Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Why We Cannot Win in Iraq

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    originally published on conservative anti-war website:

    [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/]http://www.lewrockwell.com/[/url]

    [quote][b]09-20-2004

    A Sergeant Speaks The Hard Truth



    Why We Cannot Win

    by Sgt. Al Lorentz

    Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and nave young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

    I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

    When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

    I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than weve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

    [b]
    Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

    First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

    This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

    The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

    So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
    [/b]

    Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

    Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming Angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

    We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and Angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

    Third, [b]the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.[/b] This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

    We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These Angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

    Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

    Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

    Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

    Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

    Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

    Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

    It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

    Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
    [/b][/quote]

    [url=http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Special%20Reports.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=312&rnd=228.12355057321193]Link[/url]

    [b]by the way the US Gov't is currently investigating Mr Lorentz for "disloyalty" - if convicted he gets 20 years.[/b]

    this is especially for the ASUUSA's of the world that think only soldiers should be allowed to vote -

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 12:12 AM
    [b]


    Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
    [/QUOTE]

    [/b][/quote]
    enough said!

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 08:35 AM
    [b] [QUOTE=bitonti,Oct 19 2004, 12:12 AM]


    Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
    [/QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
    enough said! [/b][/quote]
    Really?

    What issues in his piece do you take issue with as being false or illogical or unproductive?

    Instead of attacking the mans politics based on your own party loyalty, why not address the points he makes?

  4. #4
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does all war correspondence come with little Angry faces???

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 09:40 AM
    [b] [QUOTE=chiefst2000,Oct 19 2004, 08:35 AM] [QUOTE=bitonti,Oct 19 2004, 12:12 AM]


    Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
    [/QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
    enough said! [/QUOTE]
    Really?

    What issues in his piece do you take issue with as being false or illogical or unproductive?

    Instead of attacking the mans politics based on your own party loyalty, why not address the points he makes? [/b][/quote]
    State chairman of the constitution party The guy is a wack job.... Can you say agenda?

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]State chairman of the constitution party The guy is a wack job.... Can you say agenda? [/b][/quote]

    Everyone has an agenda. Again, what in his position do you take issue with, other than his political affiliation?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 09:59 AM
    [b] [quote][b]State chairman of the constitution party The guy is a wack job.... Can you say agenda? [/b][/quote]

    Everyone has an agenda. Again, what in his position do you take issue with, other than his political affiliation? [/b][/quote]
    The strategy in Iraq is to get the Iraqi's trained to defend themselves. At this very moment we are getting ready to weed out the last major pocket of terrorism in Fallujah. I agree that some of the decisions made regarding the war have been politically motivated and not based on the best war plan. In no way does that mean that we can not win in Iraq.

    We can and will win in Iraq. If we don't then you can say goodbye to your prescious freedom because the world will turn to s**t. Imagine a islamofascist IRaq. It would create a vacuum in the ME that would eventually lead to disaster for the world. If the terrorists get into power in Pakistan and get controll of their nukes then we are all in trouble.

    The key to winning the war on terror is success in Iraq.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 10:06 AM
    [b] The key to winning the war on terror is success in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
    yeah ok and besides saying that over and over what exactly do you suppose we do to accomplish that?

    the current plan (or lack thereof) has proven to be pure s--t it's about time someone else had a chance. Iraq is a s--thole right now. This nation is fighting a guerrilla war against terrorists on their turf - something drastic needs to be done otherwise all the deaths of 1000+ US servicemen will go down in vain.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Oct 19 2004, 10:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Oct 19 2004, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chiefst2000[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 10:06 AM
    [b] The key to winning the war on terror is success in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
    yeah ok and besides saying that over and over what exactly do you suppose we do to accomplish that?

    the current plan (or lack thereof) has proven to be pure s--t it&#39;s about time someone else had a chance. Iraq is a s--thole right now. This nation is fighting a guerrilla war against terrorists on their turf - something drastic needs to be done otherwise all the deaths of 1000+ US servicemen will go down in vain. [/b][/quote]
    The plan in Iraq is working. Kerry&#39;s best plan is to just repeat whatever Bush is currently doing in Iraq and say he can do it better. Free elections in IRaq are coming in January. The only way the war in Iraq can be lost is Kerry gets elected. The terrorists will be so emboldened that we put that panty waist into office that they will never stop fighting. On the other hand a victory for Bush will show the terrorists that the American people have the resolve to stick out the fight. They will be demoralized.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    why do you think the "terrorists" hate or are scared of Bush?

    terrorism THRIVES in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - nations that we support every day under the Bush administration.

