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 we admit we lost this battle?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Iraq. Yes there needs to be a stabilizing force there, U.N. maybe, but my question is this. I see a lot of people saying that we can't leave, because then al queda or whomever would win. What is wrong with admiting defeat? I've never read 'The Art of War' but I assume that sometimes you lose. I don't think that there is any shame in admiting that you tried, but were bested. If you command a platoon, are you going to fight to the last man, just to save face? I was in charge of a five man team (communications, I'm not Rambo) in Iraq, and if we were aggressed, and couldn't win, I would retreat. Unless of course, the mission was so vital that it required every last soldier to get it done. But it seems like so many arguments are based on pride. Is there any shame in admiting that we lost this battle in the war on terrorism, Iraq? Is there any shame in admiting that we had better regroup until we are stonger, to fight this war on better? My point is, why can't Americans admit defeat? There's nothing wrong with it. It happens to everyone, but, for example, there are still some that say Vietnam was a tie. My question isn't about the Iraq conflict per se, but why can't Americans ever say, we're retreating because you are kicking our ass. It doesn't mean we are cowards or losers, just wise military commanders. Or, if you believe Iraq is the final battle ground for terrorism, and if we lose there the apocolypse will come, explain why? My question I guess, to all of you armchair generals, when is it ok to say you have lost, and should we do it now?

EDIT: Added 'this battle' to the title to signify I'm not a defeatist, but a realist asking a question.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by curme]

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by curme]




posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
We may have lost the battle, but the war has just begun. Not technically but in a sence, alot is being invested into this operation. Why stop now, because they, the fat cats don't have all the oil yet.

Perhaps other investments have been made that no one will know about. Alot of propaganda is going around, the news releases what they are allowed to, and in a controlled media...



What needs to be done, is a restablishment of priority. The terrorists, they have or used to have training camps. How many of these have been reported destroyed, obviously not all of them.
Sure these bad guys are harder to find than cockroaches making a hasty retreat, but it would not be like a terrorist to just give up either. They never will, it's insane, and simply the cold truth.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by ADVISOR]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Imaginary WWI scenario.
The French send 5 comm guys to run a line from the trenches to the artillery. They get ambushed by Germans who slipped through the lines at night. 1 guy goes down, so they run for the trenches. Another guy goes down then they take cover and they're pinned. A while later the ambushers lob a grenade and kill the other 3 comm guys. The grunts attack, and lose 1 guy before killing all the ambushers.
That night the grunts think they see movement behind them, they go to check it out, and they're all killed. The replacement comm guys go to finish the job the next day and they get killed too. The German breakthrough forces the French to retreat.

That same day, a few miles down the line, 5 Marines were sent to run a comm line from their trenches to the artillery. They are ambushed too. 1 guy goes down, and the Marines take immediate action, assaulting through their ambushers and losing 1 more guy before killing all the germans. They finish their mission. That night, the grunts in the trench see movement behind them. They call for illumination over the new line and spot a squad of German shock troops, which they pin down immediately and call artillery on, killing them easily. The next day the comm guys come back out and run another line without incident, connecting the trenches to headquarters so that a counter attack can be ordered quickly when appropriate, which will bring more victories down the road.


When you invest heavily in a mission you have to get something for it, so you're moving towards victory and making tomorrow less bloody. If you aren't advancing, you must be retreating.

In Iraq, we can push through at all costs, establish a stable government and get that oil flowing to Europe and America- making Iraq wealthy, lowering gas prices, and giving America new credibility in Europe.

Suppose that in 2 years, we find out Iran is a year from getting the bomb. Deep down, the Europeans want Iran to be like Iraq, so they don't resist us- we get a coalition and a UN mandate. The French will say, "Have zem send us ze oil, o' ve vill be a third vorld nashion, no?"

Now suppose we left Iraq in shambles and failed our mission. Deep down the Europeans want Iran to nuke us so they drag their feet, and the Russians continue to help accelerate the Iranian nuclear program. The Germans say "Dey defeat de Amerikans and dey are not even vhite... Ve are so embarrassed."



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I have no idea what the hell Bush was thinking when he started this war on terror but it should have been obvious from the start that you can't "win"
In a conventional war one side eventualy destroys enough of the other side for the other side to surrender because it realises it can't win and continuing the fight is futile.

This however is a war against divergent theology's and philosophys. You can't "Destroy" Al-quaeda because al-quaeda exists as a point of view, not an army of men.

Lets say there are 100 members and you kill 80, the 20 that are still around will still fight you, and killing the 80 will have generated enough hatred against you to create another 80 people who believe in A Quaedas cause.

In the "war against terror" killing the enemy simply generates more of them because every death makes the philosophy stronger.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Because if we admit defeat then it is going to be open season on the United States for terrorists. And we just can't let that happen.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I agree with US Secret Service. The US needs to keep up a strong front, because if they admit defeat and back out it will only serve to strengthen the terrorists resolve and determination.

