"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

snip
NYOB,

There were a chorus of voices saying that we should stay the course in
Vietnam right up until the end.

While this may be a bit early to ask about Iraq, What sorts of signs would
you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make
the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Much of the discussion has been focused on what we *want* for Iraq - a
western style democracy, oil, a base in the middle east, a positive
political poster child for the neocon ideals, security. It is relatively
easy to frame and measure success against the goals.

The shape of the answer to my question above goes a long way towards
deciding if current actions are taking the USA towards failure.

Before you rush to answer this, do you think that the Soviets left
Afghanistan too early or too late? In perfect 20/20 hindsight, what should
have been the warning signs? Considering the eventual cost of the occupation
to the Soviet government (complete collapse of the government) this does
seem like a relevant question in this closely related situation.

Mark Browne

I think we establish bases there *outside the cities*, help organize a
police force and governing body, and then pull back to those bases and let
the democratically elected government rule the country. We remain in our
bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a coup.
If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and asks
us to leave, then we should consider leaving.


"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

snip
NYOB,

There were a chorus of voices saying that we should stay the course in
Vietnam right up until the end.

While this may be a bit early to ask about Iraq, What sorts of signs would
you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make
the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Much of the discussion has been focused on what we *want* for Iraq - a
western style democracy, oil, a base in the middle east, a positive
political poster child for the neocon ideals, security. It is relatively
easy to frame and measure success against the goals.

The shape of the answer to my question above goes a long way towards
deciding if current actions are taking the USA towards failure.

Before you rush to answer this, do you think that the Soviets left
Afghanistan too early or too late? In perfect 20/20 hindsight, what should
have been the warning signs? Considering the eventual cost of the
occupation
to the Soviet government (complete collapse of the government) this does
seem like a relevant question in this closely related situation.

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

snip
NYOB,

There were a chorus of voices saying that we should stay the course in
Vietnam right up until the end.

While this may be a bit early to ask about Iraq, What sorts of signs
would
you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you
make
the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Much of the discussion has been focused on what we *want* for Iraq - a
western style democracy, oil, a base in the middle east, a positive
political poster child for the neocon ideals, security. It is relatively
easy to frame and measure success against the goals.

The shape of the answer to my question above goes a long way towards
deciding if current actions are taking the USA towards failure.

Before you rush to answer this, do you think that the Soviets left
Afghanistan too early or too late? In perfect 20/20 hindsight, what
should
have been the warning signs? Considering the eventual cost of the
occupation
to the Soviet government (complete collapse of the government) this does
seem like a relevant question in this closely related situation.

Mark Browne

Pull top post to bottom post


"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I think we establish bases there *outside the cities*, help organize a
police force and governing body, and then pull back to those bases and let
the democratically elected government rule the country. We remain in our
bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a
coup.
If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and
asks
us to leave, then we should consider leaving.


Reasonable armchair quarterback strategy. If you spend some time reading
about the Soviet experience in the area you may see some interesting
parallels with what is happening in Iraq now. We are in about the same place
in the Soviet timeline. In the first two years the losses were fairly light;
the number just about match what we are now seeing. It ended up just about
the way you are describing. Towards the end, the soviets did end up huddling
in their bases as the looses mounted. Nobody wanted to go out because it was
going so badly. They only came out to stage raids on the ever more brazen
resistance forces. Unfortunately, it helped the resistance forces because it
made the soldiers more predictable. The routes to and from the bases were
mined with tank busters. Gunships were shot from the skies as they tried to
fly above it all. In the end it was fairly common for the Mujahideen to
kidnap a solder, either from the base or on patrol, mutilate or kill him in
a most horrible way, and return the body for maximum terror effect. With any
luck at all (luck come in two flavors!) this could all be ours!

A further note on your plan: that the government that we set up in
Afghanistan is not able to do much in the way of ruling the country. It is
not safe for relief worker to work - Most have pulled out. Reconstruction is
at a stop - the workers are killed on the job site. "Collaborators" are
killed so the general population is reluctant to participate. Warlords run
everything outside Kabul. Please elaborate how your plan will address these
issues with the soldiers holed up in the remote bases?

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

Every good manager (synonymous with military officer) has some idea when a
project needs to be abandoned. If the original idea for the project came
with a 2 year time line, a good manager knows how to evaluate it constantly
and either adjust techniques, or wind it down.

Answer the question.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question:
What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government
feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out -
at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological
point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan.

Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out
different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The
underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break
things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get
something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically
possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so
are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do
that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal
punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an
endless stream of converts to the rebel cause.

While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom
fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to
do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is
keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you
around, they may be able to pull it off.

Mark Browne

Mark Browne wrote:

Reasonable armchair quarterback strategy. If you spend some time reading
about the Soviet experience in the area you may see some interesting
parallels with what is happening in Iraq now. We are in about the same place
in the Soviet timeline. In the first two years the losses were fairly light;
the number just about match what we are now seeing. It ended up just about
the way you are describing. Towards the end, the soviets did end up huddling
in their bases as the looses mounted. Nobody wanted to go out because it was
going so badly. They only came out to stage raids on the ever more brazen
resistance forces. Unfortunately, it helped the resistance forces because it
made the soldiers more predictable. The routes to and from the bases were
mined with tank busters. Gunships were shot from the skies as they tried to
fly above it all. In the end it was fairly common for the Mujahideen to
kidnap a solder, either from the base or on patrol, mutilate or kill him in
a most horrible way, and return the body for maximum terror effect. With any
luck at all (luck come in two flavors!) this could all be ours!

One item you are conveniently leaving out. In the case of the Soviets in
Afghanistan, the resistance fighters were being armed and assisted by us
(Which is part of the reason why we have a problem now). The resistance
fighters had almost unlimited arms and resources at their disposal.

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.


Dave

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.