what is the reason the us can not defeat iraq after 3 years? how long does the military need to defeat a 3rd world country like iraq? apparently it is more than 3 years and a trillion dollars.

Hmmmm.

1. The Stinger missile is a man-portable anti-aircraft missile *not* an anti-tank missile.

2. America supplied a total of a couple hundred Stingers to the Afghans so it's not reasonable to think that Afghans used "hundreds" of Stingers on any particular column of tanks.

3. Stingers were almost exclusively used against Soviet helicopters as was intended. During the Afghanistan War the Soviet helicopters were the most powerful weapon against the Afghans. Primarily because Soviet-era tanks are incapable of elevating their cannons high enough to be useful in mountainous terrain and Soviet aircraft didn't have precision-guided bombs.

4. The Afghanistan War lasted for about 9 years and involved hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers throughout that period. And because the Soviet armies were all conscript based on a 4 year enlistment, many of those soldiers were new to that conflict. A similar system was used by America in Vietnam. A huge number of conscripts were cycled through a conflict giving rise to a very large mass of men with first hand experience in the matter at hand.

5. The Iraq War has lasted for 2 years, and perhaps a couple more, and does involve about 150,000 soldiers. However many of those are located outside of Iraq proper in a support or logistic role. Many of those inside Iraq are on a repeat tour with experience from previous tours. US Army and USMC retention rates for combat units is very high, which means that most such units are comprised largely of veterans with a relative few number of newbies.

What this does is reduce any such "Effect" because the total mass of soldiers subjected to this first-hand experience is far less than that of either the Afghanistan War or Vietnam. On the other hand there is the new technology of blogging. It's possible that blogging, if continued and given wider audience exposure, would magnify any such "Effect" beyond what the raw numbers would suggest.

But such an "Effect" might take considerable amounts of time to percolate through the body politic. The Afghanistan War lasted for 9 years and a majority of any such "Effect" didn't occur until very last portion of the war. Even then for any such "Effect" to be of worth, it has to have the ability to change minds.

And in this highly polarized political landscape, that's still very much in the air.

Hmmmm.

@ Rip Van Stan

what is the reason the us can not defeat iraq after 3 years?

You should get out more. The government of Iraq was defeated after a couple months.

what is the reason the us can not defeat iraq after 3 years?

Probably the same reason why you can't seem to use capitalization. Stupidity.

how long does the military need to defeat a 3rd world country like iraq?

Six weeks. Use Google and check for yourself.

apparently it is more than 3 years and a trillion dollars.

It's been less than three years and a hell of a lot less than a trillion dollars, but hey, who's counting?

Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers, Stan.

Some of the footage taken during the Afghanistan war by the mujahideen shows TOW missiles being used against Soviet armor. The TOW missiles were sent to Iran to buy freedom for American hostages with the understanding that 20% would be sent to Afghanistan. The U.S. didn't want the openly supply weapons to the mujahideen, at least not early in the conflict. We wanted to do to the Soviets what they did to us in Vietnam.

One real difference between the Iraq war and the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars is that the opposing force is not being supplied with advanced weapons by another superpower. You can imagine the problems the U.S. would face if the insurgents had shoulder launched missiles capable of readily bringing down our aircraft.

Given the ready communications between solders in Iraq and their families at home, along with conservative main stream media presence in Iraq, the good news is getting out on a day to day basis, you just have to know were to look for it. Without the damming up of contrary information like there was with the Soviets in Afghanistan, there can be no massive flood of such information to sweep away the propagandists. The Afghanistan effect will be minimal if even noticeable.

Crud, I shoulda spelled it out a bit more clearly.

The "great empire" being threatened this time is the media, not the United States.

My apologies, Mac Lorry.

J.

I will weep no tears for the demise of the “great (media) empire”. I've had more than my fill of their elitist defeatist malarkey. They are too quick to blame the US first and patronize our enemy. Good riddance will be my mantra!

When I taught Air Force ROTC back in the very late 70s, I held long discussions with my students regarding the bias shown by the media during and after the war. I remember their looks of disbelief. Little did I realize that these same wonderful kids would face this same media onslaught within their careers. I hope they remember and, when given the opportunity, that they pass on what they have learned.

I hope they never forget that the MSM will stab them in the back at every opportunity. Just because they can. And the MSM takes it's lead from one of the major political parties in this country. I never made that connection for them -- it is one of those topics best left as an exercise for the student. But I am sure they were smart enough to make the connection.

[Sorry, brought back some sad memories of friends no longer here...]

Hmmm.