    Bush did the terrorists a favor by moving 125,000 moving targets into their backyard.

    --

    when you say the plan is working what exactly do you mean by that? the guerrilla fighting is getting more intense and rebuilding has stopped. Suicide bombers in the green zone and soldiers refusing to go on missions. Morale is at an all time low.

    How is that a successful plan?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 10:37 AM
    [b] why do you think the "terrorists" hate or are scared of Bush?

    terrorism THRIVES in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - nations that we support every day under the Bush administration.

    Bush did the terrorists a favor by moving 125,000 moving targets into their backyard.

    --

    when you say the plan is working what exactly do you mean by that? the guerrilla fighting is getting more intense and rebuilding has stopped. Suicide bombers in the green zone and soldiers refusing to go on missions. Morale is at an all time low.

    How is that a successful plan? [/b][/quote]
    I see successes against insurgents in najaf and now fallujah. I see more and more of the fighting being done by Iraqi security. I see militants in Sadr City handing over their weapons. We each look at the war and come to two very different conclusions. I know that I&#39;m right. For your sake you should hope that your wrong.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    hey man ill talk about either - how about the FACT that Fallujah is currently a no-go zone surrounded by US Marines?

    ya smell that? it&#39;s not success.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I see successes against insurgents in najaf and now fallujah. I see more and more of the fighting being done by Iraqi security. I see militants in Sadr City handing over their weapons. We each look at the war and come to two very different conclusions. I know that I&#39;m right. For your sake you should hope that your wrong. [/b][/quote]

    You see? When did you enlist and go over to Iraq? :rolleyes:

    Be honest Chiefs, you take what you hear from you own chosen media (biased to the Right) the same way Bit takes from HIS media of choice (biased to the left).

    The only difference is you truly believe YOUR biased media is the only correct one, while you believe Bit&#39;s is completely wrong. You don&#39;t SEE anything, you merely react to what YOUR media tells you, just alike all of us (right left and middle).

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 11:32 AM
    [b] [quote][b]I see successes against insurgents in najaf and now fallujah. I see more and more of the fighting being done by Iraqi security. I see militants in Sadr City handing over their weapons. We each look at the war and come to two very different conclusions. I know that I&#39;m right. For your sake you should hope that your wrong. [/b][/quote]

    You see? When did you enlist and go over to Iraq? :rolleyes:

    Be honest Chiefs, you take what you hear from you own chosen media (biased to the Right) the same way Bit takes from HIS media of choice (biased to the left).

    The only difference is you truly believe YOUR biased media is the only correct one, while you believe Bit&#39;s is completely wrong. You don&#39;t SEE anything, you merely react to what YOUR media tells you, just alike all of us (right left and middle). [/b][/quote]
    Exactly what I said in my post. There is a fundamental difference of opinion here. I hope for all our sakes that I&#39;m right on this one. After all Kerry&#39;s plan is more of the same so it doesn&#39;t really matter who wins the election if you believe Kerry.

    I personally think that if elected Kerry will cut and run. The terrorists will fight harder then even knowing that such a weak liberal woos (for lack of a better term) is running the show. Thats the only scenario where I can see us losing the war in Iraq.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Exactly what I said in my post. There is a fundamental difference of opinion here. I hope for all our sakes that I&#39;m right on this one. After all Kerry&#39;s plan is more of the same so it doesn&#39;t really matter who wins the election if you believe Kerry.
    [/b][/quote]

    Fior what it&#39;s worth Chiefs, I hope you are right, and us naysayers are wrong. I hope Iraq and Afganistan become great successes, and we stomp out terrorism wherever it exists.

    But based on how I see things, I cannot be as optimistic as you are. I hope you&#39;re right.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 12:00 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Exactly what I said in my post. There is a fundamental difference of opinion here. I hope for all our sakes that I&#39;m right on this one. After all Kerry&#39;s plan is more of the same so it doesn&#39;t really matter who wins the election if you believe Kerry.
    [/b][/quote]

    Fior what it&#39;s worth Chiefs, I hope you are right, and us naysayers are wrong. I hope Iraq and Afganistan become great successes, and we stomp out terrorism wherever it exists.

