[Troll]

While the sh!t hits the fan in Lebanon, a lot of us have forgotten about Iraq. 100 deaths a day in Iraq now from "sectarian violence". This is double the number of daily casualties in Lebanon. Bush tells us Lebanon is a war but Iraq is not. Go figure.

So what do Iraq experts think will happen in Iraq now? Here are some quotes for you:

"The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."
William Patey, Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5240808.stm

"They absolutely think we're leaving. This is what happened in Afghanistan when it became clear the Russians were leaving. The factions began fighting each other."

"Talking about a new strategy is useless until we get a new team—in the Pentagon, in the Administration. These guys have screwed up everything. They haven't got the credibility to implement anything."
Retired Marine Colonel Thomas X. Hammes

"This is the battle for Baghdad that didn't take place in 2003 ... Our troops need to be relocated from the safety of their forward operating bases right into the middle of Baghdad. That will mean more U.S. casualties. And if this doesn't reduce the violence over the next few months, we may have to change our basic strategy."

"We could partition Baghdad. It's beginning to partition itself."
Anonymous US Army General in Iraq

"If partition happens, Iraq as a political project is finished."
Anonymous Senior Iraqi Official

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...220442,00.html

So that's where things stand. Iraq is pretty much already engaged in a civil war with Iran and Syria funding the Shiites and Jordan and Saudi Arabia funding the insurgency. More and more people are talking about the partitioning of Iraq and Baghdad (read some of the Iraq blogs for more) and the unravelling of the country cobbled together by the Brits.

The inevitable outcome is likely to be at least one country similar to Afghanistan that is a haven for terrorists but has way more resources than Afghanistan ever had. The only way of avoiding the inevtiable is to incur more American casualties by fighting the battle now that should have been fought in 2003 - the battle to secure the country. But to do that would require new leadership at least at the Pentagon. Personally I don't see that happening. I can hear the beeping of US trucks in reverse gear from here. I think the Administration will hope that Iraq continues to slip off the general populace's radar and then the US military in Iraq will suck off into the funset.

[TETENAL]

What would be so bad about splitting Iraq in three parts?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

What would be so bad about splitting Iraq in three parts?

What, you mean besides the thousands of killings?

Iraq could never split up peacefully as the oil is only concentrated in certain areas of the country. Any group that is seen as benefiting more from the oil would become a target by another group. There is no way it could happen.


I think the US should send in more troops. How many do they have there? 120,000? Maybe they should re-activate the draft and up that number to 200,000. More the merrier. Oh and money, they should start airdropping $100 bills by the bucket load.

[Kevin]

What do you mean? Like terrorists training camps?

It has been that way for awhile. Before we got there.

[analogika]

no.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

What would be so bad about splitting Iraq in three parts?

That's been my idea for three years now. Support the Kurds and Sunni and tell the Shiite to go to hell. Split the oil between the two, arm Kuwaiit to the teeth and let them take the other half of those southern fields around Basra. F*ck Iraq as a country.

To quote from Syriana:

"What does the business world think of you? We think a hundred years ago you were running around the desert living in tents and chopping each other's heads off and you'll be doing the same thing in another hundred years."

In Lebanon it's the same thing. At the end of the day Hezbollah may win a PR victory but what have they produced for their people? While the Lebanese make pita bread and chips the Israelis make silicon chips. While Hezbollah raises their hands to heaven and shout "Praise Allah" Israel makes components for space programs to explore the heavens. The day after the Oslo peace accords it was Hezbollah who launched volleys of rocket fire into Israel, not the other way around.

If not for the oil none of us would even give a rat's ass about what happens out there.

[Rumor]

Split into three eh? Exxon, Mobil & Shell?

[tie]

I think it is a bit premature to be making plans about Iraq's future, isn't it?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by tie

I think it is a bit premature to be making plans about Iraq's future, isn't it?

Yeah. Because we definitely shouldn't be making plans about Iraq's future until a good 5 years after we invade the country. Definitely should not have even thought about making plans about Iraq's future before we invaded the country.

Invade, kill Saddam, that's it! No planning.

