Secret weapon? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Medmech · #16 09-09-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Nonsense. If Bush had listened to Gen. Shinzeki's advice before the invasion to send half a million troops to secure the peace, there wouldn't have been this mess to begin with. And the surge worked primarily because Al-Sadr disappeared and Sunni jihadists had started turning against Al-Qaeda, and then were paid by US taxpayers to keep the peace in their neighborhoods. The "secret weapon" that actually did the job is most likely this "appeasement" of Sunni jihadists.

I was in agreement with you until the second sentence.

The secret weapon is men in black or Special Forces to the lay person, professionals doing a very dirty job which does entail the diplomacy that you speak of. The Rumsfeld admin had no clue about how to handle special ops.

One person has no bearing on the outcome of asymmetric warfare.

tankdriver · #17 09-09-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What it took was the will to fight. Al Sadr didn't quit fighting because he got Jesus in his heart. He quit fighting because we killed his army faster than he could raise it. After his defeat became obvious to everybody, including Sadr, he chose a more peaceful route to power. Though he has STILL not embraced democracy. And he still lives in Iran ... coincidentally.

I don't think this is the case. He didn't quit fighting. He paused. Both he and the Sunnis are waiting for the second round of elections that were supposed to have taken place already. They are being patient for now, but there is no reason to believe that patience is infinite.

DieselAddict · #18 09-09-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Shinseki was clearly wrong in what he said: That to defeat Saddam's army would require a half-million men. People have changed Shinseki's argument to fit the aftermath where had he said it would take a half-million men, he would STILL have been wrong.

What it took was the will to fight. Al Sadr didn't quit fighting because he got Jesus in his heart. He quit fighting because we killed his army faster than he could raise it. After his defeat became obvious to everybody, including Sadr, he chose a more peaceful route to power. Though he has STILL not embraced democracy. And he still lives in Iran ... coincidentally.

What changed the Iraqi Sunnis was the increasing brutality of the Al Qaedistas against the Iraqi tribal leadership and Iraqi women (especially) and men who didn't embrace their lunatic version of Islam. The incompetent Iraqi government did not wish to share power with their former enemies and so the coalition military stepped in and helped the Sunnis do what they wanted to do: Kill Al Qaeda and take back their own country. The central government is still reluctant to recognize Sunni leadership but the coalition military has essentially told them to get used to it.

As the Sunnis have taken-up political and security responsibilities and continue to kill Al Qaeda the coalition has gone back to garrison duty. Casualties are at the lowest they have been since the invasion and the Iraqis are taking charge. That's a good thing, right?

The coalition military is doing what it should have done 5 years ago -- counter-insurgency by killing bad guys and helping good guys.

Don't confuse what I argue with support for this big army strategy. I think that is a proven loser. What we should have done is run a classic CIA insurgency and toppled Saddam the old-fashioned way, then let the Iraqis struggle over what came next. But once we were in there in force we had 2 choices -- win or surrender. In my estimation ... that is no choice at all.

B

Al-Sadr's army was never a big challenge to US forces. It was the Sunni jihadists, many of them former Iraqi soldiers. So yes, Shinzeki was right. It took several years to defeat/convert them and it would have been much faster with more boots on the ground and the right strategy. What point is there in being able to invade but not hold the ground? That's exactly what happened with the light invasion force. I'd agree that the US military is finally doing what it should have done 5 years ago, but that includes paying off the bad guys, something that was not possible under Rumsfeld's and Cheney's chest-beating gorilla leadership.

DieselAddict · #19 09-09-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

The secret weapon is men in black or Special Forces to the lay person, professionals doing a very dirty job which does entail the diplomacy that you speak of. The Rumsfeld admin had no clue about how to handle special ops.

Of course, but where do they get their intelligence? From the former bad guys that are being paid off.

Botnst · #20 09-10-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I don't think this is the case. He didn't quit fighting. He paused. Both he and the Sunnis are waiting for the second round of elections that were supposed to have taken place already. They are being patient for now, but there is no reason to believe that patience is infinite.

Pause? Quit? Whatever you say.

The reality was that we killed his soldiers faster than he could recruit, train and arm them. In the meantime, The Iraqi army became increasingly competent and is now able and WILLING to face-down the Mahdi "Army".

Concerning the Sunnis, we wont know until some date in the future. Hopefully by that time the central government will have reached an acceptable accommodation.

In any case, we have given the Iraqi government 2 chances to get it right. The first one they screwed-up. This second chance appears to be working. And that's a good thing, right?

B