I guess that you are not of Scots ancestry. In the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie, a force which included Scots, Irish and French forces, The Scots were unchallenged as far as Derby. Then of a sudden the English forces appeared and Scotland was undefended. A similar tale comes from the Scottish play Macbeth, Adolph Hitler got caught in the same trap,though his nemesis was as much the Russian winter as anything else. And Hitler might have learned from Napoleon, who fell in the sme trap. Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan since 2001, and we have so far this month lost eight to roadside bombs. It might have been easy to topple what seemed to be the government, but at this point little has changed for the benefit of Afghan women and children. In 1992, the Iraqi's seemed to have given little resistance. But that is a very deceptive strategy. There is a very strong possibility that the Taliban will once again be in command should the Coalition troops leave. And who knows with Iraq.
On Dec 28, 1:55 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > First, to go from zero to Baghdad in 21 days - 21 days! - is close to > a military miracle. General Tommy Franks did that with 150,000 US > troops and 135 Coalition fatalities due to hostile action. (General > Tommy Franks also commanded the troops that defeated the Taliban in > Afghanistan between October 9 and the end of 2001, or less than three > months, and all with a US force that never exceeded 4,000 troops. So > Iraq was his second miracle.) > > General Tommy Franks is in my Hall of Saints. Whatever else he might > have done wrong, if anything, he did so much right as to make his > "wrongs" pale to insignificance. If anything went wrong, it was in the > "stabilization and reconstruction" phase of the war, or after May 1, > 2003. Franks retired July 7, 2003. > > Second, the war did not spiral out of control into a widespread civil > war, a regional conflict, or an environmental disaster. As bad as > things seemed, most hostile actions after April of 2003 occurred in > just five of the 18 provinces of Iraq, with no spread of violence into > neighboring states or Israel. Do you think General Franks just pulled > that off without a plan? His strategy of speed and surprise was > exactly right on. Saddam's minions did not even have enough time to > complete the booby trapping of their oil wells as they did in 1991, > although they started. > > Throughout the whole five-plus years since March 2003, the core Shiite > and Kurdish groups, representing over 80% of the Iraqi population, > stuck with us. If we had lost those groups, then the kinds of bad > things that could have happened would make what did happen seem like > overwhelming success. > > The Kurds could have gone to war not only against the rest of the > Iraqis, but against Turkey as well. The Shiites could have gone to war > against both Sunnis and the Coalition, and brought Iran into the game > as well. The whole thing could have blown sky high with a three-way > civil war in Iraq (Shiite vs Sunni vs. Kurd), Turkey and Iran entering > the fray, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the neighbors in the region > getting involved as well. > > Once the dust would settle in such a scenario, do you think the > players left standing would have good feelings toward the US? Would we > be safer than we are now? How would the US Coalition and Iraqi > civilian fatality counts compare to what actually happened? > > In fact, Muqtada al Sadr did his best to hold up his end in this > nightmare scenario. He had a ruthless and formidable militia. He had > tons of followers. He had Iranian support. Attacks of Sunnis and other > insurgents on Shiites and Shiite holy sites enflamed Shiite passions, > even among those not aligned with Sadr. > > What kept the majority Shiites under control, more or less, Sadr > notwithstanding? Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani. Throughout this whole > time he had issued advice to his followers to be patient, to not seek > revenge and retribution and to cooperate with the US Coalition. In > fact, the US at one time found itself in the absurd position of > resisting Sistani's insistence to hold elections! > Add Ayatollah Sistani to my Hall of Saints (with no disrespect to > Islam here). From what I can tell, Sistani's words and actions were > driven by what seemed to be genuine religious belief and care for his > following. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think he was in it for the oil > money. To anyone who thinks all Muslims are terrorists, I offer > Ayatollah Sistani as one huge counter-example. > Third, our entire military, from grunt to general, has executed the > tasks assigned to it almost flawlessly. With one very notable > exception (namely Abu Ghraib), any military snafus were unnoticeable > from a big-picture standpoint. We sent kids almost right out of high > school and fast-food restaurants into one of the worst places on > earth. A place with 130 degree heat and blinding, days-long > sandstorms. A place with torture rooms, rape rooms, booby traps and > random explosions. A place where the bad guys behead you, slowly, and > video-tape it. A place where erring on one side will get you killed, > and erring on the other side will get you court-martialed. > > And those kids went from zero to Baghdad in 21 days. They captured > Saddam and killed his sons. They kept a lid on a brewing all-out, > three-way civil war for five years straight. They killed more al-Qaida- > in-Mesopotamia than I can count. They rebuilt infrastructure, schools > and hospitals. They gave candy and soccer balls to Iraqi children. > They became close with the locals, tried to make friends, and tried to > discern between people seeking safety and people trying to kill them. > Some didn't come back in one piece, and others didn't come back at > all. > > My Hall of Saints just got really crowded. > > Fourth, as I have summarized before, Iraq has improved dramatically on > multiple fronts since the end of "major combat operations." > > Five of Iraq's provinces accounted for 87% of insurgent attacks, > meaning 13 of its 18 provinces have been relatively peaceful > throughout. > > Iraq now has its own democratically approved constitution and > representative government, due to a series of honest and popular > elections held in 2005. And it is working. > > Its economy has tripled. Oil production essentially matched pre-war > levels by the end of 2003, and currently exceeds it. Electricity > availability exceeded pre-war levels by 2004, and is now 50% to 200% > above pre-war levels. Car ownership has doubled; there are more than > 10 times as many telephone subscribers and 100 times as many internet > subscribers, with much of that growth occurring in the first two to > three years after liberation. > > The people do not have to rely on getting all their information from > Saddam Hussein and Baghdad Bob. Today they have dozens of commercial > TV stations and hundreds radio stations, newspapers and magazines. > Again, much of that growth was immediately after liberation. > Iraq has achieved satisfactory progress on nearly all (if not all) of > the 18 political criteria defined jointly by the Democrat-led Congress > and President Bush. So much so, that you don't hear Democrats even > talking about the criteria any more. > > Fifth, let's give some perspective to what did happen. The US suffered > more fatalities in single battles of World War II (Invasion of the > Marianas, for example ) than in the entire five-plus years of the Iraq > war. If you think it fair to compare the duration of those two wars, > then you ought to compare fatality counts as well. The answer is more > than 100 to 1. And don't forget that World War II ended with two > atomic bombs. > > Let's also compare what actually happened to what people had feared at > the beginning. In February of 2003 The Nation and others trembled at > the thought of 77,000 body bags. I swear that some people could have > accepted 20,000 or 50,000 dead US troops, if the deaths had occurred > in six months or a year of "major combat operations." Amazingly, what > seems to upset people so, is that people died after "major combat > operations" were declared over. > > While Saddam ruled Iraq, he started two wars with his neighbors, Iran > and Kuwait, resulting in about a million deaths, virtually all > Muslims. He killed large numbers of his own countrymen, primarily > Kurds and Shiites, using means that included chemical weapons and > nerve gas. He filled mass graves to the tune of 400,000. We are > talking 1,400,000 deaths over 20 years, or 70,000 deaths per year on > average. > > As bad as the Iraqi civilian death count has been in this war, it > represents a 75% reduction in Saddam's average kill rate. And even > those deaths, except for a small fraction, were not the result of > direct US warfare such as missed bombs and crossfire. They were the > result of al-Qaida-on-Iraqi and Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence - suicide > bombs, improvised explosives, assassinations, executions and tortures. > > Summary. Assuming we are truly in the endgame in Iraq, the final > outcome of the entire enterprise could be considered quite reasonable > from the perspective of previous ground wars and Saddam's previous > violence. I would certainly not call it a "fiasco". In light of what > could have gone wrong, I would almost call it a glowing success. And > no, I am not smoking anything. > That pretty much sums up what actually happened, what went right, and > how bad things could have gone. Stay tuned for Part 2 (published > tomorrow) as we look into what really did go wrong and who is to > blame. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
