[lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:43:41 -0500
"Good grief, to fight what was something like the 4th or 5th largest army in
the world and stay long enough to get a democratic regime going and the
infrastructure and economy established and have casualties of under 3,000 is
amazing. That there are still people who can look at these facts and see a
failure is also amazing."
They're the 4th or 5th largest army in the world, but our military is 15 times
larger than all the militaries of the world combined, a fact conveniently
overlooked in the spinning process.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 3:31:54 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
I appreciate your thoughtfulness, in the sense of thinking everything through.
I just have a quibble. I don?t believe the military strategy in Iraq was
flawed. Not only did we defeat the Iraqi Army with very few casualties, we
chose to keep enemy casualties as low as possible. We used smart bombs to a
very great extent and never targeted civilians. Civilians were killed but not
as many as would have been under a traditional strategy. Note that just
Iranian casualties during the Iran/Iraq war were 300,000.
I probably can?t convey the perspective I see Iraq in. I have studied history,
warfare, military strategy, and the Middle East, and the Iraqi war succeeded
beyond anyone?s wildest expectations. And in the aftermath, none of the
expectations of failure occurred. The Iraqis did not rise up in support of
Saddam. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis did not begin an immediate Civil War.
The various religious and political elements did not reject democracy. The
Iraqis did not want us out immediately.
Some have said they didn?t expect an ?insurgency.? I don?t know why. We
defeated Saddam who had been in power for 30 years. Surely many of his
faithful followers would wish to do us as much harm as possible.
And should it surprise anyone that Al-Quaeda would join the insurgents? We
read that the head of the Iranian Pasdaran argued that unless the Iraqi
Democracy could be quashed, it would most likely spread. Surely Al-Quaeda and
other Islamist organizations have come to the same conclusion.
But is this insurgency, made up of domestic and foreign forces as it is,
succeeding? Recent statistics show that their efforts have slowly been
decreasing. The people who look at these statistics say it is too soon to
celebrate, but they nevertheless find them encouraging.
Good grief, to fight what was something like the 4th or 5th largest army in the
world and stay long enough to get a democratic regime going and the
infrastructure and economy established and have casualties of under 3,000 is
amazing. That there are still people who can look at these facts and see a
failure is also amazing.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:28 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iraqi problems caused by Iran (1)
In a message dated 2/5/2006 12:10:59 P.M. Central Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
We have tried it both ways and I much prefer preemption. Iran?s behavior calls
for preemption in my opinion
Hi,
Then I'd prefer that we do it as 'right' as possible. [ like anyone is
listening to me <g>]
That means to do so carefully and thoughtfully and with as much care for those
littles as possible. .
I do not believe that was done in Iraq.
IF there was no other way out--I agree--sometimes doing the 'wrong' thing can
be the 'right' thing. I used to bang my head against the wall trying to figure
that one out... Still, there are always 'mean' ways to do much anything and
'as healthy as possible' ways to do the same thing. The latter does, though,
take more creative forethought and must often be carefully crafted. I simply
do not see that in our current administration--and those that I know who dealt
with the initial planning (as well as some of the latter) did not see that in
the preemption of Saddam's Iraq. [I'm still not convinced that all avenues of
diplomacy were exhausted--or that it was the most appropriate nation to invade
based on the rhetoric that was coming out in regards to either nuclear weaponry
or terrorism [though I could understand it more based on Saddam's growing
inclination to trade oil for euros instead of dollars], but once that decision
was made, the planning and execution ought to have bee
n done with a bit more foresight and wisdom as well as information from those
who actually had a clue ... )
It might help if I could actually see what the 'end' was that was desired...and
crafted in such a way that the culture/area/peoples were taken into
consideration. To just go into a place with guns a blazin' without having
figured out the end from the beginning seems like the planning will be
haphazard and that the end will be as murky as the one is that we see in Iraq.
(I grew up reading the Sacketts <g> so have that romantic streak in me,
too--but being a librarian <g>, there is the part in me which is a bit more
systematic in situations...line upon line, measure upon measure and all of
that...)
So, what would this author's dream be for Iran? What would it be for Iraq?
Specifically--for sometimes I feel that these folks writing those types of
books [on either side, actually] are always looking for the next 'bad guy' and
do not feel that their lives are productive if there is not a conflict/other
side to yell about...which keeps them from viewing people as people...and some
of that comes from THEM not having a clear vision for the future...or figuring
out how and why ... and what they will do then...
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
Other related posts:
