Steve Gilliard: Why We Are Losing in Iraq (it's really good)

I can't do this post enough justice. It is the first detailed analysis of what's going on in Iraq from a military perspective.

So let's draw some conclusions:

* Rumsfeld's eagerness to use Iraq as a test bed for his transformation of the military was a disaster. While the US handled stage one capably, his indifferent to disorder set the stage for stage two.

* Leaving open the ammo dumps set the bed for the resistance. The Iraqi resistance is the most lavishly equipped in history. Every unit well armed with modern weapons.

*Poor planning left the US without their Third World auxillary armies to provide basic security. Without the large Pakistani and Nigerian units to patrol towns and provide basic area denial, US units have had to do two jobs, security and quick reaction.

* Disbanding the Army set the stage for the resistance to have trained people running it. These men didn't learn war from textbooks. The senior folks learned in combat and passed those lessons down

* US forces have adapted to tactics only to have those tactics shift.

* The Iraqis have minimized the use of helicopter units and limited them to observation and attack.

* The Iraqi resistance has also limited the use of the roadnet. Without convoys, resupply is impposible. This control is so dominant that US units now get some supplies by air.

* They have also thoroughly penetrated US assets in Iraq. No Iraqi unit can move without the guerrilas eventually finding out.

* US units are unable to leave their bases except on patrol. During the Vietnam War, Americans could frequent bars and live in the cities. No American can live in Iraq without security at the risk of kidnapping and death.

* The lack of infantry leaves the US unable to sustain military successes when they do occur. The scarest military resource is not armor, but trained combat infantry. Sure, you can send artillerymen out on patrol and get tankers on foot. But infantry is irreplacable for guerrilla warfare.

Every day, US forces go out, take casualities and go back to their bases, trying to survive yet another attack that night. The US, in two years, have lost lives and material, but gained little. There is not one area the US can say that guerrillas cannot operate. And that is the most important fact. After two years and 1500 dead, the guerrillas control the highway to the airport, Baghdad's main drags and the country's highways.

This is not winning

And this quote from his comments section is also trenchant:

Steve's post points out exactly how easy it is to bring a country to its knees. And really, not just Iraq but any country at all, even the United States.

So how come the Michigan Militia hasn't taken over America yet? Very simple. If the right wing nut-hatches tried setting IED, even on deserted stretches of highway, anyone who caught sight of them would report them to the police (hopefully). The next day, police/FBI would swoop in for the arrest.

Whereas in Iraq, no one swoops in. That's because either Iraqi citizens are either a) afraid of the anti-US forces, or, most likely, b) are on their side.

The Iraqi resistance doesn't melt away in the night because of its kewl ninja skillz. It pulls off its magic tricks because thousands of Iraqis suddenly decide to look in the other direction as the trick is being pulled off.

"What's that, Mr. Policeman? Insurgents? Here? I didn't see anybody, but if I did, I'll let you know." (sound of car blowing up outside)

say it was unwinnable. He said the insurgency couldn't keep doing these attacks without a complicit public. He also said it was time to leave and see if the baby can walk(Iraq). He also said he hopes the Iraqi people are successful in crafting a government.

To turn up the heat on civilians?

isn't aware of such things, just ask him.

but rummy told bush, we got NUKES

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

No, you didn't just do that. Because that would be insane.

TWICE, threads... i can't help but wonder where you might advise our current CIC, if you were in rummy's position, while we're getting our a$$'s kicked?

you know what i answer every time one of my friends say there must be 1 thing you like about bush is... i am very pleased he hasn't let loose any NUKES, yet.

hope that helps :hi:

peace

"we knew they were defeated in May '45 because we knew they were defeated in June '46" thread.

Because actually knowing facts means that I'm in favor of using nuclear weapons against a low-level resistance backed by a passively hostile majority.

so let me give them to you again...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

...

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would (i.e. 1945 BEFORE 1946 even BEFORE we NUKED'em) be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 4.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

EXEC SUMMARY: NUKING a defeated, trying to surrender nations cities filled with INNOCENT men, women and children... young and old, friend(American POWS) and FOE alike, TWICE... against the advice of ALL military leaders in theater at the time is TERRORISM.

FYI: these OPINIONS are comming from our military LEADERS who FAUGHT WWII

Hiroshima is the 2nd most HORRID word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI. - Kurt Vonnegut

peace

He thought that the Bomb simply "wouldn't go off."

And I cannot find a single PRE-HIROSHIMA Eisenhower reference to Japan's imminent surrender. Eisenhower did, however, go on record in favor of invasion. So I don't exactly think that he was of the opinion that Japan was going to surrender at the time.

