Uechi-Ryu.com

Hi Mike:

I understand that no declaration of War is or was in effect.

That is the heart of the question.

The war powers act did not seem to slow George down.

I feeel you ar totallty incorrect about the effect of this on the soldiers in the field.

I have two friends whose children have done a total of 4 Iraq tours.

I do not feel they are happy about this. Soldiers statement I have seen from the field already suggest that the soldiers now no longer "buy" the mission, and it is back to the garrison mentality and cya.

American soldiers have never fought well without a 'cause'. I am sure that some of the professionals don't care one way or the other, but the basic fact of the matter remains.

I am not seeking a a battle over the War.

But what do we actually do?????

You seem to think this loss will not affect the War on terror. Despite the fact that the war is flawed and unwinnable-----does this mean or resolve in the next situation, about which a president might be correct, as is deemed the case in Afghanistan, will be non existent???

If so, I think we have a serious problem on our hands.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"

John,




The simple solution out of the problem would be to get us out, don't you think?

mike

Well, I do not fancy myself as naive. Since you have been my friend these many years, I do not take offense, and you did not say was naive.

Merely asked me if was.


I agree that Congress should do what it is supposed to do.

This is not Vietnam. Iraq is merely one front on a global war on terror.

Viewing it that way it comes down to a decision as to whether to keep expending priceless military assets on this front.

I admit I am ambivalent about pulling out abruptly. Perhaps the Iraqis don't deserve the mess we made out of their country.

Let us put this Battle of the War on terror in perspective. Although our losses in the Korean conflict were 120,000 casualties, nearly 9 million people died in connection with that Battle of the Cold War.

I hate being so sanguine. Both sides in the Korean Battle of the Cold War finally decided that they did not wish to and/or did not have the resources to break the stalemate.

The US was growing short of trained ground forces, and the logistical system of the PLA was already stretched to its limit.

Tthe"war' in Iraq should not be viewed a something separate from the War on.

No, I don't think killing Iraqis will get rid of the terrorists. Tell that to the Iraquis busy blowing up Iraqis indiscriminately.

As in Vietnam, terrorist tactics and querrlla war could not push the US out until it was decided that we were at the end of our personnel and logistical resources.

There was a tremendous logistical failure in that was that is simply not talked about.

The lack of proper vests and armored HumVees is a symptom of a repeast of the situation.

Another example is that of my friend Tom in a meeting by senior officers.

He said: "that is all well and good, but I can't get 9mm ammo or clips for my M-9"

One officer said: "soldier, carrying an M-9 is not part of your MOS"

Tom replied: "Ok, take it. It rarely works here anyway"

The most senior officer, however, merely stripped himself of his spare clips and ammo and handed them to Tom.

Perhaps the foreign fighters and Iraqis blowing up their countrymen on a appalling rate should be made to realize that these tactics are reprhensible and will not win them anything either.

A conventional force can't get them to stop I don't think. Nor do I think that the disgusting bombings will win the battle for them if we decide to stay.

It would take a massive conventional force to push the US out if we determine not to leave of our own accord.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"

The Conclusion will follow the Arguments:

1. The invasion was based on deliberate conning of US and world public opinion - for the very simple reason that WMD are complex and need infrastructure. There are only two ways to have that: centralized, or diffused. Example: the Togliatti car mfg plant in Russia, vs the West's diffused infrastructure with a multitude of small plants and support business (including your corner restaurant for lunch, and a fancy one for business meetings). The UN inspection team under Dr. Baradei found neither in Iraq. The conclusion ought to have been absolute and clear - just as it was to me and a small circle of friends: there were NO WMDs, and the whole campaign was for other reasons.

I could explain these other reasons but that would be a distraction from the present point.

2. Philosophically, a campaign begun with a lie will trip on itself. VietNam was but one such case. Further, the campaign was doomed from the outset by the total incompetence of the Bush-Chaney gummint, with its refusal to plan properly for the aftermath of direct military victory, and refusal to listen to the experienced generals (e.g. Gen. Shinzeki) who counseled caution and having a sufficiently large manpower for the subsequent holding action.

