No to the myths of Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Radical_Dreamer, Dec 13, 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. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Usual thing - who are these people? Looking at the website I'd say they're Republican biased, so they have a vested interest in "myth busting" in the direction they've gone. I expect a Democrat think tank would do the same to the "real" statistics these guys quote. Then again, we get the BBC, so not exactly unbiased either.
     
  2. It is a myth. Iraq war is much worse. In Vietnam USA were (really) defeated by Soviet Union (almost equal power). In Iraq it will be a victory of insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/guerillas, no matter how you would call them. They are relatively small, poor armed group without significant resources.

    It will be an end of another myth - almighty America is not so almighty. So the whole world knows right way how to defeat USA.
     
  3. Hmmm... but are we going to be defeated in Iraq??? I think not... Certainly progress is slower than is could(should?) have been but we do seem to be getting there...


    As someone else pointed out it is a fairly biased article but I do think it has some truths in it...

    Tricam.
     
  4. Pray tell Sergey just how the USSR defeated the United States in Vietnam - unless I am gravely mistaken, the North Vietnamese received the bulk of their support from China. I will grant you that both the North and its Viet Cong proxies were armed with Soviet weaponry (via China anyway methinks), but even allowing for that, it is stretching credibility to imagine that the USSR defeated the United States. However, if one were to look at the Soviet infiltration and funding of all the assorted anti-war 'peace' movements across Europe and in the US itself, then perhaps a case could be made for what you suggest...

    The link to the Heritage Foundation's website makes interesting reading, and I must admit that I find the constant stream of negative press reporting from and about Iraq something of a drag. I have heard that American servicemen are becoming increasingly disenchanted by the negative press they receive 'back home'. The media-boosting of the Sheehan woman - which has adroitly avoided some of her less savoury pronouncements - is a case in point. That she is bereaved at her son's death is not in doubt, but her politicising of his death I find distasteful. From what I have been able to discover, her late son was in favour of the war, and volunteered to return to service in Iraq. Her family have distanced themselves from her anti-war campaign, as they regard it as being at odds with what they knew of Casey Sheehan.

    Anyway, enough about that, but I highlight it to show how the media can and do boost certain aspects of the overall 'war story' to paint the war in a particular light. That things are 'bad' in Iraq I do not doubt, but as bad as Fisk & Co. make out? Furthermore, comparisons with Vietnam are quite frankly ludicrous. It was a different war, fought for different reasons, in a different manner, against an altogether different enemy. The United States 'lost' Vietnam, not on the battlefield (Tet proved that) but rather on its own streets and university campuses. The very people who effectively - and in some cases openly - celebrated the deaths of American soldiers and America's 'loss' in Vietnam, are now, some thirty years later similarly hoping, indeed praying, that Iraq proves to be another Vietnam-style quagmire.

    Things in Iraq may indeed even get worse before they get better, but I haven't heard anything from the anti-war brigade that actually constitutes an alternative strategy, bar 'bringing the troops home now', which is running away in any man's language.
     


  5. The word that springs to mind is "Boll*cks"
     
  6. Hi! Then answer, was Soviet Union defeated in Afghanistan or not. The war lasted 10 years and was from military point of view very successfull. Moreover pro-Soviet regime managed to keep power for 2 years after the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

    I answer for you. Of course, Soviet Union was defeated. So any anti-American government in Iraq after withdrawal will be regarded as a defeat. Hopes for pro-American regime in Baghdad without support of American bayonets are too optimistic.
     
  7. Good answer Sergey... but if you wouldn't mind addressing me by my full title 'Mr.ARRSE 2005 joint 5th'...


    I honestly know very little about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and perhaps the Iraqi administration will collapse a few years after we leave. But I suspect the difference between Soviet Afghanistan and Iraq is that a real democracy is taking root in Iraq - once rooted it will be very difficult to remove it. I'd imagine a puppet government was shoved into Afghanistan... was never really all that successful... and then collapsed.

    Tricam.
     
  8. You Lordship, Mr.ARRSE 2005 joint 5th!

    No doubt you know Vietnamese example much better. So you are aware about enormous effors to implement democracy in Vietnam. The result is too well known. After 2 years from the withdrawal, pro-American regime collapsed. There was a democracy (though 'so called'), there was a lot of weapons, big puppet army. But 'the demicracy' was uprooted very easily. So 'the roots' hadn't penetrated to deep in Vietnamese soil.
     
  9. Iraq may have been a military victory, but look at the remaining debacle. If this is what we went to war to achieve, one has to ask what was the point. Iraq IS/WILL BE more unstable than under Saddam. Please note: this is not pro-Hussein, but just how much trouble was he causing, compared to all the crap now happening in Iraq. The war is hardly a glowing endorsement for interventionism.
     
  10. KGB - I feel the answer is in your last point. You describe the democracy in Vietnam as 'so called' and I think you are probably right it was barely a democracy. If T6 were here he may be able to confirm for me that many American officers were unhappy with the grand strategy in Vietnam, that there was no good political track, that the South Vietnamese Government they were supporting was dodgy.

    I think in Iraq we are seeing real democracy... lots and lots of independent media.... genuinely free elections (checked by UN) etc... every political party gets to say their piece... Once the Iraqis get a taste for all this I hope they won't allow anyone to take it away...

    Tricam.
     
  11. Well Gallowglass, informal coalition of Soviet Union and China defeated USA. Moreover, it was too strong power. So it was not humiliating defeat.

    The only reasonable solution that I see is negotiations with the insurgents. Americans should establish by own hands anti-American government, sign agreement with it about withdrawal (it requires much time). In this case it would not look as a defeat.

    If anti-American govenment will emerge in Iraq later or sooner then it would be not a bad idea to create it just now, under American supervision.
     
  12. Tricam! Let's wait.
     
  13. Tricam,
    Do you honestly feel optimistic about the future of Iraq?
    I think you are going to be sadly mistaken, and believe the polace will implode once western forces leave.
     
  14. Tricam,

    While all these things may be true I feel it slightly misses the point. The reason why I believe the future of Iraq is so bleak is because, once the US has gone, the various major groups in Iraq do not want the same thing. I fear they will use political processes, an independent media, their militias, etc, to achieve their divergent ends and the result will be a very bloody civil war that will pull neighbouring countries in. I am probably wrong, but if I'm not...