Finally, which you have yet to refute in the slightest, Truman's entire cabinet of advisers especially appointed to determine if the nuke was necessary (as Truman repeatedly wrote that he had severe reservations about the nuclear option), the Interim Committee, unanimously recommended dropping the bomb as the best option to ensure surrender.

You also have not refuted that Japan was clearly given an opportunity to publically and unconditionally surrender in the Potsdam declaration, which promised swift and total destruction of the Japanese homeland if surrender did not come immediately. It does not take a week to surrender. As the Japanese showed after Nagasaki, it takes only a few hours.

that we KNEW was ready to surrender but we demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

just imagine if we had given in to their one condition earlier?

the crysthanthemum throne stands witness to this very day to the wisdom of that 'capitulation'

that was our FIRST SHOCK-n-AWE

http://images.globalfreepress.com

hope your ready for the next one.

peace

They refused. Hence they were not defeated. And yes, Leahy being in favor of a blockade does have "something to do" with Japan not being defeated. It means that he thought that they weren't defeated. MacArthur was also against the nuke, by the way. He didn't think it would be forceful enough, and was in favor of a full-scale invasion.

And the Interim Committee had everything to do with Japan's defeat status. They were formed with the sole purpose of determining if a nuclear weapon needed to be dropped on Japan or should merely be publically tested. The unanimous decision of every expert assigned to the task was "yes, it must be dropped on Japan." And you *still* have yet to give me a single quote from *before* war's end saying "Japan is defeated." You can't even find ONE MAN who believed that Japan was defeated in May '45.

Quotes after Hiroshima are worthless--hindsight is 20/20, after all.

yeah, that explains your mindset well.

FYI: those were quotes about events and their opinions that had occurred before we NUKED'm.

you may choose to be blinded to the facts but that does not make them go away. anyone who thinks that NUKING a defeated, ready to surrender nations cities filled with innocent men women and children, TWICE after knowing the INFORMED opinions of our military leaders in theater at the time and the FACTS that made up their informed opinions is SICK and no better than the terrorist who flew those plans into the tower on that horrid September day in 2001, IMHO.

good night, sir.

peace

You did not refute a single fact I gave you. Not one. Not a single one. No. None. Nimitz, Leahy, and MacArthur insisting that the Nuke was insufficient to defeat Japan? No response. You still claim they were against the nuke and say that somehow proves your point. The fact that Eisenhower wasn't in the same theatre as Japan and hence was not an expert? No response. The fact that we said specifically that we would unleash a new and terrible weapon on the Japanese homeland if they did not immediately surrender and they failed to? Hint: In war, "I was gonna surrender" holds up as well as "I was gonna put down the gun" after a police officer forcibly disarms you.

Interim Committee? You haven't given me one word in response, AND THAT UNDOES YOUR ENTIRE POINT. YOU HAVE NO POINT UNLESS YOU CAN DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTERIM COMMITTEE. THEY WERE A GROUP OF EXPERTS, CIVILIAN, SCIENTIST, INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, JAPAN EXPERT, AND MILITARY EXPERT, ASSEMBLED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ADVISING TRUMAN ON THE NUKE. THEY ALL SAID "YES, YOU MUST."

Here: Quote.
"Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."

Dear God! You're a fucking rock! Either explain why the Interim Committee is unimportant, or just admit you're a tool.

you post your own lonely opinions, with 0 links to back them up, in the face of the EVIDENCE i gave that states exactly the opposite with links to back them up and you are now upset :eyes:

the 'Interim Committee' were not made up of our military leaders who were in theater accessing the FACTS ON THE GROUND as i stated before but you seem to be married to the group of desk jockeys alone in-spite of all that we now know. fine. lets say that i need a more evidence than one political body commissioned to make sure we were ready to collect all the data from the upcoming experiment.

for all who want a detailed analysis of the relevant facts, including details on the sacred 'Interim Committee' please see this study.

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Committee
http://nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1945/450616-ic-sc-panel.html
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-06-01&documentid=40&studycollectionid=abomb&pagenumber=8

There's your interim committee.

Nimitz, MacArthur and Leahy being in favor of invasion:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-downfall

You know what? This is pointless. You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've torn your so-called evidence to shreds and you keep posting the same thing. Why? You simply don't understand a word I've said. You just claim that facts that directly contridict yours are 'irrelevant' or from 'suspect sources' like the CIA and Army War College. You simply call Truman's entire advisory board--which did include military members--"desk jockeys" and therefore somehow less well-informed. You claim that Leahy, Nimitz, and MacArthur were all against the bomb, but ignore the fact that they were against the bomb not because they thought Japan was defeated, but because they were actually in favor of invasion, thinking it was the best way to defeat Japan. And you repeat that "all our military leaders were against it." It's not name-calling when it's true, bpilgrim. You're dense.

when you are losing a debate.

the facts stand.