[aktivizt]

Well it appears that the U.S. and Britain (the 51st, State) have screwed up World Peace for the forseeable future. Their combined attacks on Iraq, Lebanon and any other state that questions their Capitalist idealism (insert Any Middle Eastern Country Here) will drag us all into the 3rd. World War-(which now appears to be under way). The Bush/Blair regime has made the world a less safer place for us all...remember that next time you travel abroad on holiday!!!!!

[aktivizt]

What is the problem the US have with Iraq?
besides wantin' their oil that is, If it were human rights abuses carried out by Saddam Hussein O.K., but if that is the case why did they support Pinochet in Chile; ask the Chileans on that one! you'd be surprised!. Or for that matter, what about China (too powerful to take on?) they are commies too, that should get your blood boiling? but no, we'll be pals with them or else they could make big trouble for us, i.e. higher prices in WalMart, all that junk would have to be made in the U.S.
Isn't it about time the U.S. pulled its horns in and realised it is now an ex world power; this would then save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians who are being murdered in the name of "freedom & democracy".
*****Keep your nose out of other peoples business*******
A good rule for life from which the US government could learn a lot and reduce their enemies around the world.

[aktivizt]

I came onto this forum to talk about Macs and am now so pissed off with the world I'm off to bed.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spliffdaddy]

What's the big deal about World War 3 ?

Nothing to worry about. Unless your country isn't going to win.

The only way to peace is through victory.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Split into three eh? Exxon, Mobil & Shell?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by aktivizt

Well it appears that the U.S. and Britain (the 51st, State) have screwed up World Peace for the forseeable future.

Yeah, the world was such a peaceful place before the US was attacked on 9/11. Never mind the genocides in Africa or the Middle East. They would have stopped once one side killed the entire other side.

Hint, aktivizt, try to understand it. The biggest obstical to world peace is NOT the US or UK. It's fundamentalist, militant Islam.

Originally Posted by aktivizt

Their combined attacks on Iraq, Lebanon and any other state that questions their Capitalist idealism (insert Any Middle Eastern Country Here) will drag us all into the 3rd. World War-(which now appears to be under way).

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

None of this would have happened without Islamic terrorists (who give a bad name to the rest of the faith) attacking anyone who doesn't believe in their warped view of a religion.

It is the Islamic extremists who are trying to commit genocide, eliminating first the Jews (Israel), then moving on to anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

Originally Posted by aktivizt

The Bush/Blair regime has made the world a less safer place for us all...remember that next time you travel abroad on holiday!!!!!

Bush and Blair are both elected officials. Bush will not be in office three years from now. Islamic terrorists will be still trying to kill us all.

Get your timeline straight. 9/11/2001 comes before the US or UK attacked anyone.

I'm not saying that any of this has been done perfectly. It's a mess, but war is messy. But I'm a hell of a lot happier with TRYING to do something than sitting on our hands waiting for the next 9/11 (or 3/11 in Spain or 7/7 in London.)

It's just a matter of time before these warped terrorists attack in Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, or in your town.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Split into three eh? Exxon, Mobil & Shell?

Rumor, you can be pretty damn funny when you apply yourself!

When are you going to be in Bozeman so I can buy you a beer?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Yeah, the world was such a peaceful place before the US was attacked on 9/11. Never mind the genocides in Africa or the Middle East. They would have stopped once one side killed the entire other side.

Peace is like a unicorn. A beautiful idea, but one that has never been seen. Good cannot exist without evil. Life without death. Male without female. Light without dark. Peanut butter without jelly.

(I'll probably be scoping it out next spring, early summer)

[hey!_Zeus]

"Iraq is the next Afghanistan"

Jesus Christ...what is it now ...Norway?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

arm Kuwaiit to the teeth

Haven't you noticed what happens when the US arms someone to the teeth? They usually turn around an bite the US in the leg ... Israel being the only possible exception.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

What's the big deal about World War 3 ?

Nothing to worry about. Unless your country isn't going to win.

The only way to peace is through victory.

