A conversation I had with a couple of vets yesterday

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:04 pm

One was a Vietnam era vet, the other is currently a Lieutenant in the Army National Guard. Both thought taking out Hussein was a good thing and necessary. Both said the military planning and execution of the war itself was exemplary and extremely impressive. Both also said, they should have a different kind of presence for the rebuilding and policing efforts, and that's where the problem lies.

Our military men and women are trained to "kill people and blow sh*t up", and they do that better than anyone else in the world. Expecting them to then be diplomats and ambassadors is dangerous, unproductive, and unrealistic. We can't expect them to switch the badass killer switch on and off at will.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:08 pm

I can post about 50 emails from a medic buddy who is over there right now. The word "quagmire" appears a lot. He also talks about how the media doesn't protray all that the soldiers are accomplishing; but he understands because reporting out there is f'ing dangerous; and reporters are valid targets.

IMHO this is just Vietnam part 2. Soon enough, about 15 years after the ending of combat; a movie hero will appear and we will be super-victorious then.

Our military men and women are trained to "kill people and blow poop up", and they do that better than anyone else in the world. Expecting them to then be diplomats and ambassadors is dangerous, unproductive, and unrealistic. We can't expect them to switch the badass killer switch on and off at will.

I asked him about this. To paraphrase he said: It's not black and white. Every situation is different. It can depend on so many factors there will never be a clearcut answer. Leadership is key; but so would be new training techniques. It's aparant we're never going to fight a 'frontlines' type war, and if we expect our soldiers to accomplish missions in such an enviroment things need to change.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:38 pm

big difference between this and Vietnam - We already won the "war" part. The problem is lying in the rebuilding effort, and really even then it lies in the Sunni triangle. I think we're being unrealistic if we expect the Sunni and Shi-ite groups to work together. Throw in the Kurds and it's downright delusional. We should have finished the war first too, and that means going back into ass-kicking mode in the Sunni Triangle and either beating them into submission or taking them out.

Also, I'm sure your buddy mentioned this, and I know my friends coming back have, but most of the fighting isn't Iraqi's, it's foreign fighters coming in from Iran, Syria, and Chechnya. Of course, our media's too lazy to research that - or they're just biased.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:43 pm

Sharkmansix wrote:

IMHO this is just Vietnam part 2.

I agree with this part of your comment, only because like "back then",
it seems to be trending to where our troops are being
held back from doing their job properly by "back home"
politicians, protesters, far left press, etc...

Most of these same arguments were batted around back
when Johnson, Nixon, Ford were at the helm..

Bottom line: war sucks, things get destroyed, innocent people die...

But, to "cut and run" like in Vietnam accomplishes nothing positive
for the U.S. and enables/encourages our enemies...
(IF, by chance that's your solution)

Mama Dragon · Post by **Mama Dragon** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:03 pm

WBOB wrote:it seems to be trending to where our troops are being
held back from doing their job properly by "back home"
politicians, protesters, far left press, etc...

And I think this is where the main problems are. They (being the admin) should have just handed over a list of things to be accomplished and let the military meet those objectives using their own expertise and experience without all the outside interference.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:04 pm

bassjones wrote:big difference between this and Vietnam - We already won the "war" part.

By what measure? It seems to me that the forces have gone guerilla (not unlike certain patriots of old) and the definition of victory is about as sliding scale as one can get.

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:10 pm

Sankofa wrote: the definition of victory is about as sliding scale as one can get.

agreed.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Mamadragon wrote:

And I think this is where the main problems are. They (being the admin) should have just handed over a list of things to be accomplished and let the military meet those objectives using their own expertise and experience without all the outside interference.

Agreed! and no one could ever do it better
than our military.

Bjart Sod · Post by **Bjart Sod** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:43 pm

WBOB wrote: I agree with this part of your comment, only because like "back then",
it seems to be trending to where our troops are being
held back from doing their job properly by "back home"
politicians, protesters, far left press, etc...

The military works for us, not the other way around. (We pay their salary, we elect their top leader.) Not meaning to disrespect the troops at all (that's a hellova commitment they make), but shouldn't we all have a say?

(And despite being liberal as I wanna be, I'm against pulling out. We owe the Iraqis a safe country now. I just think regime change should ahve begun in the mind, not the trigger.)

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:28 pm

About the only thing we can do now is partition up the country amongst its neighbors. The Shiite regions to Iran, the Kurd regions to Turkey, etc. It might buy us back a little credibility in the region.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:04 pm

that sounds like what we did to Europe following WW2 when we gave Russia control of Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Romania, etc... and 1/2 of Germany. We took people we had just rescued from Adolf Hitler and his demonic thugs and turned them over to Stalin, who ended up making Hitler look like Mother Teresa.

You really think it's wise to give that demon in Iran control of another group of people? Then they really could say they'd have been better off with Hussein...

BTW, I define winning the war as: the leader was captured by our forces, the military surrendered, the people have elected a new government and crafted a constitution and are in the process of rebuilding their country. We aren't fighting against the Vietcong here. The only fighting going on is with a very small group of insurgents, bolstered by a small group of hardened criminals from other countries.

Bjart Sod · Post by **Bjart Sod** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:43 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:About the only thing we can do now is partition up the country amongst its neighbors. The Shiite regions to Iran, the Kurd regions to Turkey, etc. It might buy us back a little credibility in the region.

The Kurd regions to Turkey!!!!!!!??????????? What!?

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:38 pm

Yeah, I stepped in it there. Kurdistan should be its own country.

And as great as democracy is, it is a Western concept that evolved through a painful process of blood sweat and tears. Sticking a Western-style democracy in the Middle East arbitrarily circumvents a lot of those steps. Partition is no more stupid than what we a re trying to do now.

Bjart Sod · Post by **Bjart Sod** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:02 pm

I'd actually support partition, if the individual regions could be economically self-sustaining. But I somehow doub they are. Urban areas also complicate matters.