1. Japan was militarily defeated and all military leaders in theater agreed. they couldn't even defend their OWN skies anymore.

2. They were ready to surrender and actively seeking terms and we knew it.

3. The interm commitie wanted to use the bomb for its SHOCK-n-AWE effect on the war and to STUDY the effects.

all these issues are addressed in this detailed study of the decision that i encourage all who are genionly interested in learning more about this terrible act in our history to check out.

http://www.doug-long.com

here is a summary of the key facts surrounding the decision to use NUKES against Japan...

# With the end of the European war, the Allies focused their efforts on Japan. Japan still fought fanatically, despite being badly hurt by bombing and blockade.

# The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation.

# The Japanese believed the Emperor to be a god (this is a key point).

# The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia declared war against Japan.

# Japan, because of its military, still refused to surrender.

# Japanese peace advocates, fearing the imminent destruction of the Emperor, prevailed upon the Emperor to break with tradition and make government policy by calling for peace now. The Emperor did so.

# As the result of the Emperor's call for surrender, the entire Japanese cabinet, including the military, agreed to surrender. The cabinet saw that this would allow the Emperor to be retained.

# Even Japan's doves would have fought to the death had they not felt the Emperor would be spared. They saw "unconditional surrender" as a threat to the Emperor.

# President Truman had been advised of the importance of the Emperor to the Japanese.

# Japan was seeking Russia's help to end the war in July 1945. The U.S. was aware of this at the time thru intercepted Japanese cables. But the U.S. did not keep up with this change in Japan's position.

# The U.S. chose military methods of ending the war rather than diplomatic methods. The desire for revenge helped make military methods more attractive.

# Was it necessary to use the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war without an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Quotes from historians who felt it was not necessary can be found in: Article. Quotes from prominent Americans who felt the atomic bombings were not necessary can be found in: Quotes.

# We probably could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative. None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

# Had the above method failed, and had the Russian invasion failed to bring surrender soon, the atomic bombs were still available - but as a last resort.

# After the atomic bombings, Japan was allowed to retain their Emperor, anyway.

source...
http://www.doug-long.com/summary.htm

now why don't you do yourself a favor and do some reading instead of calling names and spewing 60 year old propaganda to try and justify a TERRORIST act.

gl

peace

But when has Bush ever let that stop him?

What's interesting to me is that the "leadership", and I use that term
loosely, doesn't seem to care. They appear to assume this can continue
indefinitely, and in any case are not about to jeopardize a career trying
to do anything about it.

The Iraqi resistance doesn't seem in a hurry either, and one assumes
that the other geo-political players are more than happy to let us
sit there and bleed as long as we choose.

The basic situation has been clear from some time now, and this fellow
spells it out with unusual clarity.

If all things were going swimmingly (meaning: quick elections, Iraqis in control, water & electric up and running, etc.) then how would the BushCrimeNazis keep troops in-theater for propaganda use in the next (US) elections? (Meaning: Iran's so called nuke threat is going to be a rerun of the buildup for Iraq for the last midterm US election). And Iran is next, but the timing will be for the midterm election, imo. BushCrimeInc needs a need to keep troops in Iraq. An "insurgency" fits the bill.


:hi:

A.) It need not be this bad to enable US troop presence. We have
troops in something over 100 countries, most of them with no discernable
resistance.

B.) The original plan involved a "Status of Forces" agreement that would
allow us to stay and have all those nice permanent bases etc., and
it would have been much cheaper and quieter that way.

C.) There are many other smaller and disobedient countries in need of
invasion; and US foreign policy is badly hamstrung by having all that
manpower and material hunkered down in Iraq. This is easy to notice
if you pay attention to what's going on in Latin America, for instance.

In summary, the BFEE does not want to keep all those troops there, that
was NOT the plan. A few maybe, and certainly control the oil, but this
is not an acceptable outcome.

illegally invade a country that has had a history of being illegally invaded and one should expect the inhabitants of said country are well versed in what it takes to expel the illegal invader over time and time is only relevant to those who expect immediate gratification and those who know that patience is a virtue. I would suspect that Rummie didn't look at the 'patience is a virtue' aspect.

Allowing the Iraqi Army, esp, the elite to melt into the population with their weapons. Not gaurding the ammo dumps. Firing all that were in prior Govt. that were Ba'athists. (Ahmed Chalabi's agenda.) Other mistakes?

The Iraq Occupation was seriously bungled.