Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 necrondog99 wrote:
I would be the last one to argue that we should go back to Iraq, especially now. However I do think we left at a very bad time. We still have a shot in Afghanistan, and since I still have friends in Afghanistan (Afghans and Soldiers) I really don't want to see a repeat. If we leave Afghanistan right now it would be a hopeless story.

- J

I think it's pretty clear we're leaving. There's not much "if" about it.

As someone who participated in conquering Iraq for the Emperor the deterioration of the situation over there is truly depressing. The majority of the people over there were great.

I played soccer with kids while I was on patrol. My squad shared a bottle of gin with some locals in Sadr City (they made a point that they tasted it first to show it wasn't poison). I learned enough Arabic talking to people over there to tell them that I wa only a Lance Corporal so I couldn't give them clearance to cross battle lines. Everyone I spoke to was happy that Saddam was gone.

I also saw men throw rocks at young women for speaking to Americans. And, well, it was a war. Fill in those blanks.

My main lesson from my time spent in Iraq was that the world is a far less black and white place than I ever thought, and that even the best intentions can have disastrous consequences.

Ah yes, nukes would fix it, it's not like the fallout would effect us.. right.

It's funny because fallout has two meanings!

I was there when the first Burger King opened in Iraq.

It was beautiful.

Anyone who has followed the progress of the Afghan and Iraq wars will be aware that the CotW never had a firm grip on the situation in either country.

It has always been clear that we could not stay there forever and that once we left things would be in the hands of the native population, who are riven by tribal, religious, and economic divisions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the article:

An officer wrote:“What the Iraqi forces lost in the last month, four years after transition, is not a reflection of Marine efforts. If it is a reflection of anything, it is the nature of the Iraqi social fabric and long-suppressed civil discord.”

BTW - If you have never been in the military and you just want to do an anti war rant, please start another thread. Thank you.

Me out on both counts so

Anyone see the weather forecast?

These Middle East countries have been fighting for longer than we have been a country. Some of them have been fighting for all of recorded history. Not all of it has been outright war, but things have been happening all the same. We show up and wonder why they do not celebrate and praise us? Nah ... hate to say it but, they do not want a democracy there. I do not think that they would understand what to do with those kinds of freedoms.

There is always some kind of oppression going on there. Shiites killing Bath Muslims, women being completely dominated (IMO) in a totally unfair manner. They hate each other ... but they hate us more.

 Ratius wrote:

BTW - If you have never been in the military and you just want to do an anti war rant, please start another thread. Thank you.

Me out on both counts so

Anyone see the weather forecast?

Cold ... but due to global warming it will heat up soon.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
We have fought a a few fights that were ultimately futile, but it's heartbreaking how fast this one turned out. So many sacrifices squandered.

Were the marines who died to a man defending wake island squander there lives? Did the USA squander the lives of the men stuck trapped in the philipines during the Jap invasion?

Sometimes soldiers die and the fight they fought comes out as a loss, but if we win the war in the end thats what matters.

If we get past our hatred and our desire to throw MORE lives away in the middle east than the marines who died there didn't die for nothing.

Yeah, but in WW2 there was a clear objective - Defeat the Axis. Everyman knew what he was fighting for.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc

Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.

I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.

Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

 d-usa wrote:
Oh my, did I ever get schooled. If only I was a pro-war military member...

The Roman empire fell, so that's a great role model for us to have.

Seeing as how every barbarian successor state wanted to be Rome and the Dream of Rome shaped Europe and even Turkey and North Africa for the next 2,000 years and 1/3 of the world speaks a Latin based language, Yeah, I'd say they were a pretty good role model for us. It's not like Washington DC is covered in Roman Symbols.
(history rant over.)

I spent 2 years in Iraq and the whole thing was not just pointless but also counter productive. Saddam, while horrible, was a secular leader who kept a more fanatical Iran in check. Women could wear jeans in the streets and get jobs. Now they're having to wear burkas or get canned and Iran is now a huge influence in the country and no longer has its arch enemy to keep them in line.

