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.

 

U.S. military has fought to a stalemate in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
With 150,000 troops over there as well as all of the Iraqi security forces, it seems very little progress has been made to destroy the insurgancy..


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is taking "very seriously" a secret intelligence report concluding that the U.S. military has fought to a stalemate in Iraq's western Anbar province as political conditions also worsen in the "epicenter" of the country's Sunni insurgency, a senior defense official said Monday.


Source

What i want to know is...Where to from here?

If American troops have been fought to a "stalemate" with such a big force over there..What hopes are there for the Iraqi people's stability?

Are they really better off after Saddam with this long term chaos? Can anyone see this winding down anytime soon?

hmm..




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
It is a transition force, standing in for Iraqi troops while they, are trained to be capable enough for themselves. It is not much else, some one has to do it, and guess what, no one sees any other nation "really" stepping in do they. Nope, not today....

That leaves it all to us Americans (and those who know whom they are), no problem and speaking for my self, thanks to whom it concerns.

The US of A is used to getting it's self out of trouble, and others along the way for that matter. Don't go and develop amnesia of history on me, I know better, and so should you. If the US Armed Forces were really put to the test, it may as well be WWIII. Because nothing short is going to compete.

It ain't bragging, if it is true.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   


The US of A is used to getting it's self out of trouble, and others along the way for that matter. Don't go and develop amnesia of history on me, I know better, and so should you. If the US Armed Forces were really put to the test, it may as well be WWIII. Because nothing short is going to compete.


O.K, your post here has confused me. The U.S is not fighting a conventional war, so refering to history i believe is not relevant. Unless you want to start talking about Vietnam, which is probably not a great example in "success".

Regardless as to your bravado, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman has himself classed this assessment as worth note..


"It is an important report. We've taken it very seriously," Edelman told a panel of the House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee. "This is an operational assessment by one very good intel officer," he said, adding that "a lot of us are looking at it very closely" and are seeking a further assessment on Anbar from top U.S. commanders in Iraq


If the Defence Department is treating this report seriously then i think we should too..it certainly sounds like they are running out of answers..



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac

O.K, your post here has confused me. The U.S is not fighting a conventional war, so refering to history i believe is not relevant. Unless you want to start talking about Vietnam, which is probably not a great example in "success".



Virtnam was lost due to pressure from the anti-war/leftist groups who undermined the fight from home and IMHO are traitors. Anyway, the result afterward has been omitted from the history books which was the communists slaughtered thousands of the vietnamese when we left. so definately not a victory for the anti-war/leftist elite groups.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
the biggest problem is the polititions(sp) don't know what they want to do or how to do it, instead of making friends with the tribal leaders, probably the one group of people who could have held the country together they alienated them leaving the country wide open for insurgents to come in and split the country down religious/racial lines



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The current situation in Iraq dosnt concern me to much after all you reek what you sow. Two things concern me.
The first thing that concerns me is that at somepoint the coalition is going to hand over security to the locals . Little thought seems to have gone into training the Iraqi security forces other then to produce sheer numbers.
My fear is that once the coalition leaves Iraq the government will be overwhelmed by the security situation and the government will collapse like a stack of cards.

My second concern is that the Iraqi people could elected a Saddam type clone if this happens the wouldnt be much that the coalition could other then to stand back and proclaim that the misson was a success because the Iraqis elected a Saddam type clone.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I've been seeing reports that make me think that the US is losing the war in Iraq.

Where to? The obvious strategy is to divide and conquer. Plans for the partition of Iraq have been kicking around for a long time: one of the interesting developments of this thread is the idea that the no-fly zones might have been the first phase of this partition, establishing an autonomous region for the Kurds (who, let's face it, needed somewhere safe after the US shafted them by getting them to rise up and then abandoning them to their fate).



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Hi rich23,

So what your saying (i had a bit of a read of your divide and conquer thread) is that you believe Iraq will be split up into Shia / Sunni / Kurd provinces or something of the kind?

Do you believe this will halt the insurgancy? Do you believe that the insurgancy are simply Iraqi nationals fighting against occupation? Or is this the Al-Quada we hear all about?

