大象传媒

Fight a War on Political terms and it cannot be won!
Fight a War on Military Terms it can be, it results in an accepted winner and a loser.

the pbs frontline did some good shows on this.

to understand the 'noble lie' one has to understand the doctrine of leo strauss that is followed by the main agents of this 'distraction'.

the noble lie is one of the tactics of the inner circle of 'golden souls'. it is a doctrine that appeals to a person's vanity-that they are 'a golden soul' and so can do what they like. Very similar to the doctrine held by the Qutbists on the other side who believe that by violence against muslims they can purify and energise the muslim community.

however there is also a case for the foreign currency view that the OPEC desire to move to the euro and so cause a crash of 25-40% in the usa [and uk] economies precipitated a view that the only way to avoid that was to hold onto the 2nd largest reserves of oil [iraq] and return them from euros to the dollar.

On the USA revolution vs the current Iraqi civil war - perhaps a better comparison would be the Anglo-Irish War of 1919=1920? I'm studying A-level history and today the links between Ireland's past and Iraq current situation seemed to be jumping off the page. Quickly they both seem to include a Prime Minister who's power was waning due to a more rebellious cabinet, the refusal of the government to recognise the true nature of the situation, the national press who had turned against the violence and a small but determined group or rebels/terrorists who use guerilla tactics to win a propaganda victory more than a military success? It's just a though but perhaps it doesn't bode to well for the short-term future

It's very easy to try to complicate this problem with sophisticated language and historical doctrines. The simple fact is we have invaded another country on a false premise. It is fundamentally false to impose democracy on another nation and to do so is not democratic in any way. When the US and its allies accept that their war on terror is purely revenge for 9/11.
Try to imagine for a moment another group of countries which fundamentally disagree with our way of life and our political system. Because someone who supports our way of life attacks there system. They then choose to invade the UK to overthrow our governing bodies (however unpopular) and impose their own beliefs and systems in place of our own, long held, same.
I would be the first to take up arms and defend our right to be a free nation.
There is also a disgusting under-current of corruption and financial gain which is hard to argue against.
The only way to resolve the global war on terror.. to agree to differ! To accept that certain religious idealogies will not always accept others but can respect and tolerate them for the good of humanity.
Let us celebrate our differences rather than fight over them to prove a point. We should be showing the generations that will survive us that tolerance and consideration of the views of others is the way forward.
Personally, I am sick and tired of watching people die for no reason. Defence is a reason for war. Control is no defence.

Please accept my apologies for the spelling mistakes!

Dave Saunders
I agree with you.

If we fought WW2 with the same restrictions on soldiers, negative press coverage and pathalogical hatred of our leaders on the Left, this website would be in Russian, whith a large Red Star at the top.

I'm not suprised the 大象传媒 is promoting an anti-Bush book. There have been dozens of pro-Bush books, by equally decorated soldiers.

This lot have been against the war from the start, which has been of great aid and comfort to the enemy.

I dont agree with General Rose's defeatism, but lets try to get past that & have a grown up debate.

Ask yourself, if we do what Rose suggests, admit defeat & walk away now, do you think it will all come to an end?

I agree with the American commentator - the eventual price of our defeat in Iraq would be much higher than the price of our success - if we in the US/UK are not prepared to pay one price we, along with the people of Iraq, will surely be forced to pay the other.

We have to win this. If we don't win, we will lose - I don't think there is going to be a draw.

When we removed Saddam we were scandalously unprepared for the consequences of a destabilised Iraq.
The whole thing has become an awful mess due to avoidable mistakes but we are where we are.

We cannot now leave the ordinary people of that country to their fate while the extremist Sunnis & Shi-ites (with their respective patrons)fight it out - we have to stay there until the Iraqis themselves can take over with our continuing external support & try to achieve some kind of political settlement without a full blown civil war.

The slaughter in India/Pakistan in 1948, Ruanda in 1992(?) & many other examples show that what could happen would make the present killing look like a local difficulty.

We need to put in yet more resources to support our allies, to suppress the insurgents and improve security for the local people & to allow the Iraqis themselves the time to put their own structures in place. We can do that if we want to - the sooner the better - it is a matter primarily of political will in the US. The UK can play its part by supporting our friends, as we have done. For that, thank you, Tony Blair.

Anyway, this isnt just about Iraq - thats just the current venue. The Islamic extremists are everyones enemy - they cannot be allowed to succeed in their aims. It is now a battle of wills between us & Al-Qaeda. They are not capable of being appeased - they want a wholly Islamic world - & it has to be their brand of Islam too, as we can see today from the bitterness in Iraq.

