Originally Posted by Del Boy

Afghanistan is protested, and would be protested even more if Iraq was not going on.

It has to be said.

Look at what we have here - even on a military forum, at a time when guys are daily fighting and falling in Iraq; people who are happy to join the forum and then to continually lambast the reasons for being there.

Soldiers read these threads, as do some of their families, and find morale- sapping abuse of their countries' efforts at every turn, mere onlookers missing no opportunity to deride them.

In this conflict, there has been no need for any Lord Haw-Haws to feel the need to intervene here on behalf of our enemies, because we have those only too ready and willing to do the job for them; constantly and thoroughly.

Patriotism is smeared. And worst of all, they cannot even wait until fierce and active hostilities are over before spouting that what the troops are fighting for is immoral and illegal. This from some who have no moral objections in other directions, and have no way yet of knowing F-all about the absolute truths regarding our position in Iraq.

Well - I think that stinks - and I will continue, if allowed, to support the war effort while the fighting rages and leave history to weigh the scales after the dust has settled. After all, we are not recruiting sergeants for our enemies, we do not need our morale to be slowly and steadily eroded by those who think that the Judgement of Soloman is their preserve. Especially the morale of our young.

As I have before - we used to have a word for that.

You know I feel you would derail a lot less threads if you understood context and perspective.

However I leave this response there in an attempt to keep this thread running.

I am talking here of giving succour and encouragement to our enemies whilst hostilities are engaged.

Weakness in this respect will bring greater problems for our troops than they already face, and strengthen the aspirations and resolve of our implacable enemies. Context and perspective.

I have said what I have said, and will leave it there.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

This is actually true.
But again, I think it's just been overshadowed by Iraq.
When Somalia was going on,the intervention reasons were very just, but the conflict dragged on, Aidid wasn't caught and when America took a few casualties, there was an uproar about the involvement and a pullout was ordered.
It's a very possible scenario of what could have happened had there been no involvement in Iraq.

Unfortunately Somalia is not something I have followed in any fashion although I am interested to read that the US state department considers that it was a successful mission that saved over 100,000 lives.
As far as Afghanistan goes I doubt there will ever be the same level of protest (Doesn't matter what reasons you have someone will protest) as Iraq because as much as some people want this to be considered a "middle east" action people do see a distinction between the two scenario's.

There's also a lot of people who don't believe Vietnam was not a defeat as well. Somalia was definitely a defeat.
You are right about Afghanistan not drawing as much protest as Iraq, but most likely because Afghanistan is so low on natural resources that you can hardly make an argument that the government went in to make a profit.

I don't understand what the condition for victory in Iraq is. How will we know we've won? Will all the attacks and bombings suddenly stop? Will they finally run out of insurgents? Or will we be forced to stay there because their government is weak?

We will never be able to say that we have won, unless we "de-populate" the whole country and make it a part of the US or whatever, because the moment we leave, it will start to revert back to square one.

BUT, given time we will certainly come to realise what we have lost. How many lives will it take. Some people are already aware of this but if they speak their mind they are accused of lacking patriotism.

Originally Posted by senojekips

We will never be able to say that we have won, unless we "de-populate" the whole country and make it a part of the US or whatever, because the moment we leave, it will start to revert back to square one.

BUT, given time we will certainly come to realise what we have lost. How many lives will it take.

We are locked in battle - what sort of message does that send to troops on the front line, and to our enemies?

Boys - stop wasting your time , you have lost . Foe, just keep it up -you can't lose.

Great timing. I have nothing to add.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
We will never be able to say that we have won, unless we "de-populate" the whole country and make it a part of the US or whatever, because the moment we leave, it will start to revert back to square one.

BUT, given time we will certainly come to realise what we have lost. How many lives will it take.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that you can never win a war like this, if so we better start rewriting the history books, as managed it in Malaya, Borneo. British Honduras, and Qatar. You have won when the people can go about freely from attack and can take part in elections similar to the ones that we are used too

I don't think we lost. I think we will if we leave Iraq. We are winning and will win if we stay.
Now that we are there, I assume we kind of have a similar situation between Iraq and Iran as the South and North Koreans. We are on their border should the eventual need come to defend Iraq from an invasion from Iran should one come, if we left, that is probably more likely. Syria of course, would probably help Iran too.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You can look for reasons to blame "people" all you like but the fact is that people do support just causes and if you arguments are not strong enough to convince your own people that you need to defend yourself then perhaps you are wrong.
Korea, Vietnam (early), Kuwait and Afghanistan, near universal support not only from the US public but the world as a whole because all had justifiable reasons that the people understood and accepted.
Vietnam (late), Iraq, dodgy justifications and protecting even shadier regimes than those we were fighting, public support dies rapidly.

Funny, but Iraq was exactly the same: Strong (almost unanimous) support early on, fading to the annals of bitter resentment later.

In fact, by doing your research, you'll find that almost every single chair occupied by a politician signed their name to refute the UN's decision and support the "invasion." Civilians also strongly supported the American-made resolution, and they, too, have turned tail to run.

And this, good sir, is the reason there is a separation between soldier and civilian: The civilian will eventually sicken of the current issue and wish to back out, for this reason or that, just as they do in their marriage, their job, their contacts...

The military understands commitment, and we understand that follow through means everything. It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, but that is why we are called soldiers and others are called civilians: The ability to stomach the job regardless of the desire to "undo" what has already been done and call it quits, taking the easy way out.

I understand your disagreement with the war, but your own sources prove that you know little to nothing about warfare.