Coalition Forces Have Upper Hand in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

Now back to the discussion on this situation in Iraq.

I would say the main problem the bush administration has at the moment is it has lost the initiative on world affairs at the moment. It is at this moment in time acting in a reactionary manor to the manuevers of Iran and North Korea who have both manipulated the situation as much as possible. The manpower in use to sustain a controlling presecence in Iraq, hunt taliban/al quieda forces in Afghanistan and fullfill treaty obligations with Tiawan and South Korea means although the US still has a world wide rapid response ability (as seen recently in Havanah) It is not capable of threating countries like Iran/NK with invasion as it simply does not have the resources to sustain a conflict like that with these countries at this moment in time. It would have to involve NATO forces, and politically for either of those countries to be invaded by a multi-national NATO task force would quite frankly be a political minefield with Russia or China.

NK is not such a problem, but Iran is a much larger country then Iraq and has a far larger population, not to mention the terrain is alot more mountainous/hilly in some parts compared to Iraq and more akin to Afghanistan and that counters the modern accurate ranged weaponry of modern militaries.

Withdrawl from Iraq is quite frankly not an option. Economically it would be a disaster for the country to fall into civil war (thus impeding the oil export) and a civil war would engulf the entire region into instability that would cause untold catastrophy. The US and UK are stuck with this occupation, I have feeling it will be for at least 2 decades to come, the Iraqi security forces are simply not loyal enough to the elected government

Yes I agree, its more about politics\showboating now than doing whats really good for the people.

I don´t think that is quite accurate as there are about 140 - 150,000 troups in Iraq, and about 20 - 30,000 in Afghanistan with about 50,000 stationed in South Korea. Thats about 250,000 troops tops, if that. In the first gulf war there were over 750,000 US troups in the region. We have a standing army of over 2.3 million. The US could easily invade Iran, or NK at the moment. The U.S would never put all its eggs in one basket, it has contingency plans in order to fight 2-3 simultaneaous wars, otherwise we would be open to attack. Hence the frustrations over the administrations unwillingness to send more troops over, because the fact is, is that more troops are available. Certainly not in terms of decades, but short cycles are definitely not a problem.

If it were true that we couldn´t threaten with invasion, Iran and NK wouldn´t be as afraid, and would not make these threatening gestures to prevent an invasion. They would just totally dismiss us outright and not play any games.

Over the last few decades this ability has been eroded by buget cuts.A lot of those troops are resevres which are heavily stressed as it stands sure we could invade Belguim or Denmark but not Iran or North Korea without considerable problems and invovlement of China or Russia which would throw everything off

preventing an invasion isnt the only motive for Iran/NK etc to be making threatening gestures.

For instance;

1. Iran is more or less a theocratic dictatorship - it could be political kite-flying for internal gain. Bold threats against 'the mighty satan' (USA) makes for excellent propaganda, bolstering the conservatives faithful & militia, which in turn helps quell localised dissent.

2. International relations (eg trade agreements with 3rd party nations) could be influenced by the varying levels of diplomacy. In a 'choose them or us' sense. Although this is an extremely complicated subject and i wont pretend to be able to offer an example.

3. Theyre only human - maybe they just enjoy winding you up.

1)
a) North Korea

North Korea is crying out for attention, it wants the US and UN or EU to give it concessions/aid due to the severe economic deprivation its people are currently going through, the reigeme needs this aid to stay in power in the long term. Their nuclear weapon development (which 90% their probably bluffing or have some soviet era warheads) and their ICBM development are just a way to provoke the international community to provide concessions. Because Iran has been grabbing the headlines lately this recent move is an attempt for it to get back into the light again.

In other words all their after is a bribe to shut them up and feed their people properly so that their outdated, time warp regieme doesn't collapse into anarchy.

b) Iran

Iran geologically speaking is sitting ontop of a natural supply of uranium and this deal for them to rely on imported enriched uranium from russia will always be unthinkable to them because it gives russia power over them. No country in that region wants interferance from Moscow again, especially with the current government of russia's backtracking to "old" soviet policies again in power projection.
The current president of Iran actually has alot of internal opposition within his own government and like someone has pointed out already the wipping up of anti-israel hatred in the country is a means by which the population can be distracted from the rather contraversal policies of this president. I doubt he will remain in power for the full term of his mandate he is making too many internal enemies.
It is totally within their interest to develop nuclear weapons, a Us occupied Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west, NATO member Turkey and US friendly and fellow nuclear power Pakistan bordering it. If i was in charge of the country I would be investing in developing nuclear weapons as well.