Is that what you want? I think not, & if you are a modern Western female, like your mother, sister, wife or daughter, then certainly not.

This will probably be the long war of the 21st century. Actually, we don't have any real acceptable alternative but to fight it...

Depressing, isnt it?

Sir General Rose is not a defeatist but a pragmatist. This illegal immoral conflict is all about American sef-interest with Blair along for the ride to try and give it some dignity which it doesn't and makes us look like lackeys to the Americans (which, under Blair is what we have become) Oh for some dignity and some self-respect from these madmen that would never risk their own loved ones and would run a mile at the sound of the first shot. At least Rose is stating the b......obvious. Sincerely, Steven Calrow. Liverpool.

Clive Hall #8.

You are right about the objectives of Islam (any Brand) in that they will settle for nothing other than an Islamic World.

However you are wrong in your assertion there is no option but to fight it with a Kill or be killed War, it would be an endless war, based on the birth rates of Muslim everywhere, the West could never win.

The Soviet Union and China with their incompatible ideologies with the rest, raised the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain respectively, forming purely a separation of ideologies.

I advocate a similar Curtain between an Islamic World and the Rest.
They stay that side, we stay on the other.

It worked with Communism, it will work with Islam. But I suppose that is too easy, and removes the Political excuse to use fear to justify the control and monitoring of people.

General Rose鈥檚 comment that 鈥渢he catastrophe that was predicted after Vietnam didn鈥檛 happen鈥� is perhaps an indicator of the quality and depth of the rest of his analysis. The Khmer Rouge overran Cambodia as soon as the Americans departed Vietnam, which resulted in the death of around 2 million Cambodians (鈥淭he killing fields鈥�). His suggestion that the 鈥渋nsurgents鈥� are right to resist the American occupation is vacuous. The insurgents are resisting the democratic urges of the Iraqi people who have risked their lives three times by voting to live in a democratic Iraq. If the defeatist agenda prevails, and we do abandon the Iraqi people, then please be sure to invite General Rose back to discuss the ensuing bloodbath and the resurgent tyranny.

In agreeing with the comments from Dave Saunders and having read extensively on the historical justifications and outcomes of similar conflicts I would like to summarise my opinions regarding invasions.

I believe it is justified to invade a sovereign country and depose it's leaders if
(a) They are a direct threat to your own country.
(b) Their leadership is actively seeking to cause carnage in your country and other allied countries.
(c) They have a track record of causing such carnage in other countries for their own political and economic purposes.
(d) They interfere in the political processes and economic structure of your country for their strategic gain.
(e) They consistently defy or oppose United Nations resolutions.

On this basis it is not justified to have invaded Iraq, but it is justified to invade America, the UK and Israel, cause a regime change and put on trial the leaders of these countries.

Just ask the people of Iraq, Iran, Guatemala, Egypt, India, Vietnam, Korea, Venezuela, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama...........the list goes on and on.

General Sir Michael Rose may deliver us the cold, hard, realistic truth regardless how we may misconstrued as anti-Bush, but the reality is beyond Bush & his failed administration- the war in Iraq does not bode too well for America & Britain. It's time to bring our kids home & let Iraq & its neighbords solve theri own problems.

I think Sun Tzu says it nicely:

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are."

Fold or play.

Congratulations!

It is still 'Washington's War', but now it's from D.C.

We were warned about Foreign Entanglements, for good reason.
Now we're in some 150 Countries other
than America the Beautiful. Our Home.

This will be the Forever War which We The People have been plunged into.

As a Veteran with a different opinion
at age 62, I look at this War as the loss of our Freedoms, one step at a time. I could cry for the many who support it. And now see the coming consequence for the very Heart of America. I Live and Die for my Country. To all Americans, I truly hope you will take the time to read
The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution. Then you might understand True History, and what we might sacrifice in the near future.
Think about that.

Read George Washington's Farewell Adress...Very related to today.

Right now George Tenet who was the former Director of the CIA is dancing all over American television trying to rewrite history by telling the world that it was not his fault that the US went to war against Iraq and dismissing his famous "slam dunk" statement. He also says that had he spoken directly with the President at the time, it would not have mattered, the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq anyway. What a bunch of baloney, who can believe one word he says.

George Washington is most famous among his quotations for having warned in his farewell address that America should never enter into any entangling alliances with Europe. Had America listened to him there, it would not have fought in WWI, WWII in Europe or in the cold war and there would be no NATO, at least not with America in it. Had the war in Iraq been fought the way wars were conceived of in Washington's day given the circumstances of America fighting for its existance against an implacable enemy with WMDs as it saw the situation and given its power, it is doubtful there would be a single person left alive in Iraq today.

