3 ms·

> The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. That's one way to look at it. Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it

by m0zg 6y ago

> The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. That's one way to look at it. Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it is that the US lost there once (hence the second invasion), and will lose again in 10-20 years as the Iraqi elites wait it out and things revert to the mean. Oh, and we lost in Syria as well, although not funding and not arming ISIS did help to alleviate some of the problems in the last few years. Assad is still right where he was, and he will remain there for decades to come. This is much like Napoleon "winning" the war against Russia in 1812. Captured Moscow. Pissed on the floor in the Kremlin. And then he got chased back all the way to Paris and exiled. Except in the Middle East it's even worse than that. The US tends to forget that those folks represent much older civilizations and they live on a different time scale. They can literally sit it out for 20-30 years while we sink trillions of taxpayer dollars there and while our soldiers are torn apart with an occasional IED. They also culturally don't give a flying fuck about "democracy" or whatever. There's really not a hell of a lot that can be done about that, and there's no way to "win" under such circumstances. If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. That's why there won't be a permanent "victory" there, in any sense of the word.

adventured 6y ago
> Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it is that the US lost there once (hence the second invasion) Your history is badly mixed up. There wasn't a first invasion, so your premise is wrong from the start. The first Iraq war wasn't meant to topple Saddam at all, which is why George HW Bush wisely didn't attempt to invade Iraq with an occupation force. The first Iraq war was to push Iraq out of Kuwait and smash the Iraqi military to reduce them as a regional threat (eg to Saudi Arabia). It was a huge concerted success (the US was joined by a very strong, diverse coalition). Saddam's once vaunted military was left in shambles, their hardware and capabilities were dramatically reduced. And then aggressive sactions prevented Saddam from rebuilding the military effectively. > Oh, and we lost in Syria as well The US didn't lose in Syria. From the position of the warmongers in DC, it was a stellar victory. On the cheap Syria was reduced to rubble and is a non-actor now, they've been almost completely destroyed. Russia is still the dominant big political-military ally of Syria, so nothing changed about that. At worst the US neither gained nor lost, at best - again, from the perspective of the hawks in the Pentagon - Syria is crippled as a regional power. Israel and several other regional powers are also thrilled with Syria's situation, to say the least. It'll take decades for Syria to just get back to where they were before. As a player in the Middle East, they got almost entirely neutralized.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- m0zg 6y ago
  But it's not "mixed up" if you start from the premise that a full land war cannot be won. Consider why Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War. It's because to depose him the coalition would have to go all the way to Baghdad and endure a guerilla war, something that a conventional army just can't really endure. That's why Bush did not go for it - he knew Saddam would not go quietly into the night, but he also knew he could not win the land war against Iraq. So the operation ended in a withdrawal, much like the second gulf war will also end in a withdrawal, allowing the local elites to re-emerge. Epic fail. That's like saying we "won" in Afghanistan just because the Taliban temporarily moved elsewhere. As long you don't have permanent control of the country, you haven't really "won" anything there. And I don't think you will argue that we have any kind of permanent control there, then or now, or can realistically get it in the future. At least the Gulf War achieved something worthwhile. Later Iraqi and Afghan wars achieved nothing whatsoever.

by m0zg 6y ago

adventured 6y ago

> Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it is that the US lost there once (hence the second invasion) Your history is badly mixed up. There wasn't a first invasion, so your premise is wrong from the start. The first Iraq war wasn't meant to topple Saddam at all, which is why George HW Bush wisely didn't attempt to invade Iraq with an occupation force. The first Iraq war was to push Iraq out of Kuwait and smash the Iraqi military to reduce them as a regional threat (eg to Saudi Arabia). It was a huge concerted success (the US was joined by a very strong, diverse coalition). Saddam's once vaunted military was left in shambles, their hardware and capabilities were dramatically reduced. And then aggressive sactions prevented Saddam from rebuilding the military effectively. > Oh, and we lost in Syria as well The US didn't lose in Syria. From the position of the warmongers in DC, it was a stellar victory. On the cheap Syria was reduced to rubble and is a non-actor now, they've been almost completely destroyed. Russia is still the dominant big political-military ally of Syria, so nothing changed about that. At worst the US neither gained nor lost, at best - again, from the perspective of the hawks in the Pentagon - Syria is crippled as a regional power. Israel and several other regional powers are also thrilled with Syria's situation, to say the least. It'll take decades for Syria to just get back to where they were before. As a player in the Middle East, they got almost entirely neutralized.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
m0zg 6y ago
But it's not "mixed up" if you start from the premise that a full land war cannot be won. Consider why Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War. It's because to depose him the coalition would have to go all the way to Baghdad and endure a guerilla war, something that a conventional army just can't really endure. That's why Bush did not go for it - he knew Saddam would not go quietly into the night, but he also knew he could not win the land war against Iraq. So the operation ended in a withdrawal, much like the second gulf war will also end in a withdrawal, allowing the local elites to re-emerge. Epic fail. That's like saying we "won" in Afghanistan just because the Taliban temporarily moved elsewhere. As long you don't have permanent control of the country, you haven't really "won" anything there. And I don't think you will argue that we have any kind of permanent control there, then or now, or can realistically get it in the future. At least the Gulf War achieved something worthwhile. Later Iraqi and Afghan wars achieved nothing whatsoever.