Can't give them an inch or they will take a mile. (Or at least 3000 lives and an American Landmark)



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a mayor problem is that the once too gentle "uncle sam"
shared it's tactics and know-how with everybody,including the arabs !
the arabs know now how to handle things and especially the media !
i even do believe they have made some set up scenes too by having offered some of their own people just to give a false image to the world of how cruel the americans were ! for example a possible scenery:
you kill an entire village and set it on fire and then you pay some of your own militia to declare that the americans dropped 300 bombs while they were making just a typical wedding ceremony.
why do you think arabs are taking uniforms,weapons and utilities away from USA military ??
simply: to be used by them in set up scenes !

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Why can't we admit we lost this batlle?

Curme, Your question implies that the U.S. and the coalition have lost the battle in Iraq. How so? Obviously the American forces haven't been defeated militarily. Granted, they may have pulled out of certain conflict areas, but only because of political considerations, not because they were defeated by a stronger force. Take Fallujah for example. The U.S. stopped their assault into the city to avoid high civilian casualties. They weren't pushed out by the insurgents. Had the U.S. decided that it was more strategically important to destroy the opposing force, they could have leveled the city and killed all of the enemy combatants.

If youre speaking politically, the debate is still open. In the U.S. there is approximately 30% of the population that believes strongly for each side of the argument. The other 40% is mixed. So far it is not like the Vietnam era where politically the will to fight the war was lost. There is still a viable support for the war, and those who support the war are willing to see it to its end. Even in Iraq, recent polls have shown that Iraqis want the U.S. and coalition forces to leave, just not yet... I believe that for those who support the war, of which I am one, its a matter of the fact that the goals of the war have not yet been completed. The goal of the war was not just to remove Saddam from power, but to eliminate Iraq as a safe harbor, a financial backer of and a material supporter of terrorists. If the U.S. and coalition were to leave Iraq now, the power structure in the country would become a vacuum. That would allow the possible ascension of a new government that still backs terrorism. For that reason, the U.S. and coalition forces cannot leave yet. They must remain to help a government of the people form, and until the time that that government is capable of holding power and policing Iraq on their own.

Furthermore, remember that the war in Iraq is just one battle in the larger war on terrorism. The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to destroy the belief in terrorism as Simon stated in his post. It was to destroy the governments that supported those terrorists, and thus made further attacks on the U.S. possible. In the case of Iraq, the pre-war intelligence suggested that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddams hatred of the U.S could move him to provide those weapons to anti-U.S. terrorist organizations. Whether that intelligence was correct or not, a decision was made to remove the possibility of that threat. The war in Iraq has been successful so far in doing just that. Now the fight is to keep that threat from re-emerging by helping the Iraqis form a new government that doesnt support those terrorist organizations. Although there have been casualties and setbacks, this goal is still well on its way to becoming reality.

So how exactly are the terrorists "kicking the a** of the American forces? How is the U.S. losing? You seem so sure that they should admit defeat, yet give no explanation as to how you believe they've been defeated. Please elaborate.

-Cypher



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Oh my God,

The media actually has you believing that we are losing this war. Bush did say this would be a long war. But come on, this war is not even touching the intensity of any other war we have even been involved in.

Which brings me to another point that not many people are catching onto. The "Iraq" war, is over. What is going on now is a continuation of the War on Terror.
And God forbid we admit defeat on that front.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypher
You seem so sure that they should admit defeat, yet give no explanation as to how you believe they've been defeated. Please elaborate.

-Cypher

I think that the US cannot achieve the Bush adminstration goals in Iraq, and I don't think it's worth American lives trying. More Americans are going to die while we put the puppet govenment in place, and even more are going to die when that puppet governmnet fails. We invaded based on a falsehood and are just creating more terrorists by being there. Our military and intelligence is occupied containing the terrorists we created, not the ones we originally were trying to stop. Just my take on it, but I was more curious on the "America can never admit we made a mistake" mentality. We need to swallow our pride and get the UN in there, because there will never be peace while the US is there.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
We will be fighting terrorism as long as they jews have been....How long have they been fighting??? since they began their country 30+ years and no signs of stopping..

Looking at whats the jews do everyday the war on terror can only end when most of the poupulation is dead....my guess is nuclear war



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Sadly, the above is true...shy of the Almighty himself coming down and clearing up the whole Isaac/Ishmael dispute, hehe.....

It's really a simple case of damned if you do, damned if you don't....



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
IT will not come from above ! believe me.




posted on May, 20 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I think that the US cannot achieve the Bush adminstration goals in Iraq


Maybe not all the goals, but the number one goal of getting rid of Saddam and his cronies has been accomplished. Installing a new government will be accomplished, but it probably won't go according to plan. So, the only goal that they won't accomplish will be getting rid of all terrorist - a nearly impossible feat.



"America can never admit we made a mistake" mentality.


That's news to me. I think we have admitted many mistakes, but if your asking the administration to say the entire war in Iraq was a mistake - that will never happen regardless on the final outcome. They believe the world is better off without Saddam. Whether Iraq becomes better or worse in the long run only time will tell.