Of those 2.3 million US army personel I garuntee the majority of them are support, administration, logistics etc and only a fraction are front line formations. The US army at this moment in time is not built for prolonged conflict and an invasion of Iran would require a considerable amount of manpower. Bear in mind in gulf war 1 there was an international coalition of UN forces not just US. Gulf war 2 with a US and UK force was fighting a completly demoralised and ground down army that simply had no chance to resist the invading forces which is why you see the melting away of the Republican guard, they were trainned for gurellia warfare and the formation evaporated and dispersed to commence this campaign the fruits of which we are still seeing now.

Iran has not had a decade of repeated bombardment by US air forces, its army and infrastructure has not been devestated by a previous war. Also bear in mind that despite the Us supplying and supporting the Iraq regieme in the Iran-Iraq war Iran was the victor of that conflict. North Korea the moment you invade it china would absolutely freak in disappear. If anything I think China should be the country to replace the NK dictatorship.

While the manpower is probably their for large scale army formations I would point out to you several problems there with that kind of deployment
A) economic wise it will resort to the us having to goto a wartime economy which would cost the country alot of money, their a point to which a standing army can go before it starts drainning the civilian economy and munching money out of public funds

B) The quality of the manpower. Germany in world war 2 had not just a well trainned and professional army but also had a vast pool of manpower in its population which had recieved high quality trainning since the weimar republic days. The reservists and part timers in the US army are not of the same calibre. In a long term engagement that would show and thats purely down to underinvestment. The Us isn't the only country with that problem though just about any western nation. Modern armies are not built for long sustained conflict.

I spent 4 years in Marine/Recon. and I studied war history more than you will ever know. But unlike you, I actualy practiced what I learned. The day you understand more about warfare than me is the day pigs fly.

As to the last half of your inane diatribe, your personal attacks are amusing,sterotypical, completely childish and unneccesary. Take your own advice, pull up your diapers and grow up!!

I doubt you practiced most of your war history. Unless you were commanding hundreds of thousands of sword and musket trained soldiers, you were practicing lopsided warfare with advanced technology against a bunch of people contented with living in mud shacks. And that is your problem. You conservatives try to make this into something solid. You see it as a mission with an attainable end against an enemy which can be predicted, much like the enemies of prior history. They could be grasped, felt, and choked to death through a variety of means. These people cannot. They are used to living in extreme poverty. They can live well enough in jungles or deserts of whatever the current situation is. This is an an enemy that appears out of nowhere for reasons that may not seem logical and may very well not be logical. But they are not organized, they are not capable of being grasped and scouted and spied upon like the enemies of the past. We are incapable of defeating this kind of enemy unless we are actually on their level. We would have to be as low as them, as disadvantaged as them, as desparate them, in order to be able to defeat them. We are not able to do that.

I still feel we should not have been there in the first place. I personally feel the cost of all the lives lost on both sides was too high a price to pay to do what? Have control of the oil? Bring democracy? We don't even have democracy here now. Spread depleted uranium all over the place? The war was based on lies. Call me what you want if anyone disagrees. This is how I feel. Feel whatever way you want to.

I'm NOT a conservative. I'm simply not a rabid liberal.

Ok, you non-rabid liberals try to make this into something solid.

you are absolutely wrong.

you do realize the cost of lives by us doing nothing, right? saddam was always actively torturing, raping and killing people. this isn't a conservative lie...it's cold hard fact.


do we belong in iraq? yes. at this moment in time? no, we shouldn't have gone in and not with the president or the lies the idiot used to go to war. nor with his idiotically optimistic approach to the war. we SHOULD have been in iraq back in 1998 but that was an impossibility. we were too busy impeaching clinton for getting a blowjob from someone that wasn't his wife. that's both clinton's fault for getting himself into that mess and the conservatives' fault for making such a big BS show about something that ammounted to nothing other than a way for them to regain power.

you also realize that there are lot of men and women being forced to serve the insurgency in iraq, right? either through taking family members hostage and threatening their lives or paying people's families for suicide bombings.

you also have to add into the equation that these people were under an insanely tyrranical rule and have basically been programmed to react a certain way....it's not an easy transition from being completely forced into loyalty to actually having a choice and actually having the ability to speak out against the government. it's a right we have that a lot of people there have never known.


not to mention the whole ba'athist manifesto which included a pan-arabic war for a united arab penninsula.

as far as having democracy here, we don't have it because people are too ignorant and only listen to propaganda and the media and never actually bother to be informed on the issues or how different issues affect them and their community.

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."


right now we're not. get it?

Actually, we are wasting even more lives. Our people are dying every day, and you know what's going to happen when we leave? Some other tyrranical dictator is goingtogo into power. or worse. Watch and see.

you right, we are. our "leaders" have no real direction or any kind of goal for the future...just a lofty ideal that holds no weight when put into action (as shown every day).



that doesn't mean that a war wasn't justified....the leaders aren't justified in their course of action for the war.