Rethinking Withdrawals

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.

How many lives will it take?

As many as it takes. That is the nature of service, my friend. Numbers, being critical to the mission, do not override the mission; numbers do not dictate success or failure.

Instead, numbers are the see-saw tipsy on the playground of the political battleground - which is hardly your concern, as you're not an American (given your own profile submission). I in no way intend to offend you, your heritage or your country, but our politics are just that: Ours. Y'all stay, we'll be there. Y'all leave, we'll be there. Anyone leaves or stays, we'll be there. We don't back down from the fight, and if your government wishes to accept the easy way out, then shame on the and you. We have a mission, and our mission will not be compromised by a liberal and leftist slant without any real teeth sans the ability to bite into the natural human conscience.

It's called homeostasis, which is a Homo Sapient neuropathology to restore a chemical sense of balance to the brain's core of receptors through seratonin and other chemicals that are released in emotional responses. Certain limbic reactions are routed through the thalamus to the hypo campus in order to generate a limbic response to restore the body's natural sense of comfort respond to stimuli, which are then transmitted as emotions to the thalamus and recognized in the hypo campus as a regenerative need. The result is an "Oh My!" feeling, and we are each wired to reply to these feelings differently - but the neurological pathways are indistinguishable from one person to another.

In the military, we learn to control our homeostatic state through training that develops certain chemicals as a natural response while withholding other emotionally-charged impacts as irrelevant to survival - which is ingrained as mission priority. In other words, we accept human loss as something that simply occurs, not something unavoidable... in the name of the higher purpose, the mission.

We're called robots because of it. But that verbiage is the sure sign of the ignorant.

How many lives will it take? As many as it takes, sir. Mission trumps emotion.
 
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.

Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

Whether you like it or not people make up their minds based on the information they are given and I would suggest that the big rush to get into Iraq was caused primarily because the US/UK administrations knew damn well that their public support would not stand up with long term scrutiny.

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

So while you may know something about warfare it is clear you don't understand public reactions.
 
Public re-action has to be led, and this to a large extent is by agenda-led opposition looking for reasons to unseat the government. They come in many shapes and sizes, and often from an opposition who would do precisely what the government has undertaken if they themselves were in office.

The more advancement USA has made in its mission in Iraq - the louder the chorus has become; any success would be devastating for them.

It sis all about timing, by all means reduce troop levels when it suits, but don't holler and shout about retreat while the battle rages. It seems that USA troops are expected to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

There has been one big problem all along and that was the mismanagement of the post-war era. The war was won in record time at that point, with happy Iraquis celebrating. The following chaos was not of the troops' making, and they have sweated through it.

These guys deserve thanks, hugs and pats on the back all round, and a few prayers wouldn't go amiss - they certainly have mine.

If you want to tell them what a disastrous failure they are fighting, wait until that situation is certain, and the battle over. Until then - kindly zip it.

And even then - make sure you don't try telling them to their faces in the real world.:salute2:
 
If you want to tell them what a disastrous failure they are fighting, wait until that situation is certain. Until then - kindly zip it.

And even then - make sure you don't try telling them to their faces in the real world.:salute2:

Don't tell them what?
That their politicians failed them again?

I am somewhat amused that you persistently feel the need quieten people you don't agree with by casting your own spin on things and creating stories but at no point in this discussion has anyone blamed the military or those serving it for the mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support.
 
Don't tell them what?
That their politicians failed them again?

I am somewhat amused that you persistently feel the need quieten people you don't agree with by casting your own spin on things and creating stories but at no point in this discussion has anyone blamed the military or those serving it for the mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support.


No , but that because of what you do tell them, their mission becomes illegal and worthless in your opinion! They don't deserve to hear that from you while the battle rages. It is pure lifes' blood to our enemies, their deadly enemies.

'The mess that Iraq has become in terms of failing public support'! Yeah - just keep telling them that!:read:

Now then - your 'amusement' is a fraud, you merely seek to discredit me. You do not know what I 'persistently need', and furthermore I have never, ever sought to quieten anyone; if you tell that lie often enough you might get folks believing it.

'Casting my own spin' - isn't that what we are all doing - expressing our opinions? My opinions may not match yours - So?

Now give me just one example of my 'creating stories'.

Nothing but desperation from you here.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this discussion is leading anywhere... even if you would withdraw- then what? Let them kill each other until theres another Dictator on top of things? USA is into deep and has taken responsibility, if the war was justified or not are things left for historians- doesn't matter now anyway...
thats my opinion
 
haha yeah.
There's been some attempts to bring a different variation of "who started the Korean War?"
But it's pathetic because it's so plainly obvious that North Korea started it as militarily they had a massively lopsided advantage, American troop presence was minimal... There's a lot of revisionist history going on here on this side of the world so I'm well aware of all this stuff. What makes it a right war or a wrong war? Usually whether or not you won.
 
Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

Whether you like it or not people make up their minds based on the information they are given and I would suggest that the big rush to get into Iraq was caused primarily because the US/UK administrations knew damn well that their public support would not stand up with long term scrutiny.

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

So while you may know something about warfare it is clear you don't understand public reactions.

So, what you are stating, in brevity, is that politicians are not responsible for their own signatures? In other words, President Bush cannot be held accountable for the invasion given his advisory committee; likewise, I am not responsible for any driving infractions occurring between the time I received my license and now if I was not personally aware than a new law was enacted?

Allow me to use your words:

In the world up until about 1950 you could get away with misleading people it took ages for information to traverse the world now its not so easy because information is transmitted via telephone, internet, news and general travel almost instantaneously around the world, it is becoming harder and harder to fool any of the people for any length of time these days.

Given that I fully agree, please explain this statement directly preceding it:

Yep and the minute those same politicians found out that what they had signed was made up of half truths and disinformation they promptly changed their minds as did the general public.

So, which is it, my friend? Are the politicians and "general public" of this country just stupid, or were people "duped and fooled" and, in retrospect, stupid?
 
Back
Top