As an ex-serviceman who proudly joined the Royal Navy to defend our Great nation, I fully support our servicemen and women in whichever conflict they find themselves.
However, to compare the war in Iraq with WW2 is ridiculous. Our country, and others, fought to defend against a direct threat to their sovereignty and freedom. Similarly, our defence of the Falkland Islands.
The only people Saddam Hussein threatened were his own and there are many rulers throughout the world who govern with the same, or worse, methods.
Clive Hall writes that there can not be a draw but there is no other option. The enemy in Iraq is only the enemy because we (I use that term loosely) have invaded their country. The Islamic extremists have benefitted no end from the actions of George Bush and Tony Blair and the continued occupation of Iraq will only serve to increase the terrorist threat.
We must learn to respect other cultures and religions, whether we like or understand them or not. Who says our way is right anyway? The USSR was not invaded before it changed.. The troubles in Northern Ireland were not solved with weapons.
If the Western powers choose to take on the Middle East full on then the result will be mass destruction. We should defend our nation(s), at any cost, but not by trying to control others.
None of my views are, in any way, intended to provide any excuse or support for those who choose to kill and maim innocent people for their cause.

Sadam played his games for many years and got his bluff called due to the occurance of 9/11. He was holding back a bunch of animals as we can see. Anti-Christs pure and simple. The deserve not once speck of pity those filthy animals. You celebrate in the streets @ 9-11 and now you suffer so dont cry now. I hope we stay and I hope you keep killing each other and we will help along the way killing both sides when we can until none of you are left. We made a strategic move to destroy the Taliban firstly and hit the Arab world where it hurts and take Iraq and sit right in the middle of the Arab world, next store to Iran and say NOW WHAT ? You are lucky we didnt just nuke Afganistan in the hours after 9-11 which is exactly what I would have done blown it off the map.

Alan C in #12 is advocating precisely the sort of deliberate propaganda nonsense that General Rose pointed out.

The General is correct in stating the catastrophic consequences predicted by the hawks in Washington DC during the second Indochina war (1959-1975) did not happen. Let us remind ourselves what was predicted by the so-called domino theory.

The domino theory predicted that, if the corrupt regime of South Vietnam is not propped up, then not only would the other countries in Indochina (viz. Laos and Cambodia) turn to communism, but also Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma and the rest of SE Asia. That did not happened.

Cambodia fell to communists partly because of the 1970 coup against Prince Sihanouk and ensuring 14 months U.S. bombing of the country strengthened the support for Kmer Rouge. Laos was always going to be problematic because neither sides respected the 1962 treaty regarding neutrality of Laos (signed by 14 countries including North and South Vietnam, PRC, USSR and USA).

However, none of Thailand, Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia and the rest of the SE Asia embraced communism. Indeed, there was no systematic agression by Vietnam (or, for that matter, Laos/Cambodia) against other SE Asian countries. The only events which one might try to point to is the Vietnamese army ousted the Kmer Rouge in 1978 and the 1979 conflict between PRC and Vietnam, but these are just power struggle between various communist fraction, not the systematic aggression against non-communists countries predicted by domino theory. In other words, the dire picture predicted by the domino theory did not come to fruition, which is exactly General Rose's point.

historian; you have made the mistake of taking the domino theory out of historical context and you have omitted facts which were not apparant at the time of Viet Nam but were germane to the reason the domino theory didn't operate as predicted after the fall of Viet Nam. The domino theory was first advanced by Truman and given this name by Eisenhower. Here is the Wikipedia version of it;

The historical context was the undisguised efforts of the Soviet Union to spread communism around the world. This was epitomized in Khrushchev's shoe banging display at the UN where he told America "we will bury you." (Many Americans took this to mean a threat of war but Khrushchev reportedly and likely meant it in the sense that communist dictatorships would replace capitalism as the only form of government in the world.) Communism did not fail to expand its dominance for lack of trying. The US and its Nato and Seato allies tried every way possible to contain the expansionist ambitions of the USSR. The USSR had taken over eastern Europe and had its sights set on Western Europe, of that there can be no doubt. Had the US not engaged in its massive military and economic efforts, there is every reason to believe that the Soviet Empire would have extended to the Atlantic and Mediterranian to this very day. Korea and Viet Nam were evidence that China would assist the USSR in funneling Soviet weapons and technical support to countries adjacent to the Communist empire. It is very likely that American pilots were actually engaging Soviet pilots in those arial dogfights over Korea and it is clear Viet Nam was heavily supplied by the USSR with military weapons. By the time the Viet Nam war was over, North Viet Nam was devastated and quite unready to spend much effort helping further soviet expansion. China and Russia saw that the US was prepared to engage in direct military confrontation far from home in Southeast Asia to defend what it saw as its national security interests. Also, Sukarno killed over a million communists in Indonesia. Even so, many Europeans opposed America's efforts to contain Soviet expansion and actually sympathized with and were enamored by Communism. During the Reagan adminsistration there was very vocal opposition in Europe especially when he installed the Pershing II missiles in Germany.

