A Sincere Question.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: 'initial war plans had failed'. Failed usally indicates you are losing at something correct? Initial war plans have not failed.

While you may disagree with Arnett's words, in no way do they imply "losing the war". You're ascribing something to him he never said... Let's just assume he meant 'losing a battle', even though that description is even far too strong for his words.
But even then, 'losing a battle' doesn't automatically imply "losing a war"; a wisdom which rang true in practically every major war in Earth's past and which is also very popular as an Ultimate Wisdom in cheesy war movies. You're looking too much behind all of it.

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: There arent all that many (unless you count far leftist) articals that say, simply we are losing the war. But its more of the spin news agencys put on it. Like 'Fierce Fire Fighting outside of Basra' and such. That implys we are struggling a great deal with the war in Iraq.

Erm... What's wrong with a headline like 'Fierce Fire Fighting outside of Basra'? Are you in any way implying that there weren't any fire fights, but that the real headline should have been something along the lines of 'Iraqi Forces Drop All Of Their Weapons At The Sight of US Soldiers, They All Had Some Ice-Cream, Sang The American National Anthem With A Lump In Their Throats And Lived Happily Ever After'?
I really fail to see what's wrong with the headline you mentioned. Maybe on the whole the Iraqi soldiers are no match for the US troops, but claiming that there couldn't have been any fierce* resistance and fire fights for whatever reason you have in mind is a very strange thing to do, considering the facts.

* And mind you, 'fierce' is subjective; if the previous 9 battles hardly involved any fire-fighting, standards for using the adjective could have been lowered for the tenth battle (just in case you think that "fierce" shouldn't be used when there aren't at least a certain number of casualties or hours spent on the battlefield).

[ 04-03-2003, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Grojlach: While you may disagree with Arnett's words, in no way do they imply "losing the war". You're ascribing something to him he never said... Let's just assume he meant 'losing a battle', even though that description is even far too strong for his words. But even then, 'losing a battle' doesn't automatically imply "losing a war"; a wisdom which rang true in practically every major war in Earth's past and which is also very popular as an Ultimate Wisdom in cheesy war movies. You're looking too much behind all of it.

Well to me 'war plans have failed'. It pretty flat out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Erm... What's wrong with a headline like 'Fierce Fire Fighting outside of Basra'? Are you in any way implying that there weren't any fire fights, but that the real headline should have been something along the lines of 'Iraqi Forces Drop All Of Their Weapons At The Sight of US Soldiers, They All Had Some Ice-Cream, Sang The American National Anthem With A Lump In Their Throats And Lived Happily Ever After'? I really fail to see what's wrong with the headline you mentioned. Maybe on the whole the Iraqi soldiers are no match for the US troops, but claiming that there couldn't have been any fierce* resistance and fire fights for whatever reason you have in mind is a very strange thing to do, considering the facts. * And mind you, 'fierce' is subjective; if the previous 9 battles hardly involved any fire-fighting, standards for using the adjective could have been lowered for the tenth battle (just in case you think that "fierce" shouldn't be used when there aren't at least a certain number of casualties or hours spent on the battlefield). [/QB]

No Groj, thats not what I would like the head lines to say. And whats wrong with it is simple, the headline said 'Fierce Fire Fighting' it was not fierce . From the Websters Student Dictionary-

Fierce- adj. 1 wild or cruel; savage [a fierce dog] 2 violent; raging [a fierce wind] 3 very strong or eager.

Now the fighting, for the most part, hasnt been of that description. So when the news uses phrases like that, its mis leading. Making us think that there is some sort of great struggle going on. When there is not, if there was, we wouldnt be as deep into Iraq as we are this soon.

[ 04-03-2003, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Skunk]

I have yet to see any international news organisation claim that the US is losing the war. Most however, pointed out the defects in the plan, borne out by the need to call upon massive reinforements. Certainly the original battle plan was an appalling failure, as it relied on the mistaken belief that everyone in Iraq would greet the UK/US by throwing rose petals for them to walk on. But battle plans evolve and when your forces are vastly superior to the enemy, you can afford a few mistakes - even a couple of catastrophic ones.

The oonly question being asked by the international is the price that the US/UK will pay for victory - and the effect of their victory on the people of Iraq, the Middle East and the world in general. Here, they are pessimistic.

[Davros]

The coalition is not losing the war, but the consensus is that we are NOT on plan A anymore because it failed. Plans can fail IR without losing a war. Surely you have heard the saying "You may have won this battle, but you won't win the war". As Donut pointed out above we are not on the orginal plan, and as my good mate MagiK pointed out in a different thread, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy". Plans are put in place, the enemy responds, parts of the plan work, parts of the plan fail, the plan evolves and gets improved.

One war the US seems to be losing is the war for hearts and minds of the Iraqii people. I saw an article by a British Major in today's paper regarding US troops and his belief that too much of what he sees looks like conquerors rather than liberators. He talked of differences between the forces - offensive language, derisive pronunciation to the local "eye-RAKKKeeee's", troop pep talks along the lines of "lets kill some bad guys" followed by football crowd cheering, crowd control with rifles butts and firing into the air - and he contrasted it with how the Brits seems to be doing the same things a whole lot differently and with a lot less fuss and resistance.

