BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:59 AM

Actually, thinking it over, the USA/British attack on Iraq was considerably more heinous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the various Allied bases in the Phillipines, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia in Dec '41. Why? Because it was not just an attack on some far-flung military bases occupied by military personnel who could fight back with equivalent weaponry. No, it was an attack on the entire metropolitan civilian infrastructure and the capital city and smaller centres of an entire country...a country which was basically almost incapable of fighting back in any effective manner at the time.

The Japanese risked attacking people similarly armed to themselves, and with considerably greater resources to bring to bear not far down the road...someone who might very likely beat them. That takes guts.

What kind of guts does it take to massacre a 3rd World country with smart bombs, cruise missiles, B-52s, and stealth bombers? What kind of guts does it take to fight a war where you normally kill at least a hundred of them for every man you lose?

Now bear in mind, I am not criticizing the American and British soldiers. No indeed! It always takes some guts to be a soldier and go into combat and quite likely get shot at, even if you do outgun the enemy severely.

No, I am criticizing the political commanders at the top in the USA and the UK who dreamed up the whole damn thing in the first place and sent American and British soldiers into an unprovoked war of aggression. I'm criticizing Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Richard Pearl, and the whole unsavoury crew who set it in motion. It didn't take guts to do what they did...it just took stubborness, stupidity, and a singular lack of morality or honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:10 AM

I might as well mention too that the Japanese did at times do even much worse things than the USA/Britain have done in attacking Iraq... They did much worse things in the Japanese war in China, for example. They deliberately massacred enormous number of Chinese civilians, raped women, killed children, basically engaged in wholesale genocide.

(because I'm sure if I did not mention it, you would) ;-) So relax, Teribus, now I've done it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:11 AM

"The Japanese risked attacking people similarly armed to themselves, and with considerably greater resources to bring to bear not far down the road...someone who might very likely beat them. That takes guts."

You have got to be kidding - right? It takes absolutely no courage whatsoever to launch a full scale attack on an opponent who does not even expect an attack to take place. It's the equivalent of walking up behind some complete and utter stranger in the street and hitting them over the head with a bottle.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive stike. It was an attack unleashed upon an unsuspecting target. Over the target area/area of operations the Japanese had total control of the air, in terms of naval forces after the first attack they had naval superiority in the area. Their attack was based on the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm attack on the Italian Fleet's base at Taranto but on a far grander scale, which oddly enough I believe was to their disadvantage. If instead of this Japanese pre-emptive strike being planned and executed as a purely naval operation it had contained a landward element, had the initial aerial assaults being followed up by a landing on the islands, Hawaii would have fallen. Then carriers or no, the US would have been effectively hamstrung as far as the war in the Pacific for a considerable time as their only option of "getting at" the enemy would have been through Australia, given of course that that landmass would not have been invaded had Hawaii been in Japanese hands. As things were the vast resources of their enemey (the US) that you mentioned were a twelve months and a few thousand miles away, and even once brought into play the Allied Forces in the Pacific theatre remained very much on the back foot for some time.

The attack by the Israeli Air Force in 1966 was a pre-emptive strike, the league of Arab states who had parked their armies on Israel's borders were taken totally by surprise, they did not for one second expect Israel to act in this way.

On the other hand the invasion of Iraq was telegraphed, the Ba'athist regime were contiually advised on exactly what they had to do and what they had to comply with in order to save themselves, this was done right up until the very last moment.

You describe the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as being - "an attack on the entire metropolitan civilian infrastructure and the capital city and smaller centres of an entire country...a country which was basically almost incapable of fighting back in any effective manner at the time." That just does not tally up with reality does it? If you think that it does then please explain how civilian casualties for 2003 were one tenth of those for Desert Storm (IraqBodyCount - they confirm casualties from two sources before reporting - they have so far been the most consistantly accurate measure of all casualties in Iraq) . In March 2003 civilian infrastructure was not targeted because the troops entering the country were relying on various lumps of that infrastructure being captured intact. In Desert Storm the objective was to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, so various lumps of civilian infrastructure was deliberately destroyed in order to prevent Iraqi reinforcements being deployed to the area of operations.

The following "questions" are laughable to anyone who has been involved in "live/hot" situations:

"What kind of guts does it take to fight a war where you normally kill at least a hundred of them for every man you lose?"

Let me remind you of a quotation from one of your heroes little hawk - "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - George S. Patton.

"Now bear in mind, I am not criticizing the American and British soldiers. No indeed! It always takes some guts to be a soldier and go into combat and quite likely get shot at, even if you do outgun the enemy severely." The norm for launching any sort of attack upon a fully alerted enemy (In this case the Iraqi Army) is that local superiority in numbers has to be established in the ration of 3:1. In short Little Hawk, if you are going to attack someone and you want that attack to go through you will ALWAYS outgun the enemy severely.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:03 PM

The Americans DID expect the attack to take place, Teribus. Everyone in the top American naval command circles and in the government knew perfectly well in late '41 that war was coming, and it was only a question of which week or which day it would commence on. They knew that the Japanese were sending seaborne forces south toward Malaya and the Phillipines. They knew that the Japanese carriers were out in force...location unknown...most likely readying a major attack. It was totally 100% bloody obvious that they were on the brink of a major war with Japan. When the carrier Enterprise steamed out of Pearl Harbour the day prior to the attack, its commander speculated that if he sighted any Japanese warships he would attack them on sight.

