"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:

"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.


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this
will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear
message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that
we're at their mercy. I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in
shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. I
personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through
respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our
options open up a bit.

Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable
situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur,
both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of
the campaign. Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. There
would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while
not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of
yet.

Dave

snip
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.


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out.

Not yet.

I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You
seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back?
Does it sound like such a bad idea now?

Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting
the job done. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while
asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without
getting a piece of the action? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the
rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the
baton to the UN. That means that it is time to let them have some say in how
things are done. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and
rebuilding contracts.

End of story.

But you are not considering the emotional boost that this
will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear
message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that
we're at their mercy.

For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time
talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the
Arab people. Not! Just how stupid do you think these people are? I don't
think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they
can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the
emperor has no clothes!

I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in
shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us.

Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before?

In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group
before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these
people by nuking them? Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better
than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. On the other hand, it
might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into
vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed
off people might even be American citizens!

I
personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through
respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our
options open up a bit.

I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are
laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the
better they will get at it. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a
box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the
war was still running hot.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1

Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined?

Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable
situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur,
both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of
the campaign.

Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What
embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them*
winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for?

Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without
ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? I do
spend some time reading some of what is available on the web and exchanging
the odd email with Arab friends. I don't think we are making the impression
you are hoping for.

There
would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while
not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of
yet.

Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. *They* are very
aware of that. All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have
stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have
formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super
power that has dropped by. All we can do at this point is loose more money
and people without any possibility of winning. We can't get to the people
behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that.

In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight
like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of
red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed
us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they*
stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade
back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting
in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the
civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels
here?

Mark Browne

PS - I told you so!

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out.

News flash: We were in a bad situation the moment your leader, who thinks
he's playing a video game, first opened his mouth and began sabre rattling.
That was long before the first shots were fired, but from that moment on, he
put us in a position where there was no turning back.

"Bad situation"? That was obvious to a whole lot of people long ago, Dave.

The enemy could've been crumbled in other ways:

1) Having their leaders snuffed out in spooky ways, like that truck we
nailed with a drone-launched bomb in Sudan or wherever the hell it was.

2) Telling a few of those countries that they can rot in their own **** for
all we care (a policy that's even suggested by some progressive Arab
thinkers who've had it up to here with the extremist whiners).

But...no. When you're the president and your need for a constant erection
can only be satisfied by scenarios resembling something from "Ghost Recon",
you have to go to war to be satisfied.

Question: If we had to kiss Saudi Arabia goodbye for a few years as an oil
supplier, and ask Americans to immediately find ways to sacrifice by driving
their cars 30% less, do you think we'd do it, or would we prefer to send our
kids overseas to be killed?

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.