... problems the U.S. would face if the insurgents had shoulder launched missiles capable of readily bringing down our aircraft.

Actually insurgents in Iraq already have shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles and they've already tried using them on military and civilian aircraft.

They don't have access to more powerful missiles because they're larger, more difficult to hide and transport and require more technical knowledge to operate.

The Afghanistan effect will be minimal if even noticeable.

I agree for slightly different reasons but I think that's the correct analysis. In one way though I do disagree. I think the "Effect" will happen but not for several to many years. The "Effect" will take place when the veterans of Iraq take their place amongst the politicians and leaders of the country. When the veterans of Iraq start to seek public office and attain higher positions in corporate America, that's when we'll start seeing a real effect.

Jay,

Your piece was clear about the media being threatened. Apparently my comment was obscure to the point of confusing you into thinking I was confused by your piece. Hopefully that's not too confusing.

Ed,

I don't disagree with your statement that insurgents "already have shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles." That's why I qualified my statement with "capable of readily bringing down our aircraft." The point I was trying to make was that if insurgents had advanced weapons that could do real damage against our forces, then the news from Iraq and the reality would both be that were are losing. There would be no contradictions, so there could be no Afghanistan effect.

I agree that as Iraq war veterins return to civilian life and enter politics, as some always do, there will be some "lessons learned" effect that will alter future policy. However, I think technology is far more a threat to MSM that some reverse Afghanistan effect.

I don't want to see an end to the MSM. I want to see an end to the LIBERAL MSM.

Mind you, I don't want a conservative MSM either. I want an OBJECTIVE MSM, beholden to no political parties or ideologies.

Too often, the media seem to forget their responsibility is to REPORT the news, not try to direct the thought processes of the American public.

Perhaps there are some similarities between Vietnam and the current hostilities that are being missed. The obvious is the desire of the MSM to defeat our troops, but possibly there is another. In Vietnam the regional charicter of the war was masked by liberals wishing to paint the "skirmish" as a civil war. This point of view limited our battlefield to such an extent that we nearly lost the battle before we lost the peace. Are we ready to do the same now?

The recient political firestorm over pulling our troops out could never have ended the Iraqi liberation but how much such political angst does it take to make future action against other regional bad guys political poison? If "faulty intelligence" led us into a war we shouldn't have started how much intelligence will we need to move against a nuclear Iran? A chemical Syria?

Just as the Ho Chi Mien trail through Laos and Cambodia provided arms and troups to So. Vietnam so to do modern day Syria and Iran provide men and material support to "insurgents" in Iraq.

Our will to win must surmount and humiliate the political pressure to find peace unilaterally and our drive to victory must ignore lines on a map when the principalities deliniated by those lines fail to police their borders (or worse, aid the enemy).

The point I was trying to make was that if insurgents had advanced weapons that could do real damage against our forces, then the news from Iraq and the reality would both be that were are losing.

Oh? We'd do nothing but roll over? We wouldn't do anything to counteract that?

That shows what you know, asshat.

The liberals are playing a little game we call "Six Degrees of Iraqui War." They use it to tie the war to everything inconsistent with their worldview in six steps or less. Bonus points if you can also tie the war to an increase in toe fungus and prove everything is the fault of the Bush Administration. (They got bored with the Kevin Bacon version of this game and needed a new meme...it's like Trivial Pursuit for the non-thinking set).

"Oh? We'd do nothing but roll over? We wouldn't do anything to counteract that?"

What the heck are you talking about? If some real military power supplied the insurgents in Iraq with shoulder launched missiles that could readily take down our aircraft like the U.S. did in Afghanistan against the soviets, then the effect would be similar to what was seen in that conflict. If the U.S. can’t even counteract crude roadside IED’s, how would they counteract such weapons other than to not fly close support missions.

Well asshat, what's your solution or are you just another blowhard.

Folks, the radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq have SA-7 GRAIL MANPADS. They have downed several helicopters and fired at large transports. We counter their MANPADS through tactics, techniques and procedures - like avoid flying near their known MANPADS positions. MANPADS are worthless against ground targets unless it has a large infrared signature. Even then the warhead is only intended to take out an aircraft, not a tank.

Folks, the radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq have SA-7 GRAIL MANPADS.

