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.

Hey Dakka,

This is primarily for those of you with military experience... US, Coalition, those of you who have been to the Sandbox.

This turn of events (tho predictable) deeply troubles me. What have been your thoughts?

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.

Falluja’s Fall Stuns Marines Who Fought There

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/fallujas-fall-stuns-marines-who-fought-there.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

- J

If extremists in the middle east want to murder people and cause problems they can do it in the comfort of there very OWN third world craphole.

Sending Americans to them in the form of troops to kill makes it easier for them, not harder. A goat farmer who wants to harm the USA can't swim across the ocean with an IED, but he sure can harm a few US troops with an IED.


And before you harp on me not being in the military, my father was in Vietnam, hes told me plenty about it, does he care the south fell in the end after they pulled out? No, because he fought his hardest while he was there and that's what matters.

Falluja has fallen because of the self destructive nature of those who dwell there, not because we didn't have the USMC there.

We always could use a replacement for Vieques. Fallujah sounds like it'll work.

 necrondog99 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.

Don't post unless you agree with me okaythanksbyenow...

What part of history really made us think that this would be the time that things would be different in that part of the world?

 d-usa wrote:

 necrondog99 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.

Don't post unless you agree with me okaythanksbyenow...

What part of history really made us think that this would be the time that things would be different in that part of the world?

Exhalted, truer words have never been spoken.

Trying to impose things on the middle east is like writing your name in the sand at the beach.


So don't get mad when the tide comes in and washes it away.

At some point, the Iraqis need to step up.

It's a shame that this is happening now and maybe indicative to a flaw withdrawl policy, but in the end, the Iraqis need to own it at some point.

Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.

My heart goes to the fallen Marines who died in that battle. They made the ultimate sacrifice and it was for naught.

Edit: This is starting to sound like our generation's Vietnam.

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.

 whembly wrote:
At some point, the Iraqis need to step up.

It's a shame that this is happening now and maybe indicative to a flaw withdrawl policy, but in the end, the Iraqis need to own it at some point.

Exactly, the USA cannot be the worlds police man when it comes to conflicts like this that we deep seeded in not only politics but RELIGION as well. We have better ways to spend money than burning it by occupying countries that do not want us there and show it through terrorist acts and corrupt policeman/army officals

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.

That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.

That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.

Yeah, but giving people stuff only goes so far as to reform a volatile situation like the Middle East. That worked for Germany because the Germans were tired of the war. The extremists in the Middle East, though, are more than willing to keep on fighting no matter what.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
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.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did anyone expect any good to come out of the middle eastern wars? I mean, our policy was pretty much to blow crap up, give some guys guns and call it "Mission accomplished". A reformation of a seriously divided culture that does not make.

That was very far from our policy. Our infrastructure-related projects in Iraq and Afghanistan alone account for billions of dollars in spending.

Our invasion crippled Iraq's infrastructure, so we gain no points for fixing what we broke.

If that HAD been a reason to go into Iraq in the first place we shouldn't have occupyed it. Just leave it a burnt out ruin as in example.

A way of saying "Mess with us and your next" something tribals can understand.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yeah, but giving people stuff only goes so far as to reform a volatile situation like the Middle East. That worked for Germany because the Germans were tired of the war. The extremists in the Middle East, though, are more than willing to keep on fighting no matter what.

That's true, which is why we also did more than give people stuff.

But you're right in the respect that insurgent patience outlasted ours. If anything, the big lesson to take away from Iraq and Afghanistan is that similar campaigns are going to be very, very long endeavors, and that punching out without the indigenous government being absolutely rock solid is basically just building a sand castle below the high tide line.

 Seaward wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
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.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

My point is that in war some deaths do seem pointless/squandered, but if we win in the end than its okay.

Or, thats what I was going at. I get ranty about this subject, Iv lost two family members to Iraq/afganistan.

 d-usa wrote:

 necrondog99 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.

Don't post unless you agree with me okaythanksbyenow...

What part of history really made us think that this would be the time that things would be different in that part of the world?

Actually it was just a warning that I would take you to school if you felt the need to do this.

So...

Forgetting history is exactly what brought us to the low point. Whether you were for the Iraq war or agianst it, the fact was that the previous administration started it, and successor administrations have a responsibility to manage it with competence. Pulling the troops out was a political decision, the president said as much, and the Joint Chiefs argued against it... even the less Hawkish members of Senate on the Armed Services Committee argued against it. Knowing that the Iraqi security forces were not yet ready to secure their own country we left anyway... Not only did this squander the sacrifices of the war but it shows the world what we do to our allies, and how we "support them." Right now the Iraqis and the tribes that supported us in counterinsurgency are being slaughtered by ISIS the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham. The responsibility lies 100% on the US Government.

History has shown time and again what a successful conquest/nation building program looks like. The Romans took three generations, they would conquer in the first generation, intermarry and occupy in the second generation, and everyone was speaking latin and eating roman food by the third generation (bloody Romans!) Believe it or not we did the same thing with Japan and Germany. We conquered during the first generation, nation built for a second generation, and in this third generation Japan and Germany are our greates allies.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have been preparred to hang out for sixty years providing logistics and training, after the children saw us their whole lives and realized Americans are not a threat (to them anyway) the whole nature of the Middle East would have changed. History proves this time and again.

So having seen Iraq go to hell, I really don't want to see that happen to Afghanistan, and it doesn't have to. But it will, due to a lack of forsight and that's really goddam tragic.