The Iraq war is what happens when an invading nation fails to understand their enemy on even a basic level. We went in with a "Good guy/bad guy" mentality and didn't have a clue what the real situation shaped by culture, politics and religion was. So, what happened was, we blundered in, blew everything up, fired the ENTIRE freaking Iraqi army, kill a bunch of civilians and then wonder why we have an insurgency on our hands. Of course Iraq is descending into chaos. It wasn't going to go any other way unless we stayed there permenantly to re-shape their entire culture and that takes a loooong time and I don't see how it would come close to being profitable for us.

So, the situation is sad but inevitable.

Quite frankly, it's world shatteringly naive to think it wouldn't have fallen after the pull out.

 Breotan wrote:
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about the Romans 'creating' civilization. And I'll pre-empt your comeback by saying I'm sure the Phoenicians and the Minoans and the Etruscans would have something to say about the Greeks creating civilization!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marv335 wrote:
Quite frankly, it's world shatteringly naive to think it wouldn't have fallen after the pull out.

My only surprise is that it took that long to happen.

 Breotan wrote:
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.

Oh wait.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.

Oh wait.

Umm....not quite how that happened. The Barbarians that sacked Rome were Christians, their leaders spoke Latin and they adopted Roman culture. Check out Theodoric the Goth's rule in Ravenna. He was called "Theodoric the Great" because they thought he was returning the glory of Rome to Italy. He built massive churches, baths, palaces and kept Italy safe and peaceful during his long reign. The 'barbarians' in Gaul also established very Romanized kingdoms. The "Dark Ages" really weren't that dark. Also check out the Eastern Roman Empire. They continued on and flourished for the next 1,000 years.
The darkness of the "Dark Ages" has been greatly exaggerated.

Yes, the political institution known as Rome fell, well only the western half did. But its laws, judicial system, culture, language and religion spread throughout all of Europe and Asia. Not bad.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Civilization as we know it today was created because the Romans ruthlessly pushed it down people's throats and killed anyone who didn't comply. The other example is China, which also ruthlessly oppressed anyone who wouldn't comply. It's a rough way to civilize people but recent history shows that it pretty much requires something like this.

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

Yes, because the Roman empire totally didn't get sacked by a bunch of barbarians at the end and Europe certainly didn't go back to a chaotic crapfest for the next few hundred years.

Oh wait.

Your point? Even after the fall of Rome following nations still tried to emulate it's glories. Which is exactly what he said. Despite their fall, their civilization was viewed as the pinnacle, and something to be envied.

 Breotan wrote:

Please show me a modern example of a people going from a barbaric culture to a civilized one without a third party crushing them and forcing it upon them.

The Brits in New Zealand?


The problem here though, is that in my two tours, the areas where I was (spent a ton of time in/around Sadr City the second go round) has shown me that the extremists really aren't all that extreme, and that most people felt the same way, but only a few were bold enough to act on those feelings.

The tribal chiefs literally run the place like the Godfather, and so half the time, when we gave a baker a "microgrant" to get him on his feet, he'd turn around and pay 90% of that (dont really know.. but it definitely had the appearance that it was a sizable chunk of what we gave) to his Sheik, who could/would usually turn around and pay the local bomb-maker, unless that Sheik was actually fairly friendly to us (and that was usually because we gave him a ton of money, or fixed utilities/public works that he owned). I mean, if you want to talk about politicians being owned by corporations or rich donors, etc. these guys make ours look like absolute saints.


Sure, it sucks that we've already "lost" everything we fought for, but the way I see it, we never really won, and I'd much rather give the same fate to Afghanistan than have any more Americans/allies die for "nothing" It's fairly clear that Islam is not the peaceful religion that certain people claim it is, so it's better for us to sit back, and let them wipe themselves out than to try and play referee.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, it went from defeating the Taliban/Al Q to nation building, democracy, women's rights, Middle East Stability etc etc

Nobody knew what the feth was going on half the time.

I've always believed that the military are at their best when they have a clear, defined objective - capture that hill or defeat this country etc etc. But they had nothing to work with.

Good points. What we should expect from the Pres and our congress critters is to lay out clear national level strategic objectives for what ever conflict they are getting us into. Bonus points if they can relate those objectives to our national interest. Then they should decide if they are willing to allocate the resources needed to achieve those objectives, and lay out the cost of not meeting those objectives.