Ah I see. You don't actually care about the lives of those who have to fight the war, or the lives of those caught in the crossfire. How convenient.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

What's the big deal about World War 3 ?

Nothing to worry about. Unless your country isn't going to win.

The only way to peace is through victory.

You mean war is the only means of peace.


See the irony is more obvious now.

[goMac]

Well think about it. World War I led to one of the most peaceful eras in world history! See. War is a good cleansing thing that creates peace.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

What's the big deal about World War 3 ?

Nothing to worry about. Unless your country isn't going to win.

*sigh*

I thought we've been over this.

In a full-scale war, nobody ever wins.

You idiot.

[Troll]

The problem with splitting Iraq up is that, apart from the Kurds, the various ethnic entities that are fighting are not neatly distributed around the country. They're all represented in Baghdad and there's no logical way of drawing a line between them. Settling borders between the groups will take years of violence.

Another quote for you.

"Waging war in Iraq to combat terrorism has transformed Iraq into a nexus of terrorism it hadn't been before. Justifying the operation in Lebanon by putting Hezbollah on the same terrorism shelf as Al Qaeda is getting radical Sunnis to back radical Shiites in a way we'd never imagined."
Francois Heisbourg, Foundation for Strategic Research

So whilst Shiites and Sunnis oppose each other in Iraq, the war in Lebanon is uniting them in opposition against Israel. Maybe a decent war between Israel and the Arab states will save Iraq. Either way, there is no doubt that the situation on the ground in Iraq is worse than the worst case scenario that the neocons predicted for Iraq.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by analogika

*sigh*

I thought we've been over this.

In a full-scale war, nobody ever wins.

You idiot.

The people watching from the couch might win ...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Troll

Maybe a decent war between Israel and the Arab states will save Iraq.

'Decent war'?

I don't think there will ever be a lasting peace/settlement between Israel and the Arabs as a result of violence or more all out wars. Look at the impact of Israel's military strikes on Lebanon, its only strengthened support for radical solutions and hasn't brought any gains strategic or otherwise for Israel. What the crisis in Lebanon does show is that despite Israel's supposedly superior military power and nuclear capability it's people still cannot be sure of their security. Peace with it's Arab neighbours is the only method of guaranteeing sustainable security.

With regard to Iraq, if the Israel-Palestine dispute was solved tomorrow I don't think it would have a huge impact in Iraq. That country still needs a viable, legitimate and effective state with the capacity to provide for it's people. Without such an authority Iraqis will continue to identify with those sub-state groups that can provide for them, which is why the country is fracturing along sectarian lines.

[Landos Mustache]

Big surprise. The US created more of a mess then what was there before. They are going to spend the next 20 years trying to clean it up with tons of lives lost, money, no support from other countries and when they leave the East will hate the US more then before this all started. Rinse and repeat.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

'Decent war'?

The theory (which I don't support) is that if there were a major war between Arab states and Israel, Sunnis and Shiites would forget their differences and unite with that in turn having the consequence that Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would miraculously get along. As I said, I think that's unlikely. I think that until the power vacuum is filled in Iraq, each of the groups there will continue to try to fill it. The only way, for me, of calming Iraq is for the US to send in more troops and for those troops to get out of their far flung green zones and police the streets with Iraqi government forces thereby filling the power vacuum with US and Iraqi troops. Then they need to spend a good few years slowly transferring power over to the Iraqis in a manner which doesn't allow the vacuum to reappear. Otherwise, with the Sunni insurgency funded by Saudia Arabia and Jordan opposing the Shiite government sponsored by the United States, Iran and Syria, there could be violence and instability in Iraq for decades - instability that can be exploited by terrorists and radical groups just as the instability in Afghanistan was exploited after the Russians left.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Troll

The theory (which I don't support) is that if there were a major war between Arab states and Israel, Sunnis and Shiites would forget their differences and unite with that in turn having the consequence that Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would miraculously get along. As I said, I think that's unlikely. I think that until the power vacuum is filled in Iraq, each of the groups there will continue to try to fill it. The only way, for me, of calming Iraq is for the US to send in more troops and for those troops to get out of their far flung green zones and police the streets with Iraqi government forces thereby filling the power vacuum with US and Iraqi troops. Then they need to spend a good few years slowly transferring power over to the Iraqis in a manner which doesn't allow the vacuum to reappear. Otherwise, with the Sunni insurgency funded by Saudia Arabia and Jordan opposing the Shiite government sponsored by the United States, Iran and Syria, there could be violence and instability in Iraq for decades - instability that can be exploited by terrorists and radical groups just as the instability in Afghanistan was exploited after the Russians left.