Iraq has to be put into the context of 9-11. According to George Tenet, America really didn't expect a terrorist attack on its own territory. It had just awakened to the reality of the threat and its own vulnerability and as is typical of Amrericans, they was quick to act decisively against any and all perceived threats feeling it is better to err on the side of killing off an enemy which presents a danger which was overestimated or whose threat lies sometime in the future than to neglect striking one which is a danger before it can strike America first. In this context, America has and will likely continue to initiate pre-emptive strikes when it feels threatened no matter who doesn't like it, especially Europe which in part seemed not to merely disbelieve the credibility of the threat but indifferent to whether or not America was attacked as a consequence, in fact many of us suspect some Europeans even wish for it. In that light, Anti Americanism is seen as jealousy for American civilization and anger that America has the means and will to defend itself unilaterally if necessary and has spawned equally intense Anti European feelings on this side of the Atlantic. It's not a feeling which will disappear anytime soon and will not be dispelled by government realignments of policy which may be more cooperative in the future. Many Americans are completely fed up with Europe and have written it off for good.

I see the General has been quoted as saying that the insurgents are "right to take on [the] US". This surely is a case of putting words into his mouth rather than what he has actually said. Whilst it's very clear that he considers what's happened in Iraq a disaster, he simply states that he understands the reasons for the insurgency - not that it is right. The ill-thought-out, badly-planned campaign and hurried, deceitful incompetence of those who rushed out inaccurate intelligence to bolster the case for this war have naturally turned him against it, whatever initial support he might have given it. General Rose is a humanitarian man and makes clear his hatred of the waste of life. No one understands better than a soldier, what "waste" in this case, truly means.

Innocent people are being trampled like grass when two elephants fight. The two elephants here are Zionism and Whabism. The Zionists have rekindled the Wahabis (who got rid of Napoleon from Egypt in 1801?). The Wahabis were installed by the colonial powers in 1920s when Ottomans were dismantled and after so many years the Wahabis have mega petro-dollars to counter Zionism. All and sundry avoid mentioning these two elephants and so the public stay confused and therefore this downward spiral goes on and on. Why not talk about these two elephants? Because they can drop their income like Marks & Spencer did to Bryan Ferry.

American Realist?? Who is lucky you didn't nuke Afghanistan? Do you really believe everyone (and thing) in that region deserves to die because of the actions of a few evil men? If you honestly do, then that makes you as bad as them.
I thought your point that the people of Iraq are "Anti-Christs" might have been an ironic joke.. However, as you clearly can't perceive any reality outside of your own little American dream, it's not likely you're smart enough.

#22 Sarah

You say in your post 鈥溾�e simply states that he understands the reasons for the insurgency - not that it is right鈥︹��, J.P asked him this question, 鈥淒o you think the insurgents are right to try and get the Americans out鈥� to which Rose replied 鈥淵es I do.鈥� I didn鈥檛 try to put words into his mouth, neither should you.

#20 historian says

鈥淭he General is correct in stating the catastrophic consequences predicted by the hawks in Washington DC during the second Indochina war (1959-1975) did not happen.鈥�. What does it matter if the Cambodian genocide of 2 million souls wasn鈥檛 predicted? It was a consequence of defeat, and it was catestrophic. Who can predict the precise consequences of abandoning Iraqi, for the Iraqis or the region? But if we leave, my bet is that the jihadists and mass casuality bombers will prevail and we鈥檒l be back again within 10 years.

It is true that no military solution is possible, but a political solution is only possible once the military have created the necessary conditions for politics to take root. This is the purpose of the Petraeus surge strategy which must be given a chance to succeed.

General Rose refers to the defeatist sentiments of troops he has spoken to. Read some military blogs and you will find numerous reports from troops who feel they are doing a worthwhile job, are making headway and are appreciated by the local population. In any case, since when did generals start deferring to the sentiments of troops in the conduct or war?

In my opionion General Rose falls into the 'Lions led by donkeys' class of military leadership.