The SA-7 is a first generation Soviet man portable SAM that first entered service in 1968. It has vary limited range, speed, and altitude. As a relatively slow tail-chase heat seeking missile it's ineffective against fighter aircraft easily defeated with decoy flares. What success it has had in Iraq is the result of lucky shots similar to what we have seen with the downing of a Blackhawk by an RPG. The SA-7 is a far less effective missile than the Stingers the U.S. supplied to the mujahideen during the Afghanistan war. If the insurgents had a weapon that was as effective against our aircraft in Iraq as the Stinger was against the Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan, that would change the dynamics fundamentally. I'm not saying there is such a weapon system as that could only be shown in combat.

Classic the left does this and now the right is doing the same, when you losing the argument simply blame the media, I guess you ignorant fools are ignoring the interview that Iraq's former prime minister has given today to the British news paper The observer, which is Iraq is now in simular situation to when Saddam was in charge, with secret police and torture dungeons. Hooray democracy in action.

Saf,

Apparently you subscribe to the augment that nothing should ever be done to defeat tyrants like Saddam because innocents will suffer in the chaotic process. It's a convenient argument for those who don't want to bloody their hands to help those who can't help themselves.

From your "ignorant fools" comment you no doubt feel you arrived at your position through superior education and intellect, but history shows your position is naïve at best. Thousands of years of history demonstrate a simple fact, which is that the price of freedom is blood. The U.S. has shed the blood of it's sons and daughters to make the first payment for the Iraqi people, but only Iraqi blood will secure Iraqi freedom. What fool thinks the entire process is rendered invalid because of the unjust acts of a few zealots?

Mac Lorry………Lolz…….it just makes me laugh when your Americans go on about how your protecting freedom and how this is all about freedom, I have pointed these facts many times before and I will point them out to you again, first of all I would love it if America went round the world taking out all the dictators I would love that, but anyone with half a brain cell who has not been brainwashed by fox and co will know that this will never happen. Read the facts and lets see you come up with an argument to prove just one of them wrong:

First of all Saddam was an evil dictator but the vast majority of his killing was done whilst he was an ally of the west, did you hear about the Kurds being gassed when they were gassed or did you hear about it years later when he invaded oil rich Kuwait. In fact Rumsfield shook hands with Saddam several weeks after the gassing of Kurds.

As for spreading freedom, Egypt an evil dictatorship which tortures its own people is the second biggest recipient of American aid.

Jordan a dictatorship known for torturing its own people is a big recipient of American aid and a big American ally.

Uzbekistan an evil dictatorship which is known to have boiled its own people to death as well as machine gunning a protesting crowd was a big recipient of American aid which I believe may have stopped in the last few months and no not because of its human rights abuses it was stopped because they asked America to vacate their military base.

Saudi Arabia an evil dictatorship is a big American ally.

Now like I said simple fact I would love it if America went round and took out all the evil regimes but we know that’s not how it work it is all about self interest, you might turn round and say well hold on its one regime at a time to which I will say well ok that’s fine but why are they still actually propping up some of these evil regimes with Aid it doesn’t take much to stop that.. So please do not make me laugh about this crap about Iraqi freedom

No I have not arrived at my position through superior education I am sure your just as educated difference is I am not blinded by party loyalties like you guys seem to be over there be it Republican or Democrat.

Mac Lorry,
By the way those few Zealots you were talking about are the new Iraqi police

Saf,

Out of one side of your mouth you claim that you would like the U.S. to take out all the dictators, but out of the other side you protest any move the U.S. takes to do just that. It's weak-kneed countries like yours that create the environment that allows tyrants like Saddam to stay in power and that puts the blood of innocents on your hands. That environment is typified by the paralysis seen in the U.N. in dealing with Saddam for 12 years. Even with clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and numerous resolutions, the U.N. was unwilling to act because of the corrupt and cowardice governments like yours that make up the majority of it's membership.

Apart from military action, the U.S. has just two alternatives, either ignore countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, or gain influence with them by engaging them with trade and support, and then ask them to change. U.S. presidents have been doing that with China for over 25 years and while the people of China are not yet free, many are far better off because of U.S. engagement. In fact, Bush just asked China to do more. When such diplomacy fails then military action becomes an option of last resort, but buffoons like you then view our earlier diplomatic efforts with such regimes as hypocrisy. You have to be purposely stupid to not understand that diplomacy comes first, but if that fails then sometimes military action is needed. That's not hypocritical, that's reality.

By the way those few Zealots you were talking about are the new Iraqi police

Saf,

If you're up to date on your news than you know the U.S. military raided the ministry that was mistreating prisoners and is now looking to prosecute the perpetrators. It takes time and effort to change a culture like Iraq's, but the U.S. has the integrity and courage to do just that. Cowards like to claim any injustices justifies their position of non-involvement so that they can feel good about themselves. The rest of us see through their self-delusion and know them for what they really are.

