Has the Shiite hit the fan?

[Cossack]

I am sure you have all heard what is going on in Iraq right now with the recent uprising of this Shittes in the South. Apparently 30 US soldiers are KIA since the uprising began, thus making it the highest casualty rate of the "post war." What do you guys think this recent turn of events means? The US could be triumphant over the enemy (I think that is a bit too optomistic), the Shittes could calm down, or this could be the start of a Viet Nam type conflict. Now I hate to draw similarities to Vietnam and this war seeing as it is no where near as intense as this war yet. However take this statistic into consideration. I took three or so years since formal US involvment in the Vietnam conflict to number 600 American dead. It took one year for that to happen in Iraq. So although we do not have 50,000 bodies coming back the chance for escalation seems apparent. Do you think we should take McNamara's advice and "re-examine our thinking"?

[alaric]

There are a few major differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

In Iraq:

There was no civil war before we went in.
We started the conflict.
There is no other super power backing the other side.

In Veitnam:

Decades of civil war existed prior to our involvement.
The soviets and chinese backed the vietnamese.


Leaving before the new Iraqi authority has control will just create a dangerous power-vaccum in the middle east. We started the shit there, we MUST finish it, no matter the cost. We should never have gone to Iraq, but now that we're in, we have to finish the job.

If we fail to stabalize Iraq, the whole region will likely fall into chaos.

["Sixhits"]

It's bad news.

Is it Vietnam? No.

But it's bad, bad news. It seems that what happened is we're facing an uprising in numerous cities, simultanously. At least not yet has it become a general uprising. But if the CPA doesn't handle this right, and handle it delicately where needed, we're gonna see another Thug, this Sadr guy, end up giving us more than a bloody nose.

The dude's hungry, as we say in Hollywood. This while America is loosing it's appetiete.

I'm really, really, really hoping the CPA handles this with skill.

And then there's more bad news:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-035654-8564r

>>>
But Tuesday afternoon, one of the worst possible scenarios the CPA could imagine came true in a public way when the Sunni-led resistance forces publicly declared their support for Sadr.

This development would have been unthinkable a week ago as the previous resistance organizations have been led by religious Sunni -- who consider the Shiite heretics in Islam -- and former Baath members whose secular regime brutally oppressed the Shiites for decades.

But even as U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles surrounded Sadr's headquarters in a vast Shiite neighborhood named for his father, emissaries arrived from the tribal leaders of Sunni regions and from the largest resistance movement in Iraq to offer their services to Sadr in his fight against the Americans ...
<<<

I guess Bush is a uniter after all.

[cO.gabe]

Bradleys? Geurilla combat?  No wonder so many Marines have been killed.  What happened to all the tanks, bombs, and missiles?  Just blow the whole damn headquarters up for crying out loud.

[Cossack]

Logistics man. You never think the great United States Army would succumb to supply problems but it does just like every army in the world. Tanks in the Desert get dusty and those Abrahms tanks are like a beutiful woman. They can conduct wonders but they require high maintnance. With the dust of the desert they have PMS every day. I was talking with a VietNam vet who was a LT in the War. Apparently he commanded an Armour unit of some sort. According to him he could switch out the engine of an old Pershing in an hour, whereas an Abrahms tank an engine replacment could take days. The same goes with cruise missiles and bombs. You only got a limited number of those high tech gadgets and contrary to popular beleif the American military industries are not pumping them out like sausages.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

According to him he could switch out the engine of an old Pershing in an hour, whereas an Abrahms tank an engine replacment could take days.

It's ABRAMS tank, not Abrahms.....named for General Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr., who was the Commanding General in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972, and Chief of Staff of the Army from 1972 until his death while on active duty on September 4, 1974.

Also, the M1 Abrams tank series engines are so hard to change out because they are GAS TURBINES, not some old diesel engine.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Cossack in College]

Sorry about this the Abrams-Abrahms thing but my point is still the same, it is high maintnance.

[a_Dingo]

In Australia we also have crap about this conflict becoming another Vietnam. No way I say.

The difference imo is that Vietnam was a conflict where politics ruled the decisions on the ground, ok same thing happening here you say.

The difference is that in that part of the world you are battling faith. There is no way that battle can be won short of genocide. Just look at what is happening in the Gaza Strip.