I agree in general. But at this point I don't even think an increase in a US troop presence could do it. The presence of foreign troops is one of the primary factors fuelling the insurgency. Had the US deployed adequate troops from the beginning they might not have been in this mess. But then again, as much as I hate to say it, pure brute force is probably the only way Iraq will be brought under control - but it would be better if Iraqi security forces associated with the state employed this method rather than the Americans.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

it would be better if Iraqi security forces associated with the state employed this method rather than the Americans.

I agree. I'd love to see Iraqi forces take control of security themselves but there aren't enough trained and equipped Iraqis at this stage to maintain security (as the current situation evidences) and by the time the Iraqis are in a position to control security, the country will be too far gone. As you say, the country is probably already too far gone, but miracles might still happen. Another 200,000 troops in Iraq might head disaster off at the pass if they're deployed soon. I don't see any other options anyway.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by analogika

*sigh*

I thought we've been over this.

In a full-scale war, nobody ever wins.

You idiot.

More idealistic nonsense! YOu don't even get it. The Muslim extremists want to take over the world. We can either talk, give away land and appease them, or we can KILL THEM ALL.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Troll

I agree. I'd love to see Iraqi forces take control of security themselves but there aren't enough trained and equipped Iraqis at this stage to maintain security (as the current situation evidences) and by the time the Iraqis are in a position to control security, the country will be too far gone. As you say, the country is probably already too far gone, but miracles might still happen. Another 200,000 troops in Iraq might head disaster off at the pass if they're deployed soon. I don't see any other options anyway.

I suppose the other option is to engage in talks with the insurgency. This was tried last year by the Americans but only half-heartedly.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

More idealistic nonsense! YOu don't even get it. The Muslim extremists want to take over the world. We can either talk, give away land and appease them, or we can KILL THEM ALL.

Rubbish! We could stop this nonsense tomorrow, but we "need" the oil for our 80mph jaunts on the freeway, in our 15mpg gas guzzlers! We don't need to kill anybody, we need to stop being so gluttonous.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Rubbish! We could stop this nonsense tomorrow, but we "need" the oil for our 80mph jaunts on the freeway, in our 15mpg gas guzzlers! We don't need to kill anybody, we need to stop being so gluttonous.

Tomorrow?? LOL you are clueless! Quit making the stupid assumption about oil. Jeez. Just looking at how much we are paying, and how we haven't even asked for Iraqi oil should be a wake-up call.

You don't even see the big picture. Fact is we WILL have to fight the Muslims. Why wait til they've killed even more non-Muslims before doing something about them?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

I suppose the other option is to engage in talks with the insurgency. This was tried last year by the Americans but only half-heartedly.

Yes, but that was when the Insurgency was against the Americans. Now, with state sponsors on both sides and the war between Sunnis and Shiites, it's a whole other ballgame. One I'm not sure how you'd play considering Sunnis and Shiites are already talking to each other at the government level and that doesn't seem to resolve anything.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Troll

Yes, but that was when the Insurgency was against the Americans. Now, with state sponsors on both sides and the war between Sunnis and Shiites, it's a whole other ballgame. One I'm not sure how you'd play considering Sunnis and Shiites are already talking to each other at the government level and that doesn't seem to resolve anything.

I don't think external state involvement is much different than it was before in 2005 when the US engaged in talks with various groups in the insurgency. The problem then was the highly disorganised nature of the insurgency, they had no common set of agreed principles or a strategy for a way forward. Since then the Centre for Arab Unity Studies brought the various groups together and created a common platform that excluded the foreign fighters and Al-Queda in Iraq. It's the first indigenous attempt to engage in talks with the Americans. It wasn't implemented because the US was hoping the elections and subsequent political process would sideline the insurgency anyway.