Still - maybe he didn't say those things - it might just be the leftist press

[ 04-03-2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I have also heard military officals say Saddam has been dead since the day one.

I haven't heard any official military reports that Saddam has been dead since day one. I've heard media speculation that he may be dead or injured or even that he has fled the country through Syria but officially, his whereabouts and physical condidtion are unknown.

My opinion on the left-wing "we're losing" campaign is that Democrats are trying to win popularity for the upcoming presidential elections next year.

It is a valid argument when it comes to the possibility of increased terrorism in this and the other coalition countries as well as in regard to more goverment control over society, something some Americans can't understand as protection rather than the loss of certain freedoms.

The heightened threat of terrorism in this country has a number of people voicing (late) opinions that war was not the right thing to do and I would expect to see more governmental control implemented in this country, particularly in regard to readily available substances which are used to produce chemical weapons and bombs. It would be a smart move imo.

Although I am one of the last people who could be forced to cast a vote to keep GWB in office, I to give him and the coalition countries credit for stepping into Iraq and attempting to clean up the mess that they are responsible for to begin with...sad that it had to come to war, but Saddam gave no other option for his removal from power.

I also give a lot of credit to the U.S. military and coalition forces for the way they are handling the task...it could be a lot worse for both sides.

[Charean]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I have seen several articals, US and internationaly based, that would like to lead us to believe that we are losing the war. How on earth are we losing the war? Its hasnt even been a month yet and we a very close to Baghdad, very few (relativley) causualtys, various rumors that Saddam is dead, we controll most of Iraqi air space, a large portion of deaths that have come for the Coalition side werent even in battle. So I would really like to know why mostly left-wing news agencys would like to have us believe that we are losing the war.

I can tell you why. Because the Americans had their hopes up to unrealistic expectations of walking in there, having the Iraqis fight by our side and take over Bagdad. The expectations were in part due to Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the early days of the war.

The resistance that has been encountered was not really part of the preparations in our media, and we were not ready for it.

War plans are designed to be flexible, because nothing is really predictable during a war of any sort.

So basically, the relative ease of the early days was something that we hoped would last. It didn't.

Hang in there, IR, with all the reporters being fired for various errors of judgement, the real news will eventually get out.

[Malthaussen]

To belabor the obvious... "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." The soi-disant "failure" of a battle plan is no indication that a war, battle, or even a small firefight is being lost.

I think the US media had inflated and unrealistic expectations. Not knowing very much about war, they expected this one to be the same as the last one, where the few Allied casualties only mattered to their loved ones and the majority of Iraqi troops bailed before they got blown to pieces, an eminently rational reaction (as Voltaire said, "A rational army *would* run away.") I seriously doubt the military planners were quite so sanguine, but as someone earlier pointed out, the ideology of "sterile" war won by the Godlike pilots of tactical bombers for no casualties to the "good guys" has been given a lot more credence in military circles than it warrents. Thus when the evil Iraqis actually had the stubborn audacity to actually defend their country against an attacker, our media mouthpieces were left aghast at how unreasonable they were being, and began bleating "woe is me" reports left and right.

Tactically, if the Coalition powers managed to lose the conventional part of this operation, it would be legitimate grounds to execute every officer above the rank of brigadier general. (That's a joke, son) However, there is a larger issue. "War is an extension of diplomacy." No matter how much of a whipping our troops inflict on the Iraqi military, the war will be "won" or "lost" based upon what the results are on the international diplomatic scene, not to mention domestically. Given the rabid hatred of the US that this war has generated except from a few pathetic lackeys (I speak her of individual government leaders, and not the body of citizenry of any other country), and the protest and alarm internally, not to mention the rather threatening measures that have been taken within the US to promote "Home Security," one could reasonably argue that this war was already "lost" before the first shot was fired, although I don't believe I've seen anybody make that claim.

I'll go even further. Something that has been lost in all of this war-frenzy, indeed, not really noticed ever since the destruction of the WTC, is the fact that the purpose of terrorism is to create terror. Terrorism is a tactic used to undermine and destabilize a government, by creating uneasiness among the citizens, lack of confidence in the government, increased repressive measures by the government to combat the terrorist "threat," and ultimately lack of creditability for a government on the international scene. It seems to me that all of these results have, indeed, come to pass in the wake of the 9/11 incident and the US government's actions taken in declared response to it. Such being the case, far from using war to "extend" the US (and "Free World") diplomatic and political agenda, we are in fact playing exactly the game the terriorists want us to. Baghdad may be in ruins, and Afghanistan's former government in hiding, but since terrorists don't give a tinker's dam about anything but their own agenda, these superficial results, while possibly satisfying to a Westerner seriously in need of a Viagra fix, amount to approximately zero insofar as combatting terror or increasing world stability are concerned; indeed, quite the reverse seems to be the case.

-- Mal

[ 04-05-2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Malthaussen ]