4 ms·

> While its fair to say the U.S. lost Vietnam, I think its fair to say the U.S. won in Iraq and Afghanistan as their are now governed by friendly democracies...

by dcposch 12y ago

> While its fair to say the U.S. lost Vietnam, I think its fair to say the U.S. won in Iraq and Afghanistan as their are now governed by friendly democracies... No. Iraq is fractured into halves. The northern half is controlled by ISIS, the southern by a dysfunction democracy where the elections are not about ideas and policies, but rather about Sunnis vs Shiites. Afghanistan is also sectarian. Neither are anything we'd recognize as free and stable democracies. In a lot of ways, ordinary citizens in both places are worse off than before the wars. Our wars there were brutal, protracted, expensive, and ultimately didn't work.

stevenjohns 12y ago
Northern half controlled by ISIS? What? ISIS hold a single city in the North: Mosul. They have operational zones in Baiji, Kirkuk, Tikrit and areas of Anbar. The South isn't decided by Sunnis vs Shiites because the South is overwhelmingly Shiite. I'd argue that Iraq's democracy, where power is strictly divided and minorities have guaranteed representatives - including a minimum quota system for women in parliament - is more democratic than the two-party "Supreme Leader" system the U.S has going on. But that's a different story.
- quanticle 12y ago
  Very few insurgent groups take and occupy territory in the way that conventional military forces do. When discussing the influence of insurgents, it's more worthwhile to talk about the territory through with they can travel and operate unimpeded. By that metric, IS does "hold" almost half of Iraq, in that they can travel throughout most of Northern Iraq without fearing attack from the Iraqi or Syrian militaries [1]. [1] http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446d4ca6bb3f77b1e8b4571-557-574/screen%20shot%202014-10-21%20at%205.48.29%20pm.png http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446d4ca6bb3f77b1e8...
voidlogic 12y ago
>No. Iraq is fractured into halves. The northern half is controlled by ISIS, the southern by a dysfunction democracy where the elections are not about ideas and policies, but rather about Sunnis vs Shiites. All true, but the discussion here is around the effectiveness of the U.S. military and you are referring to the political failure to build a strong enough post-US occupation Iraq. > Afghanistan is also sectarian. Neither are anything we'd recognize as free and stable democracies. I don't think the expectation of western-style democracies coming into existence is reasonable in that part of the world. We can all wish for it... But that doesn't mean the U.S. military (pre-whithdrawl) wasn't effective in effecting regime change and maintaining control. >Our wars there were brutal, protracted, expensive, and ultimately didn't work. brutal, protracted, expensive- yes, yes, yes ultimately didn't work- sure, but I would argue that was not a military failure and this discussion is about the military performance. A better article would have been "The US sucks at post-WWII nation building"...
- venomsnake 12y ago
  > brutal, protracted, expensive- yes, yes, yes ultimately didn't work- sure, but I would argue that was not a military failure and this discussion is about the military performance. The generals are the link. They must translate political objectives into military action that delivers them. The US probably has the best fighting force, but it lacks leadership and focus. The whole Iraq and Afgani adventures look to me like the bridge in Apocalypse Now.
- quanticle 12y ago
  >All true, but the discussion here is around the effectiveness of the US military Yes, but you're the one who brought in the factor of achieving political goals. The US most certainly did not achieve it's political goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither country is an especially friendly or reliable ally. If anything, we've set back our political goals in both regions by decades. The fact that it was civilian incompetence rather than military blundering which caused the US to squander those goals irrelevant to the question. The question is, "Did the US achieve its political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?" The answer to that question is a pretty clear, "No," in both cases. Of course we can argue about why the answer is "No" and whose fault that is, but it's difficult to argue that the US and its allies accomplished any of their goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
  - voidlogic 12y ago
    >The question is, "Did the US achieve its political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?" My questions was: "Did the US millitary fail to achieve its component of political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

by dcposch 12y ago

stevenjohns 12y ago

Northern half controlled by ISIS? What? ISIS hold a single city in the North: Mosul. They have operational zones in Baiji, Kirkuk, Tikrit and areas of Anbar. The South isn't decided by Sunnis vs Shiites because the South is overwhelmingly Shiite. I'd argue that Iraq's democracy, where power is strictly divided and minorities have guaranteed representatives - including a minimum quota system for women in parliament - is more democratic than the two-party "Supreme Leader" system the U.S has going on. But that's a different story.

quanticle 12y ago
Very few insurgent groups take and occupy territory in the way that conventional military forces do. When discussing the influence of insurgents, it's more worthwhile to talk about the territory through with they can travel and operate unimpeded. By that metric, IS does "hold" almost half of Iraq, in that they can travel throughout most of Northern Iraq without fearing attack from the Iraqi or Syrian militaries [1]. [1] http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446d4ca6bb3f77b1e8b4571-557-574/screen%20shot%202014-10-21%20at%205.48.29%20pm.png http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5446d4ca6bb3f77b1e8...

voidlogic 12y ago

>No. Iraq is fractured into halves. The northern half is controlled by ISIS, the southern by a dysfunction democracy where the elections are not about ideas and policies, but rather about Sunnis vs Shiites. All true, but the discussion here is around the effectiveness of the U.S. military and you are referring to the political failure to build a strong enough post-US occupation Iraq. > Afghanistan is also sectarian. Neither are anything we'd recognize as free and stable democracies. I don't think the expectation of western-style democracies coming into existence is reasonable in that part of the world. We can all wish for it... But that doesn't mean the U.S. military (pre-whithdrawl) wasn't effective in effecting regime change and maintaining control. >Our wars there were brutal, protracted, expensive, and ultimately didn't work. brutal, protracted, expensive- yes, yes, yes ultimately didn't work- sure, but I would argue that was not a military failure and this discussion is about the military performance. A better article would have been "The US sucks at post-WWII nation building"...

venomsnake 12y ago
> brutal, protracted, expensive- yes, yes, yes ultimately didn't work- sure, but I would argue that was not a military failure and this discussion is about the military performance. The generals are the link. They must translate political objectives into military action that delivers them. The US probably has the best fighting force, but it lacks leadership and focus. The whole Iraq and Afgani adventures look to me like the bridge in Apocalypse Now.
quanticle 12y ago
>All true, but the discussion here is around the effectiveness of the US military Yes, but you're the one who brought in the factor of achieving political goals. The US most certainly did not achieve it's political goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither country is an especially friendly or reliable ally. If anything, we've set back our political goals in both regions by decades. The fact that it was civilian incompetence rather than military blundering which caused the US to squander those goals irrelevant to the question. The question is, "Did the US achieve its political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?" The answer to that question is a pretty clear, "No," in both cases. Of course we can argue about why the answer is "No" and whose fault that is, but it's difficult to argue that the US and its allies accomplished any of their goals in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  >The question is, "Did the US achieve its political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?" My questions was: "Did the US millitary fail to achieve its component of political goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?"