expat wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:


Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?   

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:53pm:

Shame that a lot of people dont read anything longer than 2 alineas... Some of the replies are really good while others are missing the point by miles

Winable really depends on the reasons for getting involved in the conflict.  Despite what the politicians, media, and special interest groups say Iraq isn't about Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Oil.  If it were any of these it would have made much more sense to invade some other country (Iran, Korea, Venezuela).  Instead Iraq was a statement to the world that the US was going to be an active policeman on the world stage.  Effectively Iraq was an attempt to erase Somalia, Bosnia, and the other recent instances where the US showed the world that it didn't have a taste for committing to armed engagements (beyond perhaps bombing a few huts).  Iraq is about keeping countries like Iran and Korea in line and show the various despots around the world that the US will commit to armed engagement against you if you do something stupid, like support terrorism.  Iraq was just politically and militarily the easiest target.  Compound that with the bad intelegence already mentioned and we are where we are today.

Now combine that with dcunnings argument and now its obvious how dangerous the Iraq situation is: disengaging (which we most certainly will do) will show the world that we do indeed have a lack of commitment for such engagements.  Perhaps that's a good thing (as I'm no fan of being a tax payer funding the policing of the world, nor do I enjoy having my friends and family members in harms way), but perhaps it will embolden those same rogue states we wanted to scare.  Time will tell.

So is Iraq unwinable?  Depends on the intent.  I think Iran and Korea would be much more active and dangerous today if we hadn't gone to Iraq, I think Iraq delayed them significantly.  Perhaps the engagement has already had the desired effect.  But perhaps it won't.  I can't tell the future...

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

As for not fighting, no I don't think we should stop gathering intelligence and disrupting terrorist cells etc. Invading nations though is an entirely different kettle of fish.

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:38pm:

No. My point was with Guadalcanal it was clear what had to be done to achieve victory. Eleminate japanise resistance. I didn't make any mention of how difficult or easy it was, nor did I say it was a foregone conclusion. All I said is that it was clear what had to be done to win.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:42pm:



In the first 6 months of Guadalcanal, the only thing that was clear was the 1st Marine Division was expected to defeat the Japanese with not enough supplies, not enough aircraft, not enough food, not enough naval support.  And at that time, the myth of the Japanese super-jungle-fighter had not been dispelled.  It was not a foregone conclusion.  Japanese BB's were ranging up and down Sealark Channel lobbing 14" shells onto Henderson field with impunity.  You said Guadalcanal was winnable.  That's hindsight because we know it was won.  But at that time, winning was definately a precarious goal, and was not a foregone conclusion.

Heck, during the battle of Savo Island, the Japanese Navy handily ate the US Navy's lunch.  It wasn't just a loss, it was a naval disaster!  So we have this picture:  The Marines on shore lacked supplies and naval support due to IMHO the timidity of Admiral Fletcher.  Then the very first surface engagement occurring the very night of the American invasion, the US and Australian naval vessals were soundly beaten by the Japanese Navy.  It was a very, very bleak picture.  But they ultimatelu came back to win.

Now, put that into the context of today's vast array of criticism, there would be calls from the media and armchair generals getting their "intelligence" updates from the BBC and from CNN to pull out, the Pacific War was unwinnable.

Chris_F wrote on Dec 27^th, 2006 at 9:59pm:


My opinion is Iraq had multiple effects.  Notice suicide attacks had waned in Israel, and so far the number of suicide attacks have not picked up to the level of pre-Iraq.  It appears this can be attributed to the fact that Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers.

Also, it has upset Al Qaeda's timetable of international attacks.  This can't yet be proven nor disproven, but there are hints to this in intercepted communications.  Iraq had become the magnet for the jihadis.  If the US takes the advice of the media and the Baker surrender report, then Al Qaeda will view a pullout as nothing less than surrender.  Of course mistakes were made, but a pullout would be a mistake magnitudes greater than all previous mistakes.

Personally, I'm not too worried about North Korea, but Iran is being exposed in ways it wouldn't have otherwise.  Thise who think that Iran is not a big deal just aren't paying attention.