Martin Van Crevelds Opinion on Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabtastic, Nov 29, 2005.

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. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Heavy on opinion, short on logic.
  2. Cack. The real parallel is with Yugoslavia, not Vietnam. The Vietnamese are a relatively homogenous bunch, Hmong excepted, so it was OK for South Vietnam to surrender to people who shared the same culture/ethnicity as them, albeit with a different ideology. The Iraqi Shia, Kurds and Sunni Arabs are not going to submit to rule by the others again.

    Both Iraq and Yugoslavia were/are artificial constructs created out of dying empires at the end of WW1, both contain a three-way ethno-religious split, both could only be held together by a dictatoria strongman, and once the strongman was removed, both started to disintegrate. Probably the best thing we can do now is to facilitate this split in as orderly a manner as possible. It may, of course, be that this was the plan all along...
  3. I can't cay I 'm surprised......waging war because one is guided by God (and oil) is always a bad idea. Not sure how Van Crefeld thinks the US can withdraw ( albiet with heavy losses) and maintain a presence to protect the oil in the whole region? Seems to me that he has stated the blindingly obvious, and not really added anything to the debate, although impeachment might be a good idea...Why not try Bush with Cheney for war crimes? :roll:
  4. I don't think he was referring to that particular analogy for that reason Andy. I think it was more to do with the US disengagement strategy of declaring some sort of pyrrhic victory and upping sticks. From his argument I think Van Creveld would actually agree with you that the situation is actually a lot more serious and precarious than Vietnam. Note the section about an enduring civil war being inevitable.
  5. The same way they've done it since WWII perhaps?
  6. [​IMG]

    we live in hope.......................
  7. Civil war was inevitable from the outset and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Corruption ensures that the few good men who wish to make the state work can't. However having gone in and removed the strong man that was holding it all together (even if he was a total mad bastard) I believe we have a moral duty to sort the f*cking mess out (not just piss off because it has turned out to be messier than we had initally planned). After all saying we have saved Iraqis from indescriminate torture doesn't help if you have just had half your family blown up by sectarian violence.
  8. VBan Crefeld has been posting gloom and doom for acoupleofyears. Here is an earlier article on "why Iraq will end as Vietnam did"

    So he may feel partially vindicated.

    However, he is very good at posting contraversial points of view and stirring it. I once heard him do a splendid job of rubbishing the idea of women in the armed forces as an after dinner speech. But he cheats and is logically inconsistent. I wonder too how much the logical demand to withdraw to prepare for the next war with Iran isn';t as much to do with Isael's straegic objectives as any real threat to the USA.
  9. Not sure how you can withdraw from Iraq adn invade Iran if Iraq is still unsable...surely even more of a blo8dy mess.....?
  10. A unified Iraq and a unified Iran were/are the two biggest threats to Israel, under any government. Iraq has now effectively been dismantled into 3 little statelets. Wonder how long before the Iranian Kurds and Arabs start adgitating to join their ethnic brethren over the border and throw off the Prsian yoke? I'm seriously beginning to think this is/was the real plan all along, I can't beleive no-one in the DoD or State Dept. saw the parallels with Yugoslavia before going it, after all, they'd been dealing with the 'Balklands' and 'Kosovia' for a decade previously. Obviously the US couldn't just say, oh well, we're gonna split this country up into three, 'cos that would have really pished off Turkey, Saudi and a lot of others.
  11. Andy, IMO there is nothing to suggest that Wolfie (the real man with the plan- all the way back as far as the late 1980s and the Bush I administration) didn't think that the stated Plan A was do-able. He and the rest of the Project for the New American Century had it all sewn up and it was supposed to run like clockward. It was only a shame that the Iraqis didn't get the memo in time.

    As for the Balkanisation. Pretty much everyone in a uniform in Washington saw this coming a mile off. Their BEST case scenario would have be fragmentation of the Soviet Union (Think central Asia, not Ukraine.) Most of the vocal critics among the star-wearing jedi were therefore labeled as "Clinton men" for their lack of can-do attitude and most saw their careers grind to a halt as part of the ABC policy (anything but Clinton). The rest played the game.
  12. Easy, there was no problem invading iraq, its just rebuilding it as free pro coalition democratic state which is difficult. If you are israel you might prefer a permenant civil war in both countries.

    I womnder if your only concern is to keep the oil flowing then might it not matter whether Iraq oe Iran exists as a single stable entity?