Reading your comments I always ask how can you get such brainwashed people in such a sophisticated and educated country like USA. My point to ignorant brainwashed fools like yourself is this, that the war has nothing to do with freeing a nation, history has shown countries always fight for a national interest be it self defence or be it economical but most of the western populations today will not accept their governments going round the world killing people for economical interest, that’s why the political leadership has to come up with bollocks like, WMD, terrorist training camps, and now finally for the real stupid spreading democracy and American political leadership is real lucky because of willing idiots like you who will believe everything that is fed to them.

Are you really that stupid, that you think America dealing with Egypt and Saudi is to do with diplomacy and nothing to do with self interest, I am sure your diplomacy was appreciated when the Uzbekistan government was boiling its people to death, and whilst our Ambassador to Uzbekistan spoke out against the abuse his reward was being sacked by Blair for doing so, this happened whilst in Iraq we are fighting under the flag of spreading freedom…What a joke….The only reasons tyrants managed to stay in power for so long is continues support to prop up regimes given to them from the west, under what possible circumstance can you justify fighting for freedom and at the same time given millions of dollars in Aid to the most ruthless dictatorships like Uzbekistan, do you not at least feel embarrassed about these facts.

Saf,

The way you carry on about the "west" and the supposed injustice of the Iraq war no one could guess you were a Brit. I apologize for my unknowing comments about your country as it has be a bulwark against oppression and has done it's share in Iraq. However, like any free nation, it has buffoons like yourself who, from the shelter of a brave nation, promote timidity in the face of tyrants like Saddam.

Peace and stability are in the interest of the U.S. and history shows the best guarantee of that is through democratization of nations. The U.S and Britain were able to bring democracy to Germany and Japan after WWII and by doing so establish as enduring peace with these nations. If you weren't blinded by your own leftist propaganda you would see that that's what is going on in Iraq. The tyrant regimes in the area see it and that's why they fight so hard to destabilize Iraq, and of course they can count on the support of buffoons like yourself.

If the U.S. doesn't have a significant relationship with a nation like Uzbekistan it's only option to bring about change is saber rattling and then military action, the very thing buffoons like yourself complain loudly about, and in so doing, support the tyrants you protest about. Without that support there would be far fewer tyrants in the world, so the blood of innocents is on your hands.

Mac Lorry

Wow how brainwashed are you, my point to you is the US does not give a shit about democracy it cares about its own interest. When the Uzbekistan government cracked down on a protest buy firing on protestors go back and check the condemnation from the other countries round the world and then look at the US state departments response, the only thing they could bring about themselves to say was “we are concerned”. Do you actually understand the crap that you are writing, first of all you think you have saved the blood of millions by invading and then you seem to advocate being diplomatic with dictators. So in that case you’re responsible for all the blood in Saudi, Egypt, Uzbekistan etc etc

I think your really having difficulty understanding the point I am making which is America does not give a shit about spreading democracy its only bothered about its own interest (oil and other political objectives in this case) this is proven by the fact whilst on the one hand the claim to spread democracy on the other hand they are supporting dictators with money. Try to understand the point although I do understand brainwashing may well have had effects on the little brain you do have.

I won’t go as far and say you got blood on your hand its not your fault that you little brain can be so easily manipulated by stories of baddies and goodies

Saf,

So what part of your little brain can't understand that democratization of rogue nations IS in the interest of the U.S? What benefit has the U.S. gotten out of bringing down Saddam other than the prospects for piece and stability? Do you think the oil that the U.S. will buy from a stable and free Iraq for the going market price somehow offsets the cost of the war?

If your opinion of the U.S. was correct, we could have gotten all the oil we wanted from Saddam by supporting him against Kuwait. All the U.S. would have had to do would be to let the U.N. lead. Saddam would have then taken out Saudi Arabia and finally when the U.N. was shown impotent, the U.S. could have gone in and become the self appointed protectorate of the oil rich region. The fact that that's not what happened demonstrates the buffoonery of your argument.

What would you have the U.S. do in Uzbekistan where we have no real leverage, threaten them with regime change?. If we did, every leftist buffoon would be crying about the U.S. throwing it's military weight around. Sometimes the U.S. sits back and gives the U.N. a chance to live up to it's charter. The hope is to teach other nations the hard lessons of history that tyrants only respect strength. The problem is all the leftist buffoons that render any U.N. response impotent so that all it can ever do without U.S. muscle is protest. Nations like Uzbekistan laugh at the fools and continue their deplorable practices.