Perhaps the reason why Sunnis and Shi'ites talking at the government level doesn't have much of an effect on the ground is because they're not talking substantively with those Sunnis and Shi'ites who are involved in the insurgency.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Tomorrow?? LOL you are clueless! Quit making the stupid assumption about oil. Jeez. Just looking at how much we are paying, and how we haven't even asked for Iraqi oil should be a wake-up call.

You don't even see the big picture. Fact is we WILL have to fight the Muslims. Why wait til they've killed even more non-Muslims before doing something about them?

I've made fun of your posts before as being over-the-top, but I think I owe you an apology. It seems Rumsfeld himself, and therefore quite possibly Bush, shares your "domino theory" completely:

“If we left Iraq prematurely,” he said, “the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they’d order us and all those who don’t share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines.” And finally, he intoned, America will be forced “to make a stand nearer home. (Rumsfeld, August 3, 2006)

This could be just like the communists swarmed all over the world after we left Vietnam. If they occupy Spain, will France be next? Then England? We truly are fighting an epic battle for nothing less than the survival of all Western civilization.

Taken from an NY Times editorial:

The new “enemy” that Mr. Rumsfeld is worried about is not a worldwide conspiracy but a collection of disparate political and religious groups, now united mainly by American action in Iraq.
...
Mr. Rumsfeld offered the same old exhortation to stay the course, without the slightest hint of what the course is, other than the rather obvious point that the Iraqis have to learn to run their own country.
...
As for Mr. Rumsfeld, he suggested that lawmakers just leave everything up to him and the military command and stop talking about leaving Iraq. “We should consider how our words can be used by our deadly enemy,” he said.

Americans who once expected the Pentagon to win the war in Iraq have now been reduced to waiting for an indication that at least someone is minding the store. They won’t be comforted to hear Mr. Rumsfeld fretting about protecting Spain from Muslim occupation.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Y3a

More idealistic nonsense! YOu don't even get it. The American extremists want to take over the world. We can either talk, give away land and appease them, or we can KILL THEM ALL.

Isn't it funny when you become everything you hate?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

*sigh*

I thought we've been over this.

In a full-scale war, nobody ever wins.

I imagine that that's easier to say when you're from a country which lost. Twice.

[Spliffdaddy]

ouch

[Matius]

Originally Posted by Troll

The only way of avoiding the inevtiable is to incur more American casualties by fighting the battle now that should have been fought in 2003 - the battle to secure the country. But to do that would require new leadership at least at the Pentagon. Personally I don't see that happening. I can hear the beeping of US trucks in reverse gear from here. I think the Administration will hope that Iraq continues to slip off the general populace's radar and then the US military in Iraq will suck off into the funset.

I've got a question. What the f**k do you know about battle? There was a thread somewhere in the Lounge about your peeves. I didn't put anything in it but here are two: internet commandos and armchair soldiers. You are the latter.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Matius

I've got a question. What the f**k do you know about battle? There was a thread somewhere in the Lounge about your peeves. I didn't put anything in it but here are two: internet commandos and armchair soldiers. You are the latter.

Hold on, you came to the Politics/War Lounge and you didn't expect to find people talking about politics and war?

Battle is what happens when two sides are fighting. I haven't made a single comment about battle. I haven't even made a single comment about military strategy. My comments have been about political strategy. Soldiers don't make the decision about how many soldiers to send to Iraq and what they should be doing there; politicans do. And I'm just as qualified technically as the US President to make decisions like that.

But if you actually read what I've posted you'll see that I quoted various US military officials making precisely the point you complain about me making. Are they also armchair soldiers and Internet commandoes?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I imagine that that's easier to say when you're from a country which lost. Twice.

I dare you to laugh in the face of someone who survived the London and Coventry fire-bombings.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Troll

Hold on, you came to the Politics/War Lounge and you didn't expect to find people talking about politics and war?