They knew war was immediately imminent at the high command level. That, of course, doesn't mean the ordinary soldier or sailor knew anything about it. They don't bother to inform those guys about such matters. ;-)


"The norm for launching any sort of attack upon a fully alerted enemy (In this case the Iraqi Army) is that local superiority in numbers has to be established in the ration of 3:1. In short Little Hawk, if you are going to attack someone and you want that attack to go through you will ALWAYS outgun the enemy severely."

Absolutely correct, Teribus. I agree entirely. That is the principle to use when attacking a defensive position in any war situation (as I well know from my years of playing historical wargames). It has no bearing, however, on my comments about a superpower attacking a 3rd World Country that hasn't got any chance at all in a conventional battle...as opposed to the Japanese attacking a nation in '41 that had enormously greater industrial resources than their own. I say that what they did took guts, but America attacking Iraq was the act of a bullying superpower which knew it couldn't lose (the conventional battle). It can, however, lose the ensuing occupation, as we are seeing...

Patton, my hero? He isn't my hero...I just recognize that he was a very effective general when it came to winning battles. Personally speaking, I don't find him very likable...but he was a good fighting general, I'll give him that. I would not have wanted to have to put up with him on a daily basis, that's for sure. He was a war-lover. I think such people are a bit mentally disturbed, to put it mildly.

I agree that the Japanese would have fared much better had they launched an amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbour in '41. I think, though, with what they already had to deal with in assaulting the Phillipines, Malaya, and Dutch East Asia, plus some other places...that mounting an additional amphibious assault on the Hawaiian Islands at that point was probably just a bit more than they could manage.

I think that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese into going to war in '41...matter of fact, I'm sure of it. He pushed them into a corner where he knew they would lash out. He did not, of course, inform the American electorate of that! ;-) Nor did he inform the Congress. No, for propaganda purposes he had to present it as a complete shock out of left field, an unprovoked, unexpected, and despicable surprise attack, a "day that will live in infamy"...blah, blah, blah...the usual melodramatic BS, in other words...all designed to infuriate ordinary Americans with the kind of righteous wrath that would send them off to war. 911 was used the same way against Afghanistan and Iraq, and some other similar outrageous thing will probably be used eventually against Iran if the USA goes to war with Iran. If so, it will be carefully arranged and presented by people in the US government, well ahead of time, and it will not be a surprise to them, but it sure as hell will be to the American public.

Was war between the USA and Japan inevitable anyway, even without Roosevelt's arranging to push Japan into it in '41? Yes. The Americans and Japanese had been sliding inexorably into a war in the Central Pacific ever since the 1920's, and they both knew it. Was Roosevelt, therefore, wise to provoke the Japanese by cutting off their steel and oil imports and jumpstart the whole thing in '41 and get it going? Perhaps. It's debatable. He wanted very much to go to war against Germany, but he had an isolationist public and congress to contend with who wanted peace. That's a problem. In such a situation one needs a major provocation by some foreign power to get the public and congress in a war mood. I believe Roosevelt decided to push the Japanese into providing such a major provocation, and they responded splendidly. His expectation was that once at war with Japan, war with Germany would not be delayed long, but he must have been astounded at his good luck when Hitler declared war on the USA!!! What a gift! It saved Roosevelt the difficulty of declaring war on Germany first, which still would have taken awhile to arrange with the American congress, no doubt...because strongly persuasive excuses would have had to be found. Hitler saved Roosevelt from needing to find any.

I don't know why, Teribus, you are so perturbed about the Japanese hitting the American fleet by surprise at Pearl Harbour. That's standard in warfare. You ALWAYS hit the enemy by surprise if you possibly can, it's the smart thing to do. You'd have to be a complete idiot to politely inform them a day or a week ahead, "Hey, we're going to attack you, okay? Be ready for us when we get there. Give us your best shot."

Yeah, right.... (grin)

And anyway, as I said above, the American high command should not have been surprise at all. They knew the Japanese were about to attack in numerous places in the Pacific. The only thing they didn't know was exactly where, and at exactly what time, and with exactly how many forces in each case. But they sure as hell knew it was coming. They just didn't bother to tell the public or most of the sailors and soldiers who would soon bear the brunt of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:17 PM

I think Roosevelt and his key people were surprised only in one sense, by the way. They did not realize what an efficient, modern, and capable military force the Japanese had or how complete their early victories would be. That surprised everyone, even the Japanese themselves.