Alan, my mistake - the General did indeed acknowledge that the insurgents were right to oppose the US and UK forces, probably because most of us would wish to turf out an occupying force in our homeland. In this case though, one can assume that there are plenty of foreign fighters bolstering that insurgency. I cannot see what purpose we serve out there save to ratchet up the bad feeling. At any rate the Iraq war has been an exercise in ill-thought-out planning and sheer incompetence.

There are so many historical examples of the kind of political failures made by the decision to invade Iraq. The common theme, as Sir Michael Rose points out, is a complete lack of understanding of the 鈥榚nemy鈥� and what they are fighting for and therefore an inability to see the futility of war. It鈥檚 always been easy for the leaders of the more powerful side to define the enemy as purely wicked for the benefit of gaining public support. However, whether you look at the war of independence from Britain or the French underground resistance army during the German occupation (who were incidentally labeled terrorists by the Reich), there are always two sides to every dispute and the only way to ever resolve them is for both sides to learn to 鈥榳alk a mile in my moccasins鈥�.

(peace)
upon you all
well i read your comments agree with some and disagree with others.
some one says that (ISLAMIC) EXTREMISTS are every one .but arenot there extremists also in the west which by their thoughts to cancel the others fuel other nations with heat?
no one cannot justify for any extremist and for iraq some facts should be clear
there is hughe difference between
the iraqi national resistance and
alqaeda.
although the iraqi national resistance carries islamic characteristics like(ISLAMIC ) army
(ALMOGAHDEEN ARMY) ETC..
ALTHOUGH THEY SHARE ALQAEDA TARGETING MILITARY OF US/UK
BUT ALQAEDA DOESNOT HAVE ANY POPULAR SUPPORT IN IRAQ DUE TO THE OPERATIONS IT IS ACUSED FOR TARGETING CIVLIANS
BUT OTHER IRAQI NATIONAL GROUPS
HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT FOR 2 REASONS
THEY DONOY TARGET IRAQI PEOPLE
THEY TARGET ONLY FOREGIN INVADERS WHICH ALL THE IRAQI PEOPLES HATE AS THEY HATE
ALQAEDA AND BY THE WAY IF SOME ONE READ STATE OF DENIAL BOOK FOR BOB WOODWARD HE WILL FIND THAT THERE IS OPERATION AGAINST AMERICAN MILITARY EVERY 15 MINUTES WHICH MEANS 96 DAILY ATTACK WITH ALL RELATED CASULTIES.
ALANBAR PROVINCE WHICH US MILITARY DOESNOT CONTROL IT IS ONE THIRD OF IRAQ 500000 SQURAE KM.
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT DURING HIS VISI TO THE PROVINCE TO MAKE OTHERS SEE HOW HIS SURGE WAS FRUITFUL WAS IN HEAVLY FORTIFIED AIR BASE WHICH MEANS BY IT DOESNOT INDICATE REAL STABILITY THAT IN ANBA AS HE IS TRYING TO MAKE OTHERS BELIVE SO.
THE GRREN ZONE IS UNDER FIRE WHICH IS HEAVILY FORTIFIED AND ATTACKERS ARE NOT SPOTED EVERY TIME.
SOME DISTRICTS IN IRAQI CAPITAL NO US SOLDIER DARE TO SHOW UP IN IT THAT IRAQIS CALLED IT THE LIBERATED DISTRICSTS.
DESTROYED AND BURNED VECHILES OF
OCCUPATION ARE SO MANY THAT IT REPRESENTS BURDEN FOR REMOVING IT FROM HIGH WAYS SO IT IS LEFT AS EVIDENCE FOR HOW REAL THE RESISTANCE IS STRONG .
IRAQI RESISTANCE DOMINATES LAND
AND ON LAND EXISTS NATIONS AND ECONOMIC INTERSTS AND SO ON WHICH MEANS AIR DOMINANCE OF USA IS NOT OF GREAT BENEFIT
IT DOENOT COVER ALL IRAQ
24 HOURS
7 DAYS WEEK
WHILE RESISTANCE ON GROUND DOES
CONCERNING US CASULTIES THAT IF IT IS TRUE AND THEY ARE NOT MINIMIZING IT AS THEY HAD DONE IN VEITNAM (IRAQIS ESTMIMATES THAT 30000 WESTERN SOLDIERS DEID IN IRAQ)
BUT LET US ASSUME THAT US FIGURES ARE TRUE 4000 SOLDIERS DIED
OTHER 26000 INJURED DOES IT MEAN RESISTANCE IS WEAK?
ACTUALLY THIS APPROACH TO UNDERESTIMATE RESISTANCE IS MISLEADING BECAUSE IF FIGURES ARE TRUE THIS IS BECAUSE SOLIDERS NOW HVE BETTER NEDICAL TREATMENT