[davesimondotcom]

It's only fair to ask.

What would happen if Europeans, anti-war Americans, etc. were all to get behind the war effort? What if they stopped playing moral equivilency between the terrorists and American troops?

My thought is that Iraq would end up a stonger and better country, troops would be safer and would be withdrawn sooner.

Of course the chances of this scenario happening are about as good as President Bush pulling the troops out by the end of the year...

[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

My thought is that Iraq would end up a stonger and better country, troops would be safer and would be withdrawn sooner.

Why? What would the difference be? Do you think the war would just stop because more Americans supported it? Doesn't make sense.

If you want the war to end sooner, get rid of Rumsfeld. He's proven himself incompetent, and Americans are dying because of his incompetence.

[moodymonster]

criticism is good, if you're going wrong (speaking hypothetically) do you want to be surrounded by yes men or people who are honest.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

What would happen if everyone got behind the war effort?

Republicans wouldn't have anyone left to blame but themselves for this terrible idea?

I read something recently - can't remember where now - that said the supporters of the war don't so much support the war as oppose the opposers. I think there's more than a little truth in that. From the beginning, so much of the rhetoric focused on how soft on defense, anti-American, leftist, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, treasonous, (etc.) all those are who opposed this. It's much harder to find good coherent support for this war, IMO because there is so little to find.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

criticism is good, if you're going wrong (speaking hypothetically) do you want to be surrounded by yes men or people who are honest.

That wasn't the question. I never said fill the world with yes men.

Typical of this board though, when asked to put themselves in the mindset of someone they disagree with, nobody is able to do it.

People just use the thread to obfuscate what the original poster stands for and/or posted.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Republicans wouldn't have anyone left to blame but themselves for this terrible idea?

I read something recently - can't remember where now - that said the supporters of the war don't so much support the war as oppose the opposers. I think there's more than a little truth in that. From the beginning, so much of the rhetoric focused on how soft on defense, anti-American, leftist, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, treasonous, (etc.) all those are who opposed this. It's much harder to find good coherent support for this war, IMO because there is so little to find.

Convince me it's a terrible idea first. That will be hard to do (just like convincing you that it was a good thing) considering every member of the military I talk to in person that comes back from Iraq says we're doing a good thing and the "average Iraqi" often thanks them for what they are doing.

And I would totally disagree with that poll/study or whatever it is. To a degree, the far right will do things to piss off the far left, but flip the script on that. How many anti-war folks would be for ANY use of force? How many would hate George W. Bush if he did exactly what they want?

You say it is hard to find a good coherent argument to support the war, but that's because you don't want to hear anything that would support it. You'll (along with most anti-war folks) dismiss it as being irrational or whatever.

That isn't to say that the same thing isn't true for the opposite side of the world. Most people on this board have their mind made up, and they'll just toss bickering back and forth. It's sport. It's what we do.

[moodymonster]

personally I don't believe there is moral equivalency between the terrorists and US troops. Don't believe the terrorists are moral.

can't see how people's support of the war would affect what's happening on the ground. Think you need better leadership from the top down.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

personally I don't believe there is moral equivalency between the terrorists and US troops. Don't believe the terrorists are moral.

can't see how people's support of the war would affect what's happening on the ground. Think you need better leadership from the top down.

Well, more support would equal better morale amongst the troops, first off. Secondly, they could stop walking on eggshells and constantly playing a PR war while fighting a PC war. Effectiveness of the effort is hindered by trying to remain PC.

That's not to say that they'd all of a sudden stop following the rules, by the way. I'm not for that.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Well, more support would equal better morale amongst the troops, first off. Secondly, they could stop walking on eggshells and constantly playing a PR war while fighting a PC war. Effectiveness of the effort is hindered by trying to remain PC.

That's not to say that they'd all of a sudden stop following the rules, by the way. I'm not for that.

agree about the morale.

PC is a kick in the nuts, there should be respect toward the Iraqis, but conduct should be dictated by what is best for the situation on the ground.

I also think that the way things are done is often dictated by political reasons in the West, not for the sake of what is happening on the ground.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Great question.

It's pretty clear that if the world were united in the war effort and bringing about a better Iraq, then the war would indeed go far smoother, and the results would come much quicker.