3. Further on the incompetence stream was the absence of any understanding of the Iraqi culture and infra-political structure. This is being corrected now, much too late, and very too little.

Conclusion:

there are only two paths : retreat and let the dice fall as they may (not wise for many reasons), and the following:

Establish Iraq as a Federation of four Cantons: Kurdistan in the north, Dar-el-Sunna in the center (=Abode-of-the-Sunni), Dar-el-Shiya in the south, and a US Protectorate in the western region. From this region the US could influence all processes with fewer body bags.
Additional bases would continue in Kuweit (but not Saudiya), and support bases could be erected in eastern Jordan and Sinai (the latter exapanding presence we already have). Israel would provide medical services to reduce the amount of time wounded soldiers would reach a western type hospital.

I recognize this is a measure of ethnic cleansing, but better to move people than to kill them.

Two new towns would be required: one to house the Shyia from the center, the other for mixed Sunni-Shyia families.


When eventually the US forces will need to retreat, the way out back home from Western Iraq via the south (Saudyia), and via the west (Jordan and Israel) would much easier than retreat via the Iraqi south.

This idea of partitioning Iraq may be a solution. Since Iraq was created at the end of WWI as part of a partioning The Ottoman Empire who had been named 'the sick old man of Europe" in 1857 when it suddenly became convenient to Support the Turks to thwart Russian Imperal expansion.

Thus it would particulary poingant to solve the problem in this fashion.

However, there is a small obstacle in that if one does not control a country pretty well completly,and I don't think anyone controls all of Iraq, I think it unlikely the US will be able to force a partition---of course asking the Iraqi Parliament created by us to go along with this might cause the Parliament to react in some very unplesant ways.

In short-put 500,000 troops in Iraq-decreate the Iraqi Republicc we created and start on build concentration camps aka 'relocation' camps.

The creation of 'concentration' camps was undertaken by Britain in the War in the Tranvaal-(1899) which required 500,000 British and Commonwealth troops to defeat a crafty enemy.

The support of the Commandos (their familes and kin on the Veldt) had to be 'concetrated' by putting the said familes and kin in camps, thus cutting off the source of supplies for the Boer Comandos.


That enemy, the Boer "Commando" was not as numerous as the insurgents in Iraq.

However because no declaration of War was sought against "Al Qaeda and all organizations affiliated with or supporting same" which wold have resulted in the reinstitution of the draft, then the requisite numbers of troops could be found to meet the Armed forces personnel needs in Iraq.

Like that's gonna happen? Well, ask yourself how the Congress would have reacted if such a declaration had been asked of Congress on 9/12.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"

Briefly, after rereading proposals, and without any rancor, I repeat that my conclusion is that we cannot partition Iraq without controlling the country.

Although the fact that cogent and correct arguments can be made to the effect 'that we brought it on outselves', that is cold comfort and does not make the attack on civilians iny any way acceptable to me, nor will it ever be.

Jingoism at its best.

My country right or wrong by Jingo.

I respectfully will disregard the facts in the case because of the absolute barbarity of the attack.

We can thank our lucky stars that we are still alive, as there exist devastatingly more damaging target possibilities very close to Logan.

I shall not name them as I seriously do not wnat to suggest anything to those who should remain our avowed enemies.

Was commiting to Iraq a good idea? In restrospect we do not appear to have the resources to prosecute the war there, and the will of the people seems to be faliing as it did after the flat out American Victory militarily in South Vietnam/.

Saying that the War was based on lies reminds me of the Cassus belli for the Spanish American War. Sure, it is clear now that the Spanish did not blow up the Battleship Maine, and I think the administration at the time knew it.

Sure the Lusitania was loaded with supplies that would have been deemed 'contraband' to the Germans. The British knew this.

Nevertheless the sinking remains unacceptable by the judgement of history.

Yes the Japanese had been goaded into fabricating a cassus belli by US Sanctions in 1941, the fact remains that the attack on the US will forever remain unacceptable.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"