ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Re: Vietnam II

3/31/2003 10:52 PM
Skreddy	Re: Vietnam II Cheer up! All is not lost. Obviously we have passed the point of a bloodless coup. Obviously many of Saddam's fighters will go down trying. But the longer coalition forces camp out in the desert, drawing Saddam's forces out into the open where they can have bombs rained on them, the easier it will be when they're ready to move in and take the capital. I pray that those poor Iraqi soldiers who have been conscripted will have opportunity to surrender rather than be killed. This war will have an end. A new government will eventually take Saddam's place. Coalition forces will eventually come home, and I believe an all-out bloodbath will ultimately be avoided. The percentage of forces willing to die for Saddam is much lower than the Iraqi Defense Minister would have you believe. The Iraqi people, on the whole, are welcoming this regime change and are probably even going to forgive the US for the inevitable loss of life. It's not an instant war; it's not a happy war; it's not a clean, surgical, or antiseptic war. Arguably, it's not even a 'legal' war. But it is a winnable and terminable war, and I believe something good will come from it (along with the inevitable bad, of course).

3/31/2003 10:52 PM

Skreddy

Re: Vietnam II

Cheer up! All is not lost.

Obviously we have passed the point of a bloodless coup. Obviously many of Saddam's fighters will go down trying. But the longer coalition forces camp out in the desert, drawing Saddam's forces out into the open where they can have bombs rained on them, the easier it will be when they're ready to move in and take the capital. I pray that those poor Iraqi soldiers who have been conscripted will have opportunity to surrender rather than be killed.

This war will have an end. A new government will eventually take Saddam's place. Coalition forces will eventually come home, and I believe an all-out bloodbath will ultimately be avoided. The percentage of forces willing to die for Saddam is much lower than the Iraqi Defense Minister would have you believe. The Iraqi people, on the whole, are welcoming this regime change and are probably even going to forgive the US for the inevitable loss of life.

It's not an instant war; it's not a happy war; it's not a clean, surgical, or antiseptic war. Arguably, it's not even a 'legal' war. But it is a winnable and terminable war, and I believe something good will come from it (along with the inevitable bad, of course).

4/1/2003 6:23 AM
Mark Hammer	It's not at all clear that it is winnable. I suppose if one sets one's sights low, such as "Bumping Saddam Hussein from head office", there will be the illusion of winning, but ultimately the desire was to eliminate a corrupt regime with something cleaner. In all the history I've read and experienced I've never ever seen that done, especially by force. Do not think for one instant that all the folks who currently live there, no matter what grudges they hold against Saddam, are going to let ex-patriates march in and assume control? So if the locals insist on having priority, exactly who is waiting in the wings there, given the relentless crushing of opposition that the Saddam regime has undertaken these past 20 odd years? Where will the local experienced moderate voices come from? If part of "winning" is to route out terrorism, then this is simply the opposite of that. It will create substantially more than it seems to route out. Even with a replacement government (assuming it could be created and stand on its own two legs), the marginal folks will continue to engage in suicide bombing or other guerilla tactics against occupying coalition forces because such vendettas never really go away. Expect life for American and British troops to be like life for Israeli troops on the West Bank. I don't know what your news coverage is in your region but the signs we're getting from international correspondents is that the Iraqi people are discernibly LESS happy to see coalition troops than was anticipated, and are likely to get testier by the week. If part of winning is fostering stability in the region, then this will reduce what little stability is there. While we all wait for something substantive to fill the power vacuum, what exactly are the Kurds, Iran, Syria, and any other country or people who think they have some sort of claim to chunks of Iraq going to do....sit on their hands? There probably isn't one single country in the region that would NOT pass up the opportunity to seize some turf to boost the popularity of its leadership. If the remaining Iraqi forces that might get chased out of Bhagdad head off to the hills or remote areas where they can cross back and forth over borders, expect surrounding nations to say "Screw this! We don't want these guys here. We're marching in." There is the potential for several "Kashmirs" to emerge where guerilla warfare continues in dribs and drabs and land is in dispute between several nations. Exactlly what does Donald Rumsfeld do when Iran scoops up Iraqi land for "self-defense" purposes the way that Israel would routinely take over chunks of southern Lebanon? This invasion will take a minimum of 30 years to clean up. The implications for foreign relations will last even longer than that. You know how Americans muse over the Boston Tea Party and kicking Breat British rule out of North America? Well, the Arab world STILL sings the praises of Saladin for kicking the infidel invaders out during the Crusades. Remember them? Those religio-military actions that Bush foolishly alluded to when he started talking about Afghanistan? I hope you're right Sir Skreddly, because nobody deserves that misery, not the Iraqis, not the soldiers, not the relatives of any of these folks, but I suspect that old chestnut of a song that would always get Pete Seeger banned during the Vietnam era - "Waist deep in the big muddy" - has relevance again. All signs point to tragic misjudgment by leaders.

4/1/2003 6:23 AM

Mark Hammer

It's not at all clear that it is winnable. I suppose if one sets one's sights low, such as "Bumping Saddam Hussein from head office", there will be the illusion of winning, but ultimately the desire was to eliminate a corrupt regime with something cleaner. In all the history I've read and experienced I've never ever seen that done, especially by force. Do not think for one instant that all the folks who currently live there, no matter what grudges they hold against Saddam, are going to let ex-patriates march in and assume control? So if the locals insist on having priority, exactly who is waiting in the wings there, given the relentless crushing of opposition that the Saddam regime has undertaken these past 20 odd years? Where will the local experienced moderate voices come from?

If part of "winning" is to route out terrorism, then this is simply the opposite of that. It will create substantially more than it seems to route out. Even with a replacement government (assuming it could be created and stand on its own two legs), the marginal folks will continue to engage in suicide bombing or other guerilla tactics against occupying coalition forces because such vendettas never really go away. Expect life for American and British troops to be like life for Israeli troops on the West Bank. I don't know what your news coverage is in your region but the signs we're getting from international correspondents is that the Iraqi people are discernibly LESS happy to see coalition troops than was anticipated, and are likely to get testier by the week.

If part of winning is fostering stability in the region, then this will reduce what little stability is there. While we all wait for something substantive to fill the power vacuum, what exactly are the Kurds, Iran, Syria, and any other country or people who think they have some sort of claim to chunks of Iraq going to do....sit on their hands? There probably isn't one single country in the region that would NOT pass up the opportunity to seize some turf to boost the popularity of its leadership. If the remaining Iraqi forces that might get chased out of Bhagdad head off to the hills or remote areas where they can cross back and forth over borders, expect surrounding nations to say "Screw this! We don't want these guys here. We're marching in." There is the potential for several "Kashmirs" to emerge where guerilla warfare continues in dribs and drabs and land is in dispute between several nations. Exactlly what does Donald Rumsfeld do when Iran scoops up Iraqi land for "self-defense" purposes the way that Israel would routinely take over chunks of southern Lebanon?

This invasion will take a minimum of 30 years to clean up. The implications for foreign relations will last even longer than that. You know how Americans muse over the Boston Tea Party and kicking Breat British rule out of North America? Well, the Arab world STILL sings the praises of Saladin for kicking the infidel invaders out during the Crusades. Remember them? Those religio-military actions that Bush foolishly alluded to when he started talking about Afghanistan?

I hope you're right Sir Skreddly, because nobody deserves that misery, not the Iraqis, not the soldiers, not the relatives of any of these folks, but I suspect that old chestnut of a song that would always get Pete Seeger banned during the Vietnam era - "Waist deep in the big muddy" - has relevance again. All signs point to tragic misjudgment by leaders.

<<First Page

<Prev

Page 2 of 2