The reasons for this are simple, and have their origins in what our enemies have learned about us since the Vietnam war. They've even repeated it to us over and over again: Saddam openly announcing that America would back down rather than face another 'Vietnam' was his often cited reason for being as brazen as he was. He was correct in discerning that the American public and politicians fear perception far more than reality.

Looking back at Vietnam, events like the Tet Offensive were huge military losses for the enemy of unsustainable proportions- and yet they ended up as major political victories for them. Even though the enemy was nearly broken in reality, they realized that scoring political victories that had the American media crowing about instability in the South, and that had civilians believing all was lost, was worth far more than actually winning battles militarily. Perception became reality.

The insurgents in Iraq aren't idiots. They've learned the “perception is reality” lesson well, and thus their entire operation is gear toward “winning” on that front, rather than in reality. The end result of Vietnam was clear: keep perception as reality for long enough to erode morale, erode support, erode conviction, and despite the fact that you're suffering unsustainable losses such as in Tet, you'll still win. The Americans will pull out, and you can get on with the Killing Fields while the world that pretends to be “anti-war” will care less even when millions are slaughtered.

The insurgents know it's worth a dozen or more military victories to have prominent Democratic senators constantly crowing defeat and how it's 'Another Vietnam'. It's a victory every time some cowering nation declares the insurgents unbeatable, and makes the US out to be the bad guy.

They know that a single car bomb blowing up innocents on a crowded street does literally nothing militarily for them... but once broadcast around the world with headlines declaring “Civil War!” “All is Lost!” “American defeat!” and “Quagmire!” the same senseless act is transformed for them into a priceless political victory.

If they didn't get the positive (from their viewpoint) press, and their political allies (wittingly or not) declaring victory for them each time they pull a senseless (and tactically worthless) act, then such acts would be ineffective, and therefore would decrease.

Clearly the war would be far easier against an enemy that could only hope to win actual military battles, rather than gear itself entirely to win political ones. Victory can only be achieved by the Iraqi insurgents entirely by use of an 'inside job' played against the west, and the press and their political allies are their real weapons to pull it off.

No, everyone doesn't have to agree with the war, but face facts, the so-called “anti-war” crowd often goes beyond mere disagreement, and delves deep, deep into the realm of declaring US defeat (and therefore insurgent victory). There's nothing an insurgent could hope for more, than to win a relatively inexpensive perceptual victory that ends up with the same results as an actual one.

Rather than the high cost of real military victories, an insurgent's costs are just car bombs, and chaos- a grand performance played for the useful idiot crowd.

[moodymonster]

maybe they (insurgents) don't care what people in the US think, maybe it's their only way at getting back at Americans.

If a foreign army invaded the US and occupied it, how do you think the local populace would respond? Worth bearing in mind, a lot of Iraq's population is young and male - ie agressive and reactionary. All they've known is war - Iran-Iraq (1980-88), Gulf War(1990-91), sanctions (1991-2003), Iraq War (2003) and now (through their eyes) occupation (2003-).

Also it's not all about the US, people are fighting their own turf wars and you happen to be in the middle of it.

Britain created Iraq after invading the area to stop Turkey. We tried doing what we did in India, but it didn't work. We then used lots of troops and planes forcing the Iraqis to do what we wanted.

Cromer controlled Egypt's six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia's three million people with ninety thousand troops.

TE Lawrence 1920 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1920arabia.htm

It's set up to be in conflict (by design or otherwise). In other places in the world the US could go in and liberate (WW2) and work with the locals. Iraq has been in conflict for a very long time. The British controlled them through thousands of troops - we also bombed and gassed them. British troops back then would be nowhere as restrained as US forces are now, and still the Iraqis fought back. Then Saddam came along held them together through force as well.

Throughout Saddam's reign he was at war, maybe this was more down to the nature of Iraq, in that they needed distraction - like the way European Kings would send their Knights to far off wars to keep them occupied.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Republicans wouldn't have anyone left to blame but themselves for this terrible idea?

I read something recently - can't remember where now - that said the supporters of the war don't so much support the war as oppose the opposers. I think there's more than a little truth in that. From the beginning, so much of the rhetoric focused on how soft on defense, anti-American, leftist, Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, treasonous, (etc.) all those are who opposed this. It's much harder to find good coherent support for this war, IMO because there is so little to find.

Sounds kinda like the "Liberals only oppose the war because they are anti-Bush" argument.