Next war, do you know what I might tell people? I'll tell them that we shouldn't get involved because the strength of the military and all the best intentions in the world will never overcome the weakness and incompetence of our elected leaders, so everything will be in vain.

Alexzandvar, I am sorry for your loss. It is this kind of thing exactly that is making me so angry about the situation. I have lost many friends over the years and the idea that is "was all for naught" might just keep me up at night for the rest of my life.

- J

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.

History has shown time and again what a successful conquest/nation building program looks like. The Romans took three generations, they would conquer in the first generation, intermarry and occupy in the second generation, and everyone was speaking latin and eating roman food by the third generation (bloody Romans!)

***They also crucified people, razed cities, sold entire populations into slavery and never actually held most of the territory peacefully. The closest comparable would be how the Soviets acted in Afghanistan and Chenya. It hasn’t worked either.

You could go old school Roman and “Depopulate” Iraq, then bring in new settlers, but we kind of don’t do that sort of thing in a democracy.

Believe it or not we did the same thing with Japan and Germany. We conquered during the first generation, nation built for a second generation, and in this third generation Japan and Germany are our greates allies.

***Really, what support have they provided us for, well anything besides taking our jobs?

In Iraq and Afghanistan we should have been preparred to hang out for sixty years providing logistics and training, after the children saw us their whole lives and realized Americans are not a threat (to them anyway) the whole nature of the Middle East would have changed. History proves this time and again.

***Tell me again what happened to the Temple in Jerusalem? Oh yea it was destroyed when the Romans destroyed the city as retribution for another revolt.

If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.

 Frazzled wrote:


If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.

Hard to argue that one Chief! We have already done it to another country TWICE. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If you can't commit to a war, don't get involved in the first place.

And if you can't handle non-military or anti-war people posting in your precious thread, then don't post it on a non-military forum that is open to anti-war people...

 necrondog99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


If you really want to go there what you’re saying is we should have nuked them.

Hard to argue that one Chief! We have already done it to another country TWICE. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If you can't commit to a war, don't get involved in the first place.

True that. Suddenly we are in agreement in principle.
I couldn't see doing so in Iraq though. They hadn't actually done anything besides break the truce agreement, which was fixed when Saddam was deposed.

I dont think it would work in Iraq. The people that we want dead are more than happy to sacrifice their fellow man if it means advancing their cause. Dropping it on their camps wouldnt so much except irradiate parts of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is much more complex than Japan in WW2.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
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.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

My point is that in war some deaths do seem pointless/squandered, but if we win in the end than its okay.

Or, thats what I was going at. I get ranty about this subject, Iv lost two family members to Iraq/afganistan.

I'm sorry for your losses.

But I would strongly urge you to consider that there can still be heroes in stories that don't have happy endings. Personally I think that if we as a society could grow to understand this, we wouldn't have this nasty little tendency to get stuck in regional conflicts without a clear, realistically achievable endgame.

I was not in the military. I was just some stupid civilian that watched it go down from afar on CNN.

Even just watching I saw the cost was high in terms of life, effort, and money. By that time, I had already decided that the war in Iraq had been a terrible distraction from the true mission in Afghanistan and the GWoT. It saddened me greatly to see and hear what was happening. Now, I am sadden even more that that effort was even more wasteful and purposeless than I imagined.

That being said, I have a feeling a lot of those guys didn't fight so hard, get injured, and even killed for a stupid town in a middle-eastern desert. I have a feeling they did it for the guys in the fireteam with them, for the rest of the platoon, and for the other guys and gals caught up in the same pointless war. It was there chance to "do something" about the bad situation they had been put in.

I'm not one to fetishize the troops, but I can see why someone who was there fighting in Fallujah would be upset about its current state. It would call into question a lot of things that were important to them.

Seriously... guys... check out Michael Yon's Website.

He has dispatches and books regarding this.

He's a freelanced writer who ACTUALLY embedded with the troops on the ground.

 Easy E wrote:
I was not in the military. I was just some stupid civilian that watched it go down from afar on CNN.

Even just watching I saw the cost was high in terms of life, effort, and money. By that time, I had already decided that the war in Iraq had been a terrible distraction from the true mission in Afghanistan and the GWoT. It saddened me greatly to see and hear what was happening. Now, I am sadden even more that that effort was even more wasteful and purposeless than I imagined.

That being said, I have a feeling a lot of those guys didn't fight so hard, get injured, and even killed for a stupid town in a middle-eastern desert. I have a feeling they did it for the guys in the fireteam with them, for the rest of the platoon, and for the other guys and gals caught up in the same pointless war. It was there chance to "do something" about the bad situation they had been put in.

I'm not one to fetishize the troops, but I can see why someone who was there fighting in Fallujah would be upset about its current state. It would call into question a lot of things that were important to them.

/ This. Thank you. It forces you to question a lot of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

The whole world bows to your intelligence. The city of Rome fell a dozen times, usually to Romans. The empire collapsed economically just like we are about to.

But thanks for pointing that out. I was just about to pay the local tax collector. Silly me.

Hey I got an idea. Lets point out the FACT that whether you were for the invasion of Iraq or not... the current administration bears direct responsibility for what is happening there RIGHT NOW. Just one little idea I would like fething acknowledged. Thanks.

- J

I would say no they don't. Afghanistan yes, but Iraq, I'll give Obama an out on (I know I just felt the earth shake too).


As long as he doesn't getangled back in there again I'll be supportive. His track record on Egypt, libya, Iran, Israel, and almost Syria is a different story of course.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-irans-fingerprints-in-fallujah/2014/01/08/75db5f1e-77ed-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html