 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! July 15, 2005 DebatableBy GreyhawkA topic I'll throw out for discussion: If we weren't in Iraq we'd be confronted with the same total numbers of "insurgents" in Afghanistan alone as we now face in both countries - the jihaddis would have migrated there instead. Maybe we'd even be up against more, since Saddam would also be funding, equiping, and otherwise aiding their cause. Comments are open Posted by Greyhawk / July 15, 2005 9:13 PM | Permalink 14 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
i think i would agree and also add that we would have to increase our troop presence. which in turn may not make the afghani people happy. would also require more supplies being airlifted and trucked thru un-friendly territory adding more targets and more tail than warfighters.
Not only would there be an additional number of insurgents, they would be stronger as well. This could cause a synergistic effect making them bolder to act and harder to defeat. A man alone has only his strength, his weapons, and his abilities. Two or more can use the strength of one to offset the weakness of another. Your point about Sadam's aid would certainly come in to play as well. Finally, any success they would have would fuel them to have more.
I found this in today's open post on LGF.
What has changed? The presidents...and the salckened grip of liberals on the political machinery of the nation.
ABC News Reports Linking al-Qeada and Saddam (an audio clip....
The Russians lost 38,000 troops in Afghanistan, the terrain is close to impossible for a standing Army to traverse. No one opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan because every Army that ever tried to tame it lost. I could almost hear the Russians and Chinese on the UN security council celebrate,the "US was going to get its a$$ kicked good".
Shifting the Jihadi focus away from Afghanistan(eventually they would have gotten funding from Iraq or other sympathetic country), to a front line Arab country with a terrain that is much more amenable to a standing Army was a stroke of genious. The neighborhood dictators can't spare any resources for Afghanistan, Iraq is too important to them.
Agreed, to a point. I'd rather fight them in Iraq than in Afghanistan, the social and geographical terrain is much more in our favor in the flat, open desert of Mesopotamia.
On the other hand, it is a much simpler problem for your average Arab jihadi to travel overland to Iraq via Syria, than it is to get to Afghanistan via Pakistan.
Doesn't really matter much, in the long term. We're ultimately going to defeat this enemy not by force of arms, but by the slow process of political and social transformation in the Islamic world. We've already basically won this battle in Turkey, Dubai, Bahrain, and parts of Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and even Egypt. It's only a matter of time before the rest of Islamic civilization follows suit.
The alternative scenario is unthinkable: that Islam will transform the West to fit their template. That's just not gonna happen -- at least, not outside a few isolated spots in Western Europe...
Just previous to the run up of the war , Zarquawi wasn't even a threat,( according to the MSM ) Ansar wasn't even considered as al queda, The news made it apear that Bush was just pulling someone out of his hat so he had an actual enemy in Iraq.
Most of the news and media never checked into the reports by kurds in the area. Had they , the news and media would know the Kurds had actual fears. Irrational fear wouldn't make them actually afraid of chemicle attacks by ansar-al-islam.
We joke here in the US about duct tape and plastic, but Kurds were using this as their only defence against Ansar. Taking up most of a weeks allowance for food to purchase it.
Had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, Ansar would now hold the Kudish stronghold mountain fortress.( It had been taken by Ansar)
Ansar would be actively working to export terror to Europe. Even more so than now. Europe would be seeing more riacin attacks as well as other attacks.
Cooperation with Jordan would not be occuring as it is. The Chemicle attack against Jordan may not have only succeeded, it could have made it's way all the way to Israel. ( because Israel would still be on attack from Iraq, by Saddams Paid suicide bombers.
These are just a few things the US actually stopped by being in Iraq.
Not taking into account all the other things we have found out since we have been there.
Have you seen anybody saying thatliberating Afghanistan has created more terrorists? It would seem to me if you apply the logic that Islamofacists were upset when the supposedly "secular" Saddam was removed, shouldn't they be even more upset by a real Islamofacist's government being deposed?
On Afghanistan, The Northern Alliance warned the US that if we set down 150,000 troops there, we would be considered and occupyer, and we could not expect their cooperation. We could expect to be fighting them as well. The were already ramped up from their leader being killed on Sept 9th (?) Just before 9-11.
Also , Pakistan and US had not restored diplomatic relations, and had been backing the taliban. Pakistan's ISS was in direct support , and cooperation with them at that time.
We could be in war with Pakistan ( a nuclear power ) today . Or Pak, India could still be in nuclear confrontation. Pakistan still has an existant threat today from it's support of the Taliban. It's government is in direct confrontation with it's Northern Provence. There was alot more involved in these two wars than just the immidiate countries involved. Pakistani cooperation , and support for Al-queda isn't 100% , but it is much better today , than it would be if we took an alternate route.
It may be easier for them to get to Iraq than Afganistan, and therefore all of that are attacking in Iraq might not have come over to Afganistan, but they would be attacking us here in the US, or in other countries.
I would rather have them attacking well armed soldiers in Baghdad, or innocent Iraqis in Baghdad (which will just get the Iraqis ticked off at them), than attacking innocent citizens in Beaumont, Bakersfield, or even Boston.
I would rather have them in Tikrit than Tulsa, Tallahasse, or Texas City
I would rather have them in Karkuk or Karbala, rather than Kansas City, etc.
Don,
Just because you prefer it, does not mean the Iraqi people do too.
I'm sure most of them are delighted that Saddam is gone. But this was not a war of their choosing, and I bet many of them resent being forced into the front lines of another country's war on terror.
I'm sure most Iraqis are "ticked off" with the terrorists. But that does not necessarily translate into support for U.S. troops.
If they're not on your side, why fight on their behalf?
I have actually used Greyhawk's arguement before against people opposed to why the US went to war in Iraq so quickly. I think part of the reason was to divide the terrorist's resources to make them choose which area they were going to concentrate on because they do not have the resources to concentrate on both. So with their resources divided we are making steady progress, despite what the MSM would want you to believe, in the defeat of these terrorists.
whats4lunch...
I don't see it as the Iraqis being "forced into another country's War on Terror". The Iraqi people are as much a part of the GWOT as we are - removing Saddam Hussein from power liberated millions of people and ended the reign of one of the most terrible dictators on the planet. It dried up funding and support for terrorists world-wide and helped motivate Lybia into dismantling their nuclear weapons program.
The majority of Iraqis (and Afghanis) are greatful to have been freed from opression and support us being there, though not as an "occupying force". They want our help - the appreciate our help. Hopefully, one day soon, they will learn to do for themselves. In that respect, we are fighting on their behalf and we do have their support.
I agree. In fact I think the terrorists are heading more and more to Afghanistan now because Iraq is too hot.
I agree and have thought this since the beginning. It was in fact opening a second front on the Jihadists. Keeping in mind that in Afghanistan they had set up bases, ammunition, recruitment lines, supply and egress routes and basically mountain fortresses that, as one has already pointed out, would be very difficult to search, identify and route even with our advanced weapons, daisy cutters, MOABs, etc.
In Iraq, they had to go to all the trouble of re-establishing these supply lines, entry and egress, set up safe houses, etc.
In Iraq, there may be thousands of Saddam's "ammo dumps" to choose from, but it's flat and open and a lot more people, thus, while easy for them to "swim" in the population based on ethnicity and language, not as easy to stay hidden. Also, while there is much discussion about Iraqi tribalism, having 3/4 population unfriendly to sunni/salafi makes it a fore gone conclusion that these men will get their asses kicked.
One must wonder, on any given day, if Zarqawi really thinks he can win or cause a "draw". One must also wonder if Zarqawi or OBL's underlings are asking him to produce "benchmarks" by which they can measure their success and declare "victory".