Bush considers gradual Iraq withdrawal

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jul 9, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JO2VZ454WFWTFQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/07/09/wbush109.xml


    It looks as the insurgents are winning.
  2. Depends what you read and what you let influence you, Sergey.

    Some things suggest that the "insurgents" are winning.

    Others, that the western nations are winning.

    I think it doesn't matter who actually "wins", the Iraqi people have lost. But perhaps their is some excessive/sensational reporting done by the media? I know it sounds far fetched, but these are crazy times...
  3. Goon, later or sooner the withdrawal will happen. It is inevitable. Iraqi puppets will flee close the their stolen money. USA will be voided from Iraqi burden. Later or sooner there will be peace in Iraq.

    As for who is winning and who is losing then the withdrawal would be for good for the West, for USA and for the Iraqis because current situation is the worst possible for them.
  4. An effect, presumably, of the belated realisation that perhaps they got the warfighting/invasion strategy wrong, rather than the generally accepted assumption that it was the lack of a post-invasion strategy that has caused the whole operation to become unhinged.

    The re-shaping and re-building of a country requires, if insurgency is not to dominate, the 'occupying' force to have the consent of the 'occupied'. Post WW2 we occupied both Germany and Japan and successfully rebuilt them. We were only able to do this as we decisively defeated (and reduced) not only military force, but crucially also the morale of the civilian population through a sustained bombing campaign (in the case of Germany) and nuclear attacks (in the case of Japan). This effectively rendered the entire nation into a state of passivity thereby allowing us to mould and shape them into the required end-state.

    Not only did we not effectively reduce or defeat the Iraqi military, there was virtually nil effect on the civilian population. Add this to a recipe of a nation already riven along religious divides, and throw in the factor that the occupying forces are Christian, and it is not hard to understand our considerable lack of strategic success to date, in spite of the heroic efforts at the operational and tactical levels.

    As modern morals will never again, presumably, allow us to conduct a campaign of the duration and viciousness of WW2, thereby setting the conditions for a successful post-camapign occupation, is it not futile trying to effect regime change on the current doctinal basis?

    Perhaps we should revert back to the good old Cold War days of effecting regime change through info ops and overt financial support to areas of strategic importance. Or maybe just wake up and accept the reality that a bad dictator or regime is only bad if he is significantly harming our interests.

  5. Pomshen,
    an important thing to bear in mind about post occupied Germany and Japan is that both nations had lost wars that they both had started. In Germany it was easy for them to get back to the Democratic system they already had before the war. Having started something they lost the Japs were amenable to a Democracy of sorts being introduced there.

    But for Iraqis it was different. They attacked anyone. So to them why should they be defeated? And not all insurgents will be ill disposed towards Democracy either. But you can't develop democracy anyway whilst there is a war on. If it comes at all, Democracy comes after the guns have been put away.

    So they know though that whatever it is that the Americans have brought at the point of the barrel of a gun isn't Democracy.
  6. Rayc

    Rayc RIP

    Actually, the Democrats are winning!