Our big, fun Iraq discussion thread

[GardoneVT]

All right then what does the endstate look like? What OIF are we on now like OIF XIV ?! More OIFs than 80s horror movie sequels. How many tribes cross boundaries like 10-15% ? I got two words for them: RE/MAX. Make them move so we can have some peace in the middle east.

When you have a lot of weapons and polyglot tribal groups peace is impossible. Even if people aren’t shooting at each other, the preexisting tribal tensions remain . The combatants simply put away their guns until they can strike again later. National peace? Who cares, my tribe hates that one and it’s time to shoot back.

The only permanent solution to that problem is nuking every town and city in the region - with cobalt lined cores for good measure. The other alternatives are ongoing military support to prop up a stable country, or withdrawing until the failed state harbors a group that bombs us stateside. Then we end up coming back anyways and have casualties back home to boot. All three options suck.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You are correct and incorrect about fighting Iran, Gardone. If you look at the conventional panoply of arms - standard planes, tanks and ships - the Iranians would be at a severe disadvantage and these assets would be neutralized. Their irregular naval assets - interesting problem, given the past war game.

If you look at invading and occupying Iran, you are correct that our 'modern' forces would face a horror show of irregular but planned armed resistance that would make Iraq look simple.

We do not have the forces to invade and occupy Iran. Nor is there is any conceivable circumstance that the US public would stand for that level of mobilization.

While an empirical question - The second Iraq war, the incomplete nuclear deal, Obama deals and Trump's immaturity and recklessness will be cited as the a major point in the diminution of the USA in the world. Could be wrong - I am not going to be here to read the 2050 history books.

We won the conventional wars against the Germans and Japanese as they decided at a point to give it up. Just as in the Civil War, serious after the 'end of the war' resistance didn't occur. Would a conventional war against Iran be the same? Does anyone think the Cheney doctrine that after we 'win', that country becomes suburban DC or Long Island?

[Borderland]

The Shia there are an ethnic minority that supports US allied government forces. This government, backed by US forces, prevents the Pashtun Taliban from ethnically cleansing those Shia, which has happened at least twice in the last century. If you've seen pictures of the Afghan army there's always a bunch of chinky eyed soldiers, those guys are the Shias. Believe me they don't want the us leaving anytime soon.



I dunno if you're joking around but hell no I don't think we should have them ruled by a dictator that wages ethnic cleansing campaigns against them when they rebel.

I don't have any problem with US troops in Afghanistan. They can stay there forever because the Taliban earned that.

Saddam was a problem but the way the Bush adm went about getting support for GW2 was underhanded and dishonest. The fact that saddam was killing Kurds and Shia was unfortunate but I'm not sure it was a problem for the US to tackle alone. If things get too bad, guys like Saddam are usually assassinated. Warring factions of religious sects is more or less a feature in the ME. It's kind of like a nat'l pastime for them like football is for us. As long as they don't go to war with us like Osama did I have to say they just need to work it out or let NATO take care of it like they did in the Bosnian war.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't have any problem with US troops in Afghanistan. They can stay there forever because the Taliban earned that.

If you constantly have to pay large amounts of money for being there, having causalties, etc. - who gives a crap that they earned it? If they don't threaten us anymore, that's all we need. Plenty of places may have 'earned it'. What does that really mean for the interests of our country?

[TGS]

We do not have the forces to invade and occupy Iran. Nor is there is any conceivable circumstance that the US public would stand for that level of mobilization.

What about the rest of the middle east that would like to see Iran change hands?

We don't have to provide the bulk of the ground troops. We can destroy their command and control structure overnight, neutralize their air force and armor within a week, and back up the Gulf ground troops with C4ISR.

Those countries would war on the ground like how it needs to be done in that region.

[HCM]

You are correct and incorrect about fighting Iran, Gardone. If you look at the conventional panoply of arms - standard planes, tanks and ships - the Iranians would be at a severe disadvantage and these assets would be neutralized. Their irregular naval assets - interesting problem, given the past war game.

If you look at invading and occupying Iran, you are correct that our 'modern' forces would face a horror show of irregular but planned armed resistance that would make Iraq look simple.

We do not have the forces to invade and occupy Iran. Nor is there is any conceivable circumstance that the US public would stand for that level of mobilization.

While an empirical question - The second Iraq war, the incomplete nuclear deal, Obama deals and Trump's immaturity and recklessness will be cited as the a major point in the diminution of the USA in the world. Could be wrong - I am not going to be here to read the 2050 history books.

We won the conventional wars against the Germans and Japanese as they decided at a point to give it up. Just as in the Civil War, serious after the 'end of the war' resistance didn't occur. Would a conventional war against Iran be the same? Does anyone think the Cheney doctrine that after we 'win', that country becomes suburban DC or Long Island?

Serious after end of war resistance most certainly did occur after the American Civil war. You need to do some research on reconstruction. It also occurred to a lesser extent in Germany after WWII. Germany was not fully pacified until 1948-49.

[Borderland]

If you constantly have to pay large amounts of money for being there, having causalties, etc. - who gives a crap that they earned it? If they don't threaten us anymore, that's all we need. Plenty of places may have 'earned it'. What does that really mean for the interests of our country?

A permanent reminder of how F'd up things can get for anyone that wants to attack the US. Kind of a monument in the ME to US resolve in defending our country. Bagram has strategic importance for the US. It's also a throne in the Taliban's side to this day. They need to be poked from time to time.

[HCM]

If you constantly have to pay large amounts of money for being there, having causalties, etc. - who gives a crap that they earned it? If they don't threaten us anymore, that's all we need. Plenty of places may have 'earned it'. What does that really mean for the interests of our country?

There is a collateral benefit to U.S. military forces as a whole to gaining experience in low intensity conflicts. Both “combat” experience and first hand experience in the “friction” and “fog” of real world operations. The Chinese military has actually noted this as one of their deficiencies, they call it “The Peace Disease.”

[HCM]

When you have a lot of weapons and polyglot tribal groups peace is impossible. Even if people aren’t shooting at each other, the preexisting tribal tensions remain . The combatants simply put away their guns until they can strike again later. National peace? Who cares, my tribe hates that one and it’s time to shoot back.

The only permanent solution to that problem is nuking every town and city in the region - with cobalt lined cores for good measure. The other alternatives are ongoing military support to prop up a stable country, or withdrawing until the failed state harbors a group that bombs us stateside. Then we end up coming back anyways and have casualties back home to boot. All three options suck.

There is an option more terrible than nuking every town and city in the region...

[Totem Polar]

I don't have any problem with US troops in Afghanistan. They can stay there forever because the Taliban earned that.

Saddam was a problem but the way the Bush adm went about getting support for GW2 was underhanded and dishonest. The fact that saddam was killing Kurds and Shia was unfortunate but I'm not sure it was a problem for the US to tackle alone. If things get too bad, guys like Saddam are usually assassinated. Warring factions of religious sects is more or less a feature in the ME. It's kind of like a nat'l pastime for them like football is for us. As long as they don't go to war with us like Osama did I have to say they just need to work it out or let NATO take care of it like they did in the Bosnian war.

I have been uncharacteristically silent in this thread, mostly because I don’t know what I don’t know, despite having actually lived in the ME for a bit when I was younger.

But here’s what I do know: Afghanistan is something we pretty much had to do, because hunt for Osama; had to respond somehow. I—along with much of the country—was in favor of that action at the time.

When it came time for 43 and crew to break Iraq, I have vivid memories of being in the trendy, affluent neighborhood bistro, watching all the occupants and most of America go 0-60 in under 5 on the jingo meter. It was pretty much me, Bernie, Barack, and this *incredibly* left-leaning psych major I knew from wine tastings who were wondering WTF was up with Iraq. Folks can look it up: the Bush admin ginned up cause, and all the congress critters went along with it.

Don’t get me wrong; Saddam sucked. And remember the boss’s kids? Uday and Qusay, or whatever? Those guys really were ambulatory pieces of shit who needed an ass kicking.

But the thing is, Iraq had toyota camrys and arts and genetic engineering departments in universities that educated women doctors and women pharmacists who wore pants and nice shoes to work instead of bags over their heads.

We fucked up Iraq, and a number of people got rich—and most of them weren’t the Iraqi people.

The facts of the matter are that large portions of the ME seem to do objectively better under ostensibly pro-west leaders who keep a lid on things, eg. Shah Reza. The fundamentalists in Iran fucked up their own country, but we broke Iraq.