Battle is what happens when two sides are fighting. I haven't made a single comment about battle. I haven't even made a single comment about military strategy. My comments have been about political strategy. Soldiers don't make the decision about how many soldiers to send to Iraq and what they should be doing there; politicans do. And I'm just as qualified technically as the US President to make decisions like that.

But if you actually read what I've posted you'll see that I quoted various US military officials making precisely the point you complain about me making. Are they also armchair soldiers and Internet commandoes?

*SMACKDOWN*

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

I dare you to laugh in the face of someone who survived the London and Coventry fire-bombings.

Right. Did that today - explained the joke in this thread to them. They laughed their @sses off.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by analogika

*SMACKDOWN*

Uh, not quite...he has made a comment about battle...read my next post...

[Matius]

Originally Posted by Troll

Hold on, you came to the Politics/War Lounge and you didn't expect to find people talking about politics and war?

Battle is what happens when two sides are fighting. I haven't made a single comment about battle. I haven't even made a single comment about military strategy. My comments have been about political strategy. Soldiers don't make the decision about how many soldiers to send to Iraq and what they should be doing there; politicans do. And I'm just as qualified technically as the US President to make decisions like that.

But if you actually read what I've posted you'll see that I quoted various US military officials making precisely the point you complain about me making. Are they also armchair soldiers and Internet commandoes?

I completely expect debate and discussion in this part of the lounge. I know what battle is...both the dictionary version and the real deal. And you did make a comment about battle and strategy

Originally Posted by Troll

The only way of avoiding the inevtiable is to incur more American casualties by fighting the battle now that should have been fought in 2003

That is the comment that pissed me off. You seem to insinuate the battles that were fought in the invasion were some type of half-assed, pseudo combat. If that is not what you mean then I'd like to hear your explanation. If it is what you mean then my question/comment stands.

Oh, and this

Originally Posted by Troll

I'd love to see Iraqi forces take control of security themselves but there aren't enough trained and equipped Iraqis at this stage to maintain security (as the current situation evidences) and by the time the Iraqis are in a position to control security, the country will be too far gone. As you say, the country is probably already too far gone, but miracles might still happen. Another 200,000 troops in Iraq might head disaster off at the pass if they're deployed soon.

is military strategy, not political strategy.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Matius

I completely expect debate and discussion in this part of the lounge. I know what battle is...both the dictionary version and the real deal.

Notice how you cut short my quote! The battle I was referring to there was "the battle to secure the country". That's a figurative battle not a military battle like Waterloo! I don't see why I have to have been a soldier in a war to be qualified to speak on the failure to make Iraq secure.

If I had said what the US Army General in Iraq who I quoted said, then you might have a point. He referred to the Battle of Bagdad and said, "This is the battle for Baghdad that didn't take place in 2003." Seems your problem with armchair generals is actually a problem with REAL generals who since before the Iraq war started have been telling the Administration that they need more men n the ground.

Originally Posted by Matius

You seem to insinuate the battles that were fought in the invasion were some type of half-assed, pseudo combat. If that is not what you mean then I'd like to hear your explanation. If it is what you mean then my question/comment stands.

Well, you misunderstood. I don't think I have to apologise or shy away from making statements about military strategy. You don't have to have been a pawn on a battlefield to comment about military matters. But the fact is that I didn't make those kinds of statements.

What I said was not that the battles that took place in Iraq were half-assed. Each one of those battles probably involved real guns and real bullets and real lives so of course it wasn't half-assed. However, there were battles that should have taken place that never did, starting with the battle with looters and going up to the situation you have today. Politicians, not military men, decided not to expose US soldiers in the way that would have been required in order to secure Iraq. Military leaders in Iraq want to get out into Baghdad and make it safe before it descends further into anarchy. Probably those military leaders believe that they could win the battles that they haven't been allowed to fight.

So that's what I mean. The battles that took place, were very scary, real battles going by what I've seen from reportages on US soldiers. But from a political strategy perspective, avoiding the battles (and necessary casualties) that needed to be fought to prevent Iraq from descending into anarchy, is what has caused the disaster that Iraq is today.