We need to swallow our pride and get the UN in there, because there will never be peace while the US is there.


Last time I checked the Iraqis or somebody blew up the UN building along with UN people & the un ran away from Iraq, with it's tail between it's legs. The UN has been invited to go back into Iraq by the US and they didn't have to swallow any pride to ask them to come, but so far the UN is not interested in getting involved.

Whether the US is there or not there will never be total peace in Iraq as the different groups have deep hatred for one another. What's becoming more apparent is that Saddam had to rule brutally like he did to keep them under control. That's probably the biggest mistake the US made by believing we could get these people to live together in peace, it's becoming clear now that it can't happen.

The original war in Iraq was won by the US and it's over, but the chaos we created by removing Saddam is turning into a civil war.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Who told you that you can't win against a Jihad, or that you can't take the wind out of a revolutionary idea?
Have we or have we not made significant progress in our struggle with the ideals of communism? I remember reading about the mongols successfully putting down a Jihad, and i'll get a source for you later, but i've got work soon (I read about it in The New Strategy, an old military book by a colonel or general whos name escapes me.)

The fact of the matter is that we have the ability to culturally subvert radical islam. We can win this war. The strategy we seem to be persuing is to install governments that interact with us so that we can help them employ all those angry youth and raise their standard of living. Once they're fattened up on McDonalds and dumbed down on Play Station they are gonna stop trying to kill us- look at France. They hate us too you know, but they dont start trouble.

You know Christians don't subvert the American government for supporting abortion, gay rights, etc? You know why Catholic war criminals, jews with lesbian daughters, and radical has-beens who subvert their political allies don't get assassinated in America? Because everyone in America has a little too much to lose. The other day I thought it would be nothing short of devine justice if my bank, insurance company, and wireless provider were all to burn to the ground, but I have this really comfortable chair and this great computer, and I live pretty close to Panda Express... I just couldn't bring myself to give that up.
We're gonna give radical muslims the same pacifiers we give radical christians, and its gonna work. We just have to survive for a decade or two while we do it.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Almost forgot to repeat what everyone else is saying: WE'RE WINNING! It's expensive, yes, but it's going off without a hitch. These casualties are insignificant, and we are almost certainly making more progress than we can be told. The CIA's failures are known, their success are not. We remember that our intelligence didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down, but we forget that our intelligence prevented nuclear missiles from being installed in Cuba.

Will everyone please just relax and let our war machines do their job? I appreciate opposition to war, because it is a horrible thing, but first you need to find an acceptable alternative. If there is no alternative we can find, then we must procede and be thankful that things are going well.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Because American pride and GWB admitting his wrong/sinning is too big a bullet for them to bite!



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Almost forgot to repeat what everyone else is saying: WE'RE WINNING! It's expensive, yes, but it's going off without a hitch.These casualties are insignificant

Will everyone please just relax and let our war machines do their job?



lol lol lol...

We are winning??? Exactly where did you get that info..please inform me with a link or something..I read alot of different news sites and winning is that last thing i have ever read...

Did you really say its going off without a hitch?? hahahaha....wait wait..hahahah

did you mention that these casualities are insignificant??? tell that to the parents of the dead soldiers...and civilians for that matter..

Sorry I cant relax and watch our "war machines" kill..be killed...and pretty much help ruin the world(you call it machines but sorry guy...those are young people dieing not parts to a machine breaking)



[Edited on 20-5-2004 by McGotti]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Almost forgot to repeat what everyone else is saying: WE'RE WINNING! It's expensive, yes, but it's going off without a hitch. These casualties are insignificant, and we are almost certainly making more progress than we can be told. The CIA's failures are known, their success are not. We remember that our intelligence didn't see the Berlin Wall coming down, but we forget that our intelligence prevented nuclear missiles from being installed in Cuba.

Will everyone please just relax and let our war machines do their job? I appreciate opposition to war, because it is a horrible thing, but first you need to find an acceptable alternative. If there is no alternative we can find, then we must procede and be thankful that things are going well.


The CIA had nothing to do with the stopping of missles in cuba .....that was our surveilance people and our spy planes the bay of pigs was constructed by the cia to discredit kennedy because he knew they were rife with corruption and was going to dismantle it in its current form back in 63......classic sign of conditioning by media manipulation and indoctrination by our education system

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by watcheroftheskies]

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by watcheroftheskies]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
No body wins a war, just like a fight. Only this is dead serious, no second chances and if you hesitate you die.

For real people, I see many of you talking about this like a score is being kept. Trust me, the only people keeping scores are bookies and someone named Jody, that every soldier hates.

What needs to be done is to give everyone their three feet of personal space, take some very deep breaths. Then stop and rationalize the reality of life.

Nothing being done currently is working, that means flawed results. People have just got to learn to deal with each other, otherwise they are only repeating the same mistakes. Everyone knows better, why they deny it, because at the moment it's easier.

I never learn the easy way, but I am not going to ignore the obvious when it is in my benefit.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join