Why we won't "win" in Iraq...

Has anyone read the article in the new Rolling Stone called "The Insurgent's Tale"?

Here is the link

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8898175

This article shows why we will not "win" in Iraq. For the most part, American's do not understand Iraq at all. And (thankfully) for American's we are not willing to do what is needed to "win" in Iraq - and that would be to completely destroy that country.

What really gets me is this realization is right in front of us: ask any patriotic American if they would ever quit defending their country and society, most will say "no". It's like asking a Christian - "Could another person force you to be a non-Christian?" Of course the answer will be "no".

So many Americans are so unwilling to look at issues through others' eyes. If we were faced against a country with an overwhelming military that invaded the US, we would resort to the same sort of tactics as the insurgents in Iraq are (well, we probably wouldn't do the suicide bombing part, but we certainly would resort to guerrilla style warfare).

And this is why we will never "win" in Iraq - they want their country for themselves, just like we want ours for ourselves.

people are retarded.

Over a year ago, Rolling Stone interviewed retired military generals who said we need to get out of Iraq NOW. Check it out (if you haven't seen it already)....


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6593163?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1117251574802&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872

They are feverishly trying to find some way to save face, despite Bush's claims they have a coherent plan to win.

There will be no victory in the sense most of us understand from history books, rather a "victory", according to the supporters of Bush.

This administration makes it difficult to pinpoint and define policies because of their insistence of conducting cover ups and constantly redefining their objectives and plans. It's like trying to hit a moving target, despite Bush's supposed toe the line presentations. The only thing consistent is their stupidity.

It is meant to be continuous.

Bush and the Neocons aren't out to "win" anything. They want to use the war for cover to continue giving American tax dollars to their corporate friends. even using the White House's rosy projections of decreasing annual deficits, by 2009 we will be more than $11,400,000,000,000 in debt by 2009. We'll be bankrupt and the Chinese and Saudis will be among those holding our markers.

The only question now is how much wealth the thieves can loot from the treasury before the debtors come calling. That is what this war is about. And it will continue for as long as it takes to drain our national resources.

"And (thankfully) for American's we are not willing to do what is needed to "win" in Iraq - and that would be to completely destroy that country."

If we did that we'd STILL lose the war because the rest of the region would unite to attack and slaughter our troops and World War III would erupt. I don't see how that wins a war in a region that already looks at us as the enemy as a whole.

Rp

I am leery of posting information from items written by particular people because usually when doing so the attack usually goes toward something the person has written that others do not agree with, rather than the content of any valuable information.

So my point is, from the reading I've done about warfare in the Iraq region, "winning" for the US would take the US committing acts that our democracy will not allow. Certainly, many things have been done that have been terrible - Abu Ghraib, the actual stated reasons for invasion, lying about the use of WP, et cetera - but to "win" in this war, the US would have to completely annihilate Iraq and those who are fighting our forces. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting this, only pointing out that several Middle Eastern scholars have pointed out that to win in the middle east when it comes to warfare means to use unrelenting brutality and devastation.

So when you add this with trying to fundamentally change an entire culture, Dean is right when he says we can't "win" in Iraq.

But here is an example of what I'm getting at: If you read the book Black Hawk Down and then watch the resulting documentaries, after American forces were pulled out of Somalia, the fighting Somalia's that were interviewed bragged about defeating the US military. What really happened was that when a country with some modicum of war ethics faces an enemy that is willing to do anything to survive (hide and fight among civilians to prevent retaliation)the country with some sort of rules of engagement could be defeated because we were not willing to fire missiles and drop bombs on Somalia and Somalian civilians where rebels were hiding among. In other words, if we had wanted to, the US had the ability to roll tank after tank through Somalia, but our own Democratic standards and world reaction prevented that from happening.

Again, I am not suggesting the US go in and completely remove Iraq, but pointing out that the way we are doing the things we are doing have been destined to fail from the very start.