Strong medicine often has unpleasant side effects. Buffoons look only at the side effects and throw out the medicine.

Mac lorry

So what part of your little brain can't understand that democratization of rogue nations IS in the interest of the U.S?

Well I tell you it’s the part of my brain which is aware that history has shown that throughout the Muslim world America has got its way by supporting dictators, for example Turkey the most liberal of Islamic nations is a democracy however they did not allow the US to use their bases for the invasion of Iraq because the Turkish population would not allow it and being a democracy the politicians had no choice even though they lost billions of dollars in Aid.

On the other hand Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and finally Saudi Arabia all which are extremely conservative Arab Islamic nations all provided some sort of support such as the use of bases and air space because dictators could do what they wanted and not listen to their population. Now let me tell you one thing if any of these nations had genuine democracy they would pick extreme Islamic parties I can assure you of that and also these governments would definitely not be pro American. Just look at history in your own back yard in Latin America how dictators were supported over elected governments on the pretence of fighting communism.

As far as Iraqi oil is concerned just answer one question why was it that after the invasion was complete the first thing the Americans did was warn the Syrians that the oil pipeline carrying oil to Syria will be turned off unless Syria changes it behavior, that may not be stealing oil but it is certainly using Iraqi oil to achieve an American political objective.

As far as the UN is concerned I hope the UN is abolished at least it will stop America using the term the international community whenever committing aggression. As far as the Uzbekistan is converned tell me why did they not stop the aid when the torture was going on, strange way to punish a nation answer is simple they needed the uzbekistan base for operations in Afghanistan.

Reading your crap looks like your one of the 90% of americans who never seen anything beyond your own back yard yet you think your some sort of expert on the world.

What a pin head you are Saf.

The only extremist islamic government in that area of the world stays in power through rigged "elections." If there were truly free elections in Iran, the Imams would be out on their collective asses. The same would hold true for any other area, such as Afghanistan. When people have a choice, they choose freedom, not enslavement.

Oh, and you could use a little more education on Latin American Politics and whom supported what. Crawl back into your little dark cave now.

Saf,

Most of the support the U.S. gives to Arabic nations goes to Egypt and Jordan, both of which have made real progress toward piece in the reign. I couldn't even find Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar on the list. As for Turkey we gave them noting in 2001 and then in 2004 we gave them 0.15 billion, so your premise that we punished Turkey for not allowing the U.S. to base our aircraft there is provably false. We don't give much to Turkey because as a nation ready to join the EU, it shouldn't need U.S. aid anymore other than for natural disasters.

As far as Iraqi oil is concerned just answer one question why was it that after the invasion was complete the first thing the Americans did was warn the Syrians that the oil pipeline carrying oil to Syria will be turned off unless Syria changes it behavior, that may not be stealing oil but it is certainly using Iraqi oil to achieve an American political objective.

Between 2001 and March 2003, Iraq and Syria utilized the Banias oil pipeline in violation of U.N. sanctions. In March 2003, flows on the pipeline were halted, but not by the U.S. With insurgents blowing up pipelines it would make no sense to pump oil through the vary nation many of the insurgents are coming through.

As far as the Uzbekistan is converned tell me why did they not stop the aid when the torture was going on, strange way to punish a nation answer is simple they needed the uzbekistan base for operations in Afghanistan.

Whatever torture was going on in Uzbekistan was going on long before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. So you want the world to be perfect all at once and if it's not, then do nothing. Is that your philosophy? Are you really that dumb or are you just using every excuse you can find to cling to your holier than thou image of yourself?

The U.S. goal is to democratize nations to achieve piece and stability in the region. The U.S. prefers to do that through patient diplomatic means. If that involves support of a benign dictator like the king of Jordan, that's far better than allowing radical Islamic fundamentalist to take control. Being you oppose that U.S. policy as well as the use of military action to impose a democracy, it's apparent you support the takeover of such countries by radical Islamic fundamentalist like the Taliban, in Afghanistan. Why do you hate the Arabic people so much that you would support such tyrants?

Reading your crap looks like your one of the 90% of americans who never seen anything beyond your own back yard yet you think your some sort of expert on the world.

This just proves my initial argument that you think your opinions are the result of superior education and intellect. It's a delusion most leftists buffoons suffer from.

Er, this presumptious "Afghan effect" was so patently obvious (at least to me) from a sociological pov, I'm surprised it needed explaining. Not trying to be snobbish, just continually amazed at what passes for intelligence among certain groups.

It's not the whole story either, as Saf and Mac can testify. Pistols at dawn, boys!