If the objectives change, or cannot be met, they need to decide the trigger point to stop allocating resources and get out of the conflict, or the leaders need to sell the new objectives to the American people along with the costs to achieve them and the costs of not achieving them. Again, bonus points f they can relate them to our national interests.

On the military side, our strategic leaders need to show they clearly understand the national objectives and create and run campaigns and operations designed to achieve those objectives. They need to turn those national objectives into properly resourced and executable actions. They need to be able to communicate to the civilian elected leadership how they intend to achieve the objectives.

Seeing bad guys retake ground you fought for is never good, but the reality is it became the Iraqi government's responsibility to figure out how to keep their country running as we were leaving and after we left. They knew what was up.

I don't really care. It was doomed from the start. No surprise there.

This foreshadows what will happen in Afghanistan.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This foreshadows what will happen in Afghanistan.

One would think we could/would have learned from those dirty, pinko commie soviets about what happens in Afghanistan.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This foreshadows what will happen in Afghanistan.

One would think we could/would have learned from those dirty, pinko commie soviets about what happens in Afghanistan.

Politicians never learn lessons. Lessons interfere with their ego-stroking.

No-one has ever won in Afgahnistan.
Ever.
It's not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.

Alexander the Great, The Moguls, The British, The Soviets, the list goes on.

It was only a matter of time. I really don't think anyone was too stunned when they found out, but it's still upsetting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marv335 wrote:
No-one has ever won in Afgahnistan.
Ever.
It's not called "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.

Alexander the Great, The Moguls, The British, The Soviets, the list goes on.

Win what though? Are we trying to actually win anything in Afghanistan? We're not, we're trying to help them by ousting extremist groups and promoting democracy in a country that essentially lives in the 15th century. This is a realistic goal, even if it doesn't seem to working out exactly how we want it to.

Some people have been theorizing the split up of Iraq into separate starts, a Sunni, Shiite and possibly independent Kurdish state. Although an independent Kurdish state might see some problems from countries like Turkey,Iran and Syria. I think the map of the middle east is going to look radically different in another 10 or 20 years

Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?

 mitch_rifle wrote:
. I think the map of the middle east is going to look radically different in another 10 or 20 years

We made up all the current borders, why not try it again!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?

Yep, most were founded between 1918 and 1947-8 (the latter number coming from Israel), as after WW1, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Brits swooping in for the kill, they just sorta divided gak up all willy nilly... Thanks, Obama!

We should have just occupied them for another 50-60 years. It worked with Germans, they haven't tried to take over Europe again and are all pretty good at speaking English. Sure, things would have been rough for a while, but a generation in their kids would be using apple devices, sipping starbucks lattes, wearing skinny jeans and listening to whatever boy bands are to be popular at the time.

Oh, also worked pretty good in Japan.

Soladrin wrote:Ah yes, nukes would fix it, it's not like the fallout would effect us.. right.

I have no qualms turning the crapholes in the Middle East and North Africa into a glass parking lot.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:This foreshadows what will happen in Afghanistan.

Someone mentioned it before Afghanistan is the "graveyard of Empires?"

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Aren't a lot of these countries relics of European Imperialism, arbitrarily drawn up on the map with little regard to historical boundaries of previous nation states, ethnic distribution and tribal loyalties?

Yep, most were founded between 1918 and 1947-8 (the latter number coming from Israel), as after WW1, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Brits swooping in for the kill, they just sorta divided gak up all willy nilly... Thanks, Obama!

European imperialism, hubris and dysfunctionalism. Also socialism but that is an entirely different matter.

Politicians send our troops to die on foreign lands when it suits them then turn their backs on the troops when it suits them. All that blood and treasure gone, for nothing! Politics benefits no one except for the politicians. The body count turns into poll numbers and statistics turn into things to be forgotten about such as one politician said "what difference does it make?" They do not care about the lives of our troops. This is why if I had things my way I'll have these fat cat politicians yanked away from their lofty jobs and leave them stranded in some third world craphole with only a gun and a helmet then they'll play survivor the real game.

It's Vietnam all over again. My advice is if you want to win a war you keep the damn politicians out of it and let the Generals do the fighting. Then again when politicians try to play war from a lofty office chair like so many armchair generals and when the actual generals become sycophantic bureaucrats and politicians then we're becoming as inept and incompetent as Europe.