (systemic problems), and want to be comforted in the fact that there is someone out there that has a viable and intelligent solution, check the work of Thomas Barnett.

I think his lecture's going to be on CSPAN1 again on Sunday. He has a really cheesy website with a bad drawing(probably a self portrait - he really likes himself) at thomaspmbarnett.com

[edit on 22-12-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It just seems that people with real logic are outnumbered by those who think war is the solution to anything. Think about it...how many damn things have we waged "war" on? Just about everything! And how many of these "wars" have actually had good results? None, IMO. War on drugs, poverty, freaks, terror....whatever. It's not doing a thing, except complicating issues and making more war. When confronted with a problem that's not easily solvable, America will go to war against whatever it might be....even if it makes absolutely no sense.


[edit on 22-12-2004 by Damned]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
OK look at it this way, every anti US potential terrorist will be thinking ....
The US ....

settled for a draw in Korea
got whipped at Vietnam
Fled Lebenon
ran from Somalia...

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Netchicken]


Got whipped in Vietnam I doubt the death tolls reflect that the VC didnt win the war it was the anti-war people in America that won the war.

Somalia wasnt even a war it was a humanitarian mission we didnt go there to fight the people of somalia. We lost what 18 men and killed 1000-5000 of them, the troops stationed there wanted to go back and level the town and they had the means to do so.

You also forgot to mention the most lopsided war in human history Desert storm and a whole host of other ones.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Got whipped in Vietnam I doubt the death tolls reflect that the VC didnt win the war it was the anti-war people in America that won the war.

Somalia wasnt even a war it was a humanitarian mission we didnt go there to fight the people of somalia. We lost what 18 men and killed 1000-5000 of them, the troops stationed there wanted to go back and level the town and they had the means to do so.

You also forgot to mention the most lopsided war in human history Desert storm and a whole host of other ones.


Regardless of what you said about Somalia above, The US withdrawal after the Mogadishu incident was a symbolic win for all muslims. Whether it is true or not that Somalis repelled the US military doesn't matter. What matters is that muslims believe that it can be achieved and their motivation to do it again has been strengthened as a result. And this is probably a good arguement as to why the US should stay in Iraq or face being perceived as cutting and running again. It's catch 22.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by cargo]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Thanks shadow for noticing my post.

I was beginning to think it was the proverbial prune, passing right though the digestive tract of the board.

Its not how the US actually acted in reality, but, as cargo rightly said, how muslims PERCIEVE america as having acted.

Their assessment is that America has no stomach for losses, and they quote Vietnam, Somalia, etc to back that case up. Pull out of Iraq, and all you do is confirm their reasoning and then they feel they can try even closer to him.

"Lets attack them in America as they will give in to our demands if we hit them hard enough. "

At the moment as well Iraq is a focus for all the anti american elements in the region, they are all swarming in to take part in the fun, if you pull out then they will follow the soldiers home to America and bring the war back onto American soil.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I can see your point Netchicken but I dont really understand why like cargo mentioned muslims can see Somlia as some great victory. They managed to kill a few American soldiers and that ended all that evil humanitarian aid in that country its not like we were there to take over. They also managed to lose over 90 percent more people then they killed if thats a great victory I hate to see what they consider a loss.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Disregard the humanitarian aspect of Somalia, it's irrelevant to the issue we are getting at here. Instead, look at what the withdrawal showed those who are now fighting against the occupation in Iraq.

Whether the effort in Somalia was good or bad is not the point. The point is that (in the particular case of Mogadishu and perhaps Vietnam too) fighting the US forces with opportunistic and unrelenting guerilla tactics "demonstrated" that it can be pushed away. That may or may not be the case, but this is what they think.

As for them losing thousands of people. I believe a lot of those people really feel they have little to lose. Gunfights are a spectacle in Somalia. When militias and clans take to the streets with guns, you can expect to probably even more civilians in the streets just to watch. That is the highlight of their day/week. Just as it is for Iraqi kids to see a car bomb explode and proceed to pick through the wreckage and display their trophies for news cameras.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by cargo]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
There is one major reason why America cannot pull out now -- It's called the Mehdi army.
One million men strong, taking up positions on our flank, with something like 100,000 spin stabilized rockets from russia brand new, still in the plastic. The battle tank is supposed to be a force multiplier. What does it become when a spin stabilized rocket comes over the horizon and broadsides it, right in the engine? Answer: A flaming roadblock.
After the grunts start walking, the snipers start sniping. Our forces will be harrassed all the way back to the coast, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they never made it there at all. As it is, many troops sleep underneath their tanks at night, because the guys who deliver tents are too scared to make the journey. Potable water supplies are critical. Down to 1 and 2 hot meals a day. Morale is plummeting. We can't pull out of Iraq because we can't pull out of Iraq, LOL. How's that for logic. I believe, as many others do, that the US military has just walked into a very large trap. As any wolf knows, when you're stuck in a trap, you gnaw your leg off. The ONLY feasible way to pull out of Iraq would be to abandon the elements positioned in Northern Iraq, which no self respecting commander would do.
This is a situation better left experienced, but I can at least hope that one of the star sportin' muckity mucks learns from the mistake, and counsels his fellow men-of-war against similar action in the future.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There is one major reason why America cannot pull out now -- It's called the Mehdi army.
One million men strong,


Where did you get a estimate of 1 million men they highest I have ever heard is a few thousand actual members of mehdi army.

Our military was designed to fight against a large well equiped million person army and if they only have some russian rockets, they are not well equiped. If they mass into a million man army without control of the air they will get carpet bombed by B-52 and they wont be a million for long.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The real figures sprouted from estimates based on census data, australian journalism detailing the number of armed men in southern Iraq and, I believe, on the number of men who have sworn loyalty to the shi'ite cause in southern Iraq. One man controls them all, Saddamm wanted that man dead, and he killed him, but the dead preachers son has taken idealogical control over the army, and now that saddamm is out of the picture, somewhere else at least, the medhi army is unchained. They want to wait until America is done getting the Iraqi army killed and maimed (old enemies), while bleeding the enemy on his flanks and wholesale where it hurt the most, oil pipelines. Do some research on spin stabilized rockets, and the over the horizon fire and forget systems these fighters have access to. It's not junk. Saddamm had a lot of money to spend on his armed forces. The data on the news is fundamentally flawed. Does this surprise anyone else? Innacuracies in the mainstream media, even glaring, eye-popping WHOPPER lies are commonplace these days. The best consensus is a silent room. What nobody is saying is the truth. Right?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join