I think that the western "Alliance of the Willing" have managed to get themselves into the same situation that Russia got in Afghanistan. Sooner or later the willing will loose their fortitude and become unwilling to stay. Then the country will end up going the same way as Afghanistan, and THAT war of liberation has not fixed that country either.

["Sixhits"]

Dingo, you're right. It's not Vietnam. Iraq is it's own beast. But you're wrong about it being due to faith and not politics. Iraq repeats many of the themes of Vietnam, but foremost among them is the theme of politicians running the war rather than warriors running the war.

Do you remember General Eric K. Shinseki? He was the Army's top general before the Bush administration fired him and has become famous for predicting the US would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq. This prediction was the reason he was "retired" early. Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the number two man in the Pentagon called the General's estimates "wildly off the mark". The Pentagon is the cilivian oversight organization that runs the US military and applies and develops war related policy. Pentagon officials put the number of troops closer to 100,000.

By all acounts the US is woefulyl understaffed in Iraq. We have roughly 120,000 soldiers there. Commander in the field are openly stating they we not take the fall for the Iraq failure. This and 25,000 soldiers who were slated to return home were roated back into Iraq last week.

We talk big about how tough we are and how we'll stick it out. The truth is we won't. The deadline (now that turn of phrase has added meaning) for pulling out ot Iraq is June 30th. According to Bush the only thing still sure about our jaunt in Iraq is that we're cutting loose in June.

The trouble is, there is no plan for the hand off of power. What will happen on July 1st is anyone's guess.

Politically, Bush needs to get the fuck out of Iraq. His war president pitch is falling flat - as some have said, you can only run as a war president if you are winning the war. More and more Americans believe we are losing in Iraq. What of the "war on terrorism"? Bush's rhetoric about how Iraq is the frontline of the war on terrorism cuts against him. If it's the frontline and we're losing then we are loosing the war on terrorism.

Worse for Bush American citizens can see and hear us failing. The Shiite-Sunni uprisings have clarified our failings with higher body counts of colation soldiers and touching and often terrifying reporting from the Iraqi point of view. Since our boys on the ground are outnumbered, unsupported, and exposed, and our response to the insurgants so heavy handed and imprecise the pretidge of men like Sadr has risen while our crediblity is in the muck.

More than that, Bush is losing the hearts and minds of Americans here at home. Having tied himself so closely to Iraq - personalized the exdeavour, if you will - the bad news is especially bad for him. That and the confusion over what really happened before 9/11, the dodge of responsiblity in regards to advance warning of hijackings in America with New York and Washington buildings being named, the difference between the candor of Clarke and the evasive Rice - Bush is running out of gas with the American public when it comes to trust. And he as insists on pulling out of Iraq, that it is the deadline that matters not the success of the pull out or the stability of Iraq afterward, it is clear that for Bush politics trumps all.

Only he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.


Oh what a wicked web we weave ...

[a_Dingo]

Six, I was not trying to say that politics was not a significant component of the problem for all of us that have managed to find ourselves in the mess in Iraq. As a citizen of a country that is deep in the mire there on the back of the American domestic politics I will never count that out as a major contributor to the FUBAR that is starting to evolve there.

What I was trying to say that as an overlay to the political situation that is on our side of the equation, Iraq is fundamentally different in that many there have a view of the world that is fueled by fundamentalism and tribalism. IMO, changing these two components of the equation cannot be done at the end of a gun, and will not be achieved with the current forces and approach on the ground.

As you said there is no plan for what happened after the war, there i none now, and I believe that there was never one to start. Perhaps there was a blind faith view that the people of Iraq would just embrace democracy (something that they would need to learn) and all would be well. Perhaps saying that would is cynical of me, but hey cynicism is something that politicians know all too well.

["Sixhits"]

I see what you're saying Dingo. Ah-HA said the blind man (me).

The only point I think is off is that fundamentalism in religion is the significant motivator is Iraqi insurgancy. I remain convinced it is the bungling of the polically game - the CPA's warrent for the arrest of Sadr and the closing of his paper, for example - that are at the root of our troubles there.

I completely agree that any attempts to influence their tribal social nature or their religious beliefs at the end of a gun is doomed to failure. Which is precisely why I see our troubles in Iraq as political ones. We have to influence them with our policies, not our arms.

Yah. For the Bush administration everything is faith based. The Iraqis will throw flowers at our feet. 120,000 troops will be enough to occupy the nation. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will play nice together. You just gotta believe ...