    But based on how I see things, I cannot be as optimistic as you are. I hope you&#39;re right. [/b][/quote]
    Did you know that Churchill lost an election just months after VE day. The people thought the rebuilding plan for Europe was not going well enough. We need to learn from history not to punish our leaders for doing whats best for the country. Eventually we&#39;ll end up with leaders who would put whats best for themselves above whats best for the country.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 11:52 AM
    [b] After all Kerry&#39;s plan is more of the same so it doesn&#39;t really matter who wins the election if you believe Kerry.

    I personally think that if elected Kerry will cut and run. The terrorists will fight harder then even knowing that such a weak liberal woos (for lack of a better term) is running the show. Thats the only scenario where I can see us losing the war in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
    first of all if Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and others are fired than by definition it cannot be "MORE OF THE SAME"

    it was Wolfy that recommended this war (and likely will recommend others) as he is a founding signee of the PNAC doctrine.

    it was Rumsfeld that thought it was a good idea to ignore the Powell doctrine (notice that Powell is quitting) and go into Iraq with too small of a force

    it was Rice who marginalized Clark and anyone else who disagreed with the President&#39;s flawed plan

    finally it was Bush who pissed off any possible allies, the only countries he was able to bribe was Poland and the UK.

    they botched this war - wake up my friend we are losing Iraq NOW

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 01:22 PM
    [b]first of all if Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and others are fired than by definition it cannot be "MORE OF THE SAME" [/b][/quote]Really? Which parts of Kerry&#39;s plan are different from the current plan?

    [quote][b]it was Wolfy that recommended this war (and likely will recommend others) as he is a founding signee of the PNAC doctrine.

    it was Rumsfeld that thought it was a good idea to ignore the Powell doctrine (notice that Powell is quitting) and go into Iraq with too small of a force[/b][/quote]
    I agree we should have gone in with more force.
    [quote][b]it was Rice who marginalized Clark and anyone else who disagreed with the President&#39;s flawed plan[/b][/quote]
    Wasn&#39;t Clarke proven to be a liar?

    [quote][b]finally it was Bush who pissed off any possible allies, the only countries he was able to bribe was Poland and the UK. [/b][/quote] Those were the allies that were caught taking money from Iraq under the table in violation of the very resolutions they signed right? No wonder they were pissed.

    [quote][b]they botched this war - wake up my friend we are losing Iraq NOW[/b][/quote]
    Because of the selectve viewpoints from a minority of soldiers? Maybe there is a reason he is a Sgt after 20 years. Not all soldiers are tacticions and vice versa.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Oct 19 2004, 12:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Oct 19 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chiefst2000[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 11:52 AM
    [b] After all Kerry&#39;s plan is more of the same so it doesn&#39;t really matter who wins the election if you believe Kerry.

    I personally think that if elected Kerry will cut and run. The terrorists will fight harder then even knowing that such a weak liberal woos (for lack of a better term) is running the show. Thats the only scenario where I can see us losing the war in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
    first of all if Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and others are fired than by definition it cannot be "MORE OF THE SAME"

    it was Wolfy that recommended this war (and likely will recommend others) as he is a founding signee of the PNAC doctrine.

    it was Rumsfeld that thought it was a good idea to ignore the Powell doctrine (notice that Powell is quitting) and go into Iraq with too small of a force

    it was Rice who marginalized Clark and anyone else who disagreed with the President&#39;s flawed plan

    finally it was Bush who pissed off any possible allies, the only countries he was able to bribe was Poland and the UK.

    they botched this war - wake up my friend we are losing Iraq NOW [/b][/quote]
    Kerry will do what you want him to do. Cut and run. If your for cutting and running you should vote for Kerry.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Did you know that Churchill lost an election just months after VE day. The people thought the rebuilding plan for Europe was not going well enough. We need to learn from history not to punish our leaders for doing whats best for the country. Eventually we&#39;ll end up with leaders who would put whats best for themselves above whats best for the country.
    [/b][/quote]

    Learn from history? If we had learned from Nam we would have never gone into Iraq. Now we are stuck in an unwinnable quagmire.

    Eventually we&#39;ll end up with leaders who would put whats best for themselves above whats best for the country? That is exactly what they are doing now. From day one this administration was determined to occupy Iraq. September 12th they demanded evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11. When it was clear there was no link Rumsfeld said, but there are no targets in Afghanistan. This war was waged for the benefit of the oil companies and contractors such as Halliburton. Now the only excuse they can give is the Saddam was a bad guy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us