Analysts Foresee Bleak Road Ahead in Iraq

[Eugene]

Analysts Foresee Bleak Road Ahead in Iraq


Wednesday November 30, 2005 9:01 am

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

AP Special Correspondent

Two senior Army analysts who in 2003 accurately foretold the turmoil
that would be unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq offer a bleak
assessment in a new study of what now lies ahead in that bloodied land.

They advise, however, against setting a timetable for U.S. troop
withdrawal - unless Washington finds the situation "irredeemable."

<snip>

In their new 60-page report, veteran Middle East scholar Terrill and
Crane, director of the Army Military History Institute, say a U.S.
troop presence in Iraq probably cannot be sustained more than three
years further. Meantime, they write:

-"It appears increasingly unlikely that U.S., Iraqi and coalition
forces will crush the insurgency prior to the beginning of a phased
U.S. and coalition withdrawal."

<snip>

They go on to recommend seeking stability with lowered
expectations, rather than abandoning Iraq to civil war.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5447030,00.html

[driver8]

1. "Democratic Underground Foresees Bleak Road in Iraq".

Uhm...no shit, Sherlock. There are about 80,000 of us here that could of told you that. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think you have to be a senior army analyst to figure that out.

[wookie294]

2. Actually, you DO need to be employed OUTSIDE the military to figure it out

The military lives in its own clique of denial. Seriously, DU posters are smarter than the nimrods working for Rumsfeld. Scary.

[shrike]

13. I decided long ago that we are frickin' geniuses here at DU

How else to explain it?

[ixion]

12. That was my thought. as well

:hi:

[necso]

3. "...a predetermined,

step-by-step schedule for a troop pullout. They see 'catastrophic' dangers in that approach."

I agree, what is called for are plans for an opposed, general, all-forces, all-at-once (but staged), tactical withdrawal... a beat-feet. (And, of course, to do precisely this -- at the earliest possible opportunity.)

Telegraphing your moves, revealing your plans, giving your adversaries extra time to plan and react (even as your forces grow ever weaker), and giving your "allies" (especially those that you're screwing) too much time to think, are all bad ideas -- and to be avoided whenever possible.

As I understand it, we have extra forces over there for the election. Let's take advantage of this and beat feet.

[sweettater]

4. crush the insurgency ?

the one thing that bothers me the most about this "war" is this favorite line, crush the insurgency. Really? How stupid is that? There is no end to the insurgency. What there is of it. Training grounds are constantly supplying them. Only a small percentage are from outside Iraq. Most are defenders of their own country. God, how I hate the lies! and the ignorant that believe them.

[ClintonTyree]

5. That, and their insistence that there IS a "coalition".........

at one time there was a very fragile and bare-bones "coalition" comprised of two main countries; the U.S. and Great Britain. Those two countries remain, but most of the other "coalition" members, who contributed next to nothing in the way of manpower in the first place, have been steadily withdrawing their help. What remains is a "coalition" of 90% American forces and 10% from other countries, mostly in a support role. The U.K. is the only other country with enough soldiers to matter and they're mostly stationed in parts of Iraq that are uncontested.
When I hear these idiots talk about the "coalition" I want to puke. :puke: A proper coalition never existed and it's become even less meaningful over the years we've been there. American troops have shouldered the brunt of the combat from day one.
"Coalition". Who the fuck are they trying to kid?

[oscarmitre]

11. Your forgot ...

Poland...I mean Australia.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. damned straight. We are helping CREATE the damned insurgents.

We know that. The CIA and DIA know that. The Iraqis know it.
Only the White House keeps its head in the sand, its ear to jesus and its ethics in the toilet.

[leftchick]

6. but wait! rummy said "we are fighting the terrorists there....

so we don't have to fight them here" yesterday at the end of his fake progress report. If that is the case, we can stay there FOREVER!

[NMDemDist2]

7. link to the study, if you're so inclined

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB627.pdf

[NMDemDist2]

8. here's an intesting tidbit

Looking at operations such as those in Haiti, the Balkans, and East Timor, Marten concludes “Nowhere have the liberal democratic military
peacekeeping operations of the 1990s created liberal democratic
societies. They did not even create much forward momentum in
that direction, in any of the countries where they were deployed.”
Her study emphasizes that recent interventions, like the imperial
era, demonstrate the continuing ability of disciplined soldiers to
establish order, but also shows that liberal democratic states rarely
demonstrate the will, or coherent policy direction, to transplant their
values to other cultures.33

[cliss]

14. Aha.....I knew the brain-power was in there somewhere.

I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that we are NOT the only ones who knew this.

We knew a long time ago that Iraq would turn out like this.

I'm willing to be my next paycheck that Washington DOES indeed know this. RumsFailed knows, too. He's not completely stupid.

Has anyone looked closely at RumsFool lately? He looks real tired. I can see the failure in his eyes. Oh, he waves his arms around and tried to look animated, but it's there. The fact that they gambled and lost. The rolled the dice...oh, the stakes were astronomical. Their reputations, the U.S. treasury, and the good-will in the eyes of the entire world.

They lost.

The White House knows this, as well. They may be jack-asses, and operate on a very low level of comprehension, sorta like the neighborhood thug, but even the thug knows when he's fucked up. The problem is, they don't know what to do next.

[grytpype]

9. Please RECOMMEND, everyone needs to read this.

Especially all the "magic the troops home today" people.

The authors are predicing a "catastrophe" if we set a fixed timetable for withdrawal, which we should only do if we are going to give up.

I hope people will put their emotions aside and think rationally about how to get out of Iraq.

[Festivito]

15. Lowered expectations, i.e. an "undemocratic state."

But, we don't need no stink'n DMockRacy to protect our "vital interests."

And, we CANNOT MANAGE more than three more years in Iraq! Yikes!