War in Iraq, is there a point?

Sounds similar to the stuff the generals were saying in Vietnam circa 1967. Might not mean anything, but then again, it might mean everything. The "McNamara Line" and over half a million U.S. troops couldn't shut down the Ho Chi Min Trail in S. Vietnam, what makes us think we can shut down infiltration of people and arms from Syria and Iran with 125,000 U.S. troops in Iraq - a much larger country and longer border? As for the number of attacks, by General Casey's own estimate, which is probably too optimistic, the insurgents are attempting 200 attacks and succeeding in 50 of them. That is a 25% success rate in carrying out attacks. For asymetric warfare that is an astoundingly high success rate.On edit - I would also add, as long as U.S. commanders continue to try to minimize U.S. casualties by putting Marines in armored vehicles and sending them down the road we will not only take MORE casualties but we will also continue to lose ground in the ultimate mission of pacifying Iraq and building a stable democracy.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-23-2005 01:52 PM

I am sure they would. That's supposed to make me feel better? You are sure of this, are you? How do you know it to be true? How do you know some of those "Iraqi security forces" are not part of the insurgency? South Vietnamese soldiers were fighting and dying for their country every day also. "No vision, no base, limited popular support..." Again, you don't know this and neither does any other American. And the scary thing is, Bush doesn't know that he doesn't know it and he is the CIC. Marines in armored humvees are targets, that is what I am talking about.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-23-2005 02:48 PM

In modern guerilla warfare it is often innocent civilians that suffer the most. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilians are going to support the occupying power. In fact, they may BLAME the occupying power for the insurgent attacks that kill civilians. Most of the Iraqis targeted are security forces. Many Iraqis probably blame the U.S. for that also. What I fear is that we are entering a new phase in Iraq where there will be all out civil war with the Shia and Kurds fighting the Sunnis. There have been reports in recent days of Shia, Kurd, and Sunni militias forming. Sometimes these militias overlap with the Iraqi security forces, sometimes they are independent of them. If true, it is not a good development.
Short of sending in a half a million troops or so, I am not convinced there is anything the U.S. can do at this point to bring about democracy in Iraq - and I am not sure that would do it.

Well, for one, I think I would get out of Iraq so that we are no longer a target there and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan which is what we should have done all along. The Taliban are coming back in Afghanistan and Osama is still on the loose in Pakistan and Afghanistan.Second, I would focus on securing our borders. That means inspecting or scanning every shipping container in every port and every car/truck coming across the border. It also means tracking every foreign national who enters the country using biometric data (electronic hand or eye print). Every foreign national should be required to report in person to an immigration official on a monthly basis or within 24 hours before expiration of their visa or face immediate deportation. Guest workers from Mexico should be legalized, issued with IDs and tracked like any other foreign national.Third, we have to beef up our domestic and foreign human intelligence to not just coordinate more but also to collect more human intelligence on terrorists.

What part of "target" don't you understand? Some are getting killed but many more are coming home as amputees or maimed in some other way. Either way, they are no longer available for duty.As to your analysis - excuse me but I have heard it all before - during Vietnam. I have no more confidence in the U.S. military's or the civilian leadership's analysis of what is really going on in Iraq than I did in Vietnam.

Iraq is in chaos now and it is not getting any better. Terrorists are coming to Iraq to kill Americans. If we were not there they would have less incentive. It is far easier for a Pakistani or Saudi to get to Iraq than to come to the U.S.

And why is that? Because of the failure of diplomacy on the part of George W. Bush. If he had been willing to work with the French and the Germans instead of insisting on doing it HIS way at every step maybe they (and others) would have joined the Coalition of the Willing. George Bush sowed and we are reaping what he sowed.

No, not if we think it is not in our interest (the U.S.) to continue to stay there. It is a legitimate position even if you disagree. Again these is the same bankrupt argument that kept us in Vietnam until 1973. Had we negotiated a settlement in Vietnam in 1968 we would have gotten just as good of a deal as we got in 1973 - and saved a lot of American and Vietnamese lives.

War dissenters love the United States, the troops, freedom and democracy just as much as you do. It is a disagreement about tactics, not fundamentals. You are promoting a bogus argument. It is the "you are either for us or against us argument." No, I am for you, I just disagree with you. I doubt the insurgents give a flying fig about whether people in the U.S. oppose the war or not. In fact if anything I would guess they would rather have the U.S. stay in Iraq as it helps them recruit.

It wasn't Iraqis on those planes.

That's your opinion. He didn't try very hard so we will never know.

Again these are the tired old Vietnam arguments. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to question the patriotism of those who disagree with you. You do not know the enemy well enough to know what gives them "aid and comfort." It is just as likely that the insurgents want the U.S. to STAY, as it helps their recruiting.

Beside the point. Nobody's hands were clean, including American companies.

Millions more in America don't support it....Beside the point, anyway. If it is wrong it is wrong even if 99% support it and if it is right it is right even if only 40% support it.

George W. Bush shared his war plans with a Canadian? Do tell.