As such, it probably upset Mr Roosevelt a bit. ;-) After all, the Japanese planes were supposed to be inferior copies of outmoded American designs, and their soldiers were supposed to be bucktoothed, nearsighted, incompetent little fanatics who could not possibly beat a western force in the field, right?

And battleships were supposed to be unsinkable by airplanes when maneuvering freely at sea too, weren't they? Just ask Winston Churchill about that.

Yes, the Japanese had a few surprises up their sleeve in '41.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:30 PM

Teribus---

You are indeed a student of history. But you fail to realize that you may not be the only such student on Mudcat.

And your blatant ideological bias impels you to force Iraq today into a historical straitjacket of your devising.


1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

Wrong--despite the ill-informed defense of your position by Kevin and Wolfgang.



2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Wrong. LH has pointed out to you the error of your ways.



3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

Wrong. Even you should recognize this by now.


Etc. etc.--ad nauseam.



Your problem is you need to start thinking-- before trying to spout your absurd attempted parallels.

And do what your hero, Mr. Bush, never does--consider arguments opposing your already-decided conclusion.

It would be a refreshing change.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:32 AM

Ron, I know that you like putting words into my mouth and then quoting ad nauseum that they did in fact originate from me, and I have drawn your attention before to what I believe to be your extremely poor skills when it comes comprehension of the english language.

Now as to the three historical parallels that you claim I hold so dear, lets take a look at those:

1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

What I actually said was:
"Unlike Ron Davies I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945. From 1933 to 1945 they had milked every advantage out of their political allegiance as they could get, let them run to Ba'athist Syria for whatever hand-outs may come their way, those will be damn few and far between, but no less than what they richly deserve."

2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Eh?? I think that you had better go back and read those posts again - I have argued exactly the opposite.

3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

My references to what was known as "The War of the Running Dogs" in respect to Iraq relate to two aspects of post war Iraq:
A) The possible time frame for involvement - 15 to 20 years
B) How it should be handled, that the problem cannot be solved by military means alone, the tremendous importance of "Hearts and Minds", also pointed out my belief that US armed forces have never been very good at this.

But at no time at all did I ever say that "The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's."

You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement. For a change try reading and trying to understand what is actually said.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:59 PM

"ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945."

"I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945."

The words are different, but I can't for the life of me see that there is any difference in the meaning.

ALL Iraqi Sunnis = the Sunni population of Iraq

are like hardcore Nazis = are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:17 PM

I am pretty sure that Ron unintentionally left the word "not" out of his point # 2, Teribus. ;-)

You said, "You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement."

As a philosopher by nature, I would say that virtually ALL of us human beings are guilty of that habit, Teribus...most of the time. Including you and me. ;-) It's human nature to do that. People only bother (occasionally) to read the stuff that doesn't back their argument so that they can quote it later out of context in order to ridicule it.

I'm aware of this tendency...even as I do it myself...I catch myself and other people doing it all the time, and it causes me to have a certain ironic humour about people and their impassioned opinions about things, specially when it comes to politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:01 PM

It's against my nature to attack the underdog.
And you must surely admit Teribus, that on this forum you are the underdog. All your erstwhile supporters have deserted you, unable to suspend reality any longer.
But still you soldier on....in the words of your favourite put-down, "digging that mucky hole ever deeper."

I think you must be having a laugh!!....I never really thought your heart was in the conception of this conflict, you are too smart not to have forseen the pitfalls lying in wait and for a man who puts such store by facts you seem in this discussion, to interpret and present these "facts" in whichever form suits your argument.....Something like Bush and Blair really.


I don't intend to say much more on this thread as it is succombing to your usual tactic of smothering the life out of it with minutiae.
However You know very well that although the Taliban were no direct threat to US/UK....According to the American administration their support for terrorism, and Al Quaeda in particular was seen as a very great threat.
Seems to me, that any Shia dominated Govt in Iraq will lean heavily towards Iran, and may well sponser strikes against Western interests throughout the Middle East.

Right from the start you have stated that you don't see Islamic Fundamentalism as a problem ....often mocking my opinions.
I would be interested to hear the "thought process" that leads to your conclusion....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM

Teribus--


"They (Iraqi Sunnis) are the equivalent of the hardline Nazis in Germany in 1945."
Indeed. That's what you said. Thanks for confirming it.

And it's drivel. Dangerous drivel.

Some Sunnis are. Most are not.

And it's the height of stupidity--and therefore not surprising to hear from you.



Your parallel to the Malaysian situation was geared--in context--which you conveniently omit- to counsel patience--it would take a long time to win. You ignore the many differences between the two situations--especially regarding resupply of the insurgents.

Then there are your agonized parallels between Hitler and Saddam--as regards danger to the whole world.

It's back to your historical straitjacket.


I repeat--it would be nice if you would do what your hero Mr. Bush never does--consider evidence which opposes your pre-determined decision.