At this stage, in my eyes the only way to stop the violence is to placate the people. perhaps this province idea will work.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Wasn't iraq originally three seperate regions/countries in the first place? i seem to remember reading that they were brought together when the UK invaded in the early 1900's or something like that?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
If you look at the last link of my signature, you'll find a wonderful standup routine/lecture about wars for oil, and the UK's first deployment of troops in the first world war was to Iraq.

Not many people know that.

It also seems that the real cause of WWI (and this makes a lot of sense) was to do with Germany building an extension to the Orient Express line that reached all the way to Baghdad.

I think that the plan for Iraq may always have involved partition. This would be the most cynical (and hence possibly the most accurate!) interpretation of why the Bushies refused to plan for the aftermath. If you look on my thread you'll find a link to a story where Rumsfeld says "the next person to ask about planning for the aftermath of the military campaign gets fired".

In the partition thread, I originally traced the idea back to Joe Biden's plan... but others have tracked it even further back, perhaps to the establishment of the no-fly zones back in 1991.

I think the insurgency is primarily Iraqi nationals fighting the occupation, though there are other elements. I think the Iraqis understand better than we do that, for example, since oil was discovered there the UK has been at war with or occupying that country for roughly half the intervening years. If you look at the contracts by which the multinationals are extracting oil, you'll see that the Iraqis are getting a really raw deal.

Still, at least it stopped them trading their oil in Euros. Of course, the next big oil-producing country who wants to do that is... any guesses? Oh come on, it's really obvious.

OK, I'll tell you. It's Iran. So, no matter what concessions they make, the only thing that's stopping the neocons from invading is the fact that the military is overstretched and the generals are revolting as a result.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
You need a mad man, to control mad people.

I dont quite think that they've fought to a stalemate, and advisor's right they havent used there full force yet.

But who exactly are they going to target, and take down once they start using there full force? you think all the hostile fighters are going to wear a uniform?
Or should they just start sending in the missles, based on guess work.

The US CANT win this battle, because it isnt a battle.
Its always been stated the US military arent an occupying force, but a fighting machine.

Outside of that greezone in baghdad, i assume its an atmosphere of death. When you leave those walls, your taking your life into your own hands.
There's just too much country and too many people who are prepared to take shots at the US military, and use devious acts to brasonly kill.

Its only luck that around that corner, there isnt a bomb hidden under a rock, or half a dozen fighters armed with rpg's ambushing you.

As mighty and great as the US military is, conditions on the ground make a replacement government doomed. Imagine the lack of skill and experience in the security forces surrounding the government officials once the US leaves.
It wouldnt take much to organise an assault, murder the US Aided replacement government and take control in a coup d'etat.

And just how many members of the iraqi society do you think, will resist that now NEW group whom gained power through force.
They same way saddam did, atleast the people hated him,
This time they'll praise them.

America wouldnt be able to go back into iraq, remove that new govenrment, and do this whole process again.

Its a tough decision for america to make, The saturation of the Presidents determined remarks about staying the course, america will not bail, its for the people rah rah rah will almost certainly mean they wont bail, simply to try and maintain US Credibility and Strength on the world arena.

Will they cut a deal with the devil, and negotiaite with the resistance, admitting defeat and guilt and pleading for a price to end the carnage?

Or will they continue to send in there troops, continue to sacrifice there countries economy and maintain this obviosly flawd expidition.

Or will they create a reason, and send the region into chaos to give them the excuse to use the ultimate weapon on the real problems.

Tactical and Ballisitic Nukes, spread out over Syria, Iran and Iraq.

Israel and America
Vs
Iran, Iraq and Syria

Once Americas committing 100% to its war, China will have no major obstacles on Taiwann, and North Korea will surely take South Korea.
Leaving Russia in the prime seat at the table. Everyone fighting around, with only small western and southern countries the only real offensive realm against them.

Japan and the western European countries will surely join the Americans, with eastern europe.

And Africa all over wil lbe in turmoil, with warlords reigning.

Christ almighty. What have we become!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Will they cut a deal with the devil, and negotiaite with the resistance, admitting defeat and guilt and pleading for a price to end the carnage?


The insurgents have choosen not to take part in the political process. Assuming a political agreement was reached it wouldnt be worth the paper it was written on.
As soon as coaltion forces left Iraq under the political agreement the insurgents would break any cease fire that was in place. The Iraqi government would be unable to contain the security situation and the government would either fall like a pack of cards or exist only on paper and have no authority beyond the walls of parliament.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join