Iraq: The Real Lesson for Americans

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's one important point most everyone has missed regarding Iraq...

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.

And the lesson?

There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pentagon had a plan in place for invading Iraq long before Bush got his wish. 300k+ troops would be required.
Bush disregarded the plan and Powell's advice and went with Rumsfeld's decision, who had the generals under his thumb.
Powell was Sec of State at the time.

Things would be so much different if we had sent in 300k from the get go. Even better if we never invaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many troops would you estimate would be required if 15 million US citizens rose up together? (Not that it is likely to happen, but *if* 5% of the population rose up, how would you stop them?) Imagine how much damage they could do. I live in a town of 15,000 with probably 10 police officers -- a group of 20 determined citizens could wipe out the police force in their homes before the morning paper came out. If this happened on widespread scale, there would be chaos. And if you think US is hampered in Iraq, how much more are they hampered here? Are they going to start dropping clusterbombs into New York? And we've already seen in Iraq how difficult it is to root out an enemy in urban terrain who can destroy patrols with simple homemade bombs. I'm not saying we should do this, but if we really believed we must rise and take down the US govt, I'm saying it is possible -- and even easy. The only problem: Whatever follows it will probably be worse. But oh the fun we'd have.

[Moseley]

I hear what you are saying. The Pentagon believed that by sending in 300k from the get go, they could envelope the country and squash any attempt at organizing a resistance.

The U.S. has 720k state and local law enforcement officers. The gangs (thanx to the influx of illegals) have 800k members. Imagine the chaos they alone could create if organized.

I think you would be hard pressed to find 15 million Americans willing to lay down their I pods and turn away from reality t.v. and take up arms against the govt. Give it another 20 years.

[Kaj]

I agree. Which is why we need to be starting that seed now. Make people realize that everything we deem the "govt's fault" is only made possible with the consent or apathy of the governed. So many talk of 2nd amendment rights as last defense against tyranny -- many of these same people claim that our govt is tyrannical -- when are we going to say enough? Some people help this fight with internet message board posts, some write books, some go on TV -- none (or few) are willing to talk about what is really needed -- force. The govt isn't going to willingly give up power under this corporate-political-media system. We need to take it back with force at some point, it is inevitable. The challenge is massive -- but if we really believe in our goals with a considerable force, it can be done. We need to start countering the propaganda not at the periphery but at the heart. It doesn't have to start with full-scale assault on law enforcement. Obviously, these ideas take time. But just imagine if the mainstream corporate news networks which ignore the real issues and are tools for the state didn't have the luxury of being unaccountable for their tacit support of American policy which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents around the globe for decades. It wouldn't be hard to destroy their power with force. A few videos of the major pro-American-violence pundits being executed might be a nice start. People need to at least be learning to think this way if they really want change. We look at Germany in the 1930s and wonder why the people accepted the road their leaders chose. It was made possible with the consent of the governed (at least a large portion). America is no different. On the path we're on, what will our nation and the world look like in another 50 years if we sit idly by? It is truly frightening. How will history judge the American people who lived through the period and never considered rising up against such growing world tyranny of might-makes-right (or US interests make right)? We are tacit accomplices whether we admit it or not. For me, it's +EV right now to just introduce these ideas without actually doing something. I at least admit in that case to be not acting as I speak. But the point is that it'll take awhile to change minds and it will fail unless we can do that. But to do so, we must get to the root -- we let this happen through accepting the status quo. Those that accept and even champion US foreign policy have no worry for being accountable. Maybe we need to start making them worry a little.

[govman6767]

Going to start building your own IED's that's a nice thing to post considering the U.S Soldiers killed by them.

I have no choice but to take your post as serious considering all your other post's here.

Seeing as Building an IED could be a threat to security I will be copying and sending your post to the proper defense authorites.

[MuresanForMVP]

Kaj the Keyboard Revolutionary. You make me laugh.

[warrantofice]

This is a very difficult discussion because there are so many different variables at play.
Obviously the US botched the entire situation, regardless of its original goals, by allowing the looting and proliferation of automatic weapons/basic explosives shells and devices to previously oppressed radical groups. This was a mutal fact of their poor planning. Perhaps they were running on the high of their liberation of Afghanistan and felt like another roll...But there are also deeper reasons for the invasion that have not been formally announced but which make to much sense to ignore. The need to secure engery resources, i.e. oil is a major necessity for continuing global dominance against the likes of other super powers such as Russia and China. I think the US planned for there to be an insurgency in Iraq, which was even predicted in CIA evaluation of the plan, but it certainly was not predicted to the nearly as intense as it has been. But I think the idea was for the US to stay in Iraq for a very long time to secure the country from terrorist. i.e. I think the US knew that once Saddam was gone that a free Iraq would likely become very close allies with Iran because of their closely shared beliefs. So a small occupational force would be left to ensure that the oil would be 'evenly' distributed and give some extra security to any corporations which would want to begin shilling their wares to the Iraq's. Oh course none of this can be substantiated. The plan above was obviously, IMO, the best possible out come for the US. The current outcome is probably close to the worst.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj the Keyboard Revolutionary. You make me laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all tongue-in-cheek. I'm a 100% believer in non-initiation of violence. The way to change is to educate people not kill them. Nothing will be solved by a Leninist type revolution. This is why educating people about our principles and sticking by them is so important -- if we can justify this violence elsewhere, it is a slippery path.

[esad]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all tongue-in-cheek. I'm a 100% believer in non-initiation of violence. The way to change is to educate people not kill them. Nothing will be solved by a Leninist type revolution. This is why educating people about our principles and sticking by them is so important -- if we can justify this violence elsewhere, it is a slippery path.

[/ QUOTE ]

The few thousands years of recorded history doesn't support your idealized view.

The world is governed by the use of force, always has been, always will be. Any populace can be subdued, it merely takes the will to do it.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can always resist civilized tyranny, where the rulers are constrained by laws and rules of engagement. If tyranny ever happens in your own country, it probably won't be the civilized kind.

BTW, most of the damage done in Iraq involves insurgents bombing civilians or the collateral damage from hiding in civilian areas. So I hope your "revolution" includes these elements, because they're necessary for resistance against overwhelming might. Of course, that puts the blood of women and children on your hands...but no one said revolution was romantic. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There's one important point most everyone has missed regarding Iraq...

Even with 21st century technology, the US military can't subdue a population that refuses to be subdued.

And the lesson?

There's always hope for revolution if we as a people would rise up. Tyranny can only prevail if we accept it. I'm going to Google how to build my own IEDs now... just in case.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to not understand that the reason the insurgency is able to maintain some semblance of "success" is that they're low enough on their luck (and realize they have no hope of defeating us militarily) where their objective becomes simply to stir violence amongst innocents to try to weaken our resolve politically.

That inspires you? I think the idea of that being the best option is actually kind of depressing.

If you're inspired by the idea of intentionally killing your own people (and often yourself) because living in turmoil (or dying) is better than the alternative, then, OK. But I think you grossly underestimate how effective "21st century technology" has actually been, when you consider how ridiculous of a mission Bush sent us on.

Yes, subduing people (even weak people) is very hard. Subduing an entire population who is determined to fight against each other and against you at all costs while also facing global political restraints that prevent you from using your technology well in the first place is very, very hard. The fact that some semblance of democracy is even in place, in the middle of what is effectively a civil war amongst rival political sects in the heart of the Middle East, is sort of mind boggling.

Clearly Bush does not have much of a hand in the actual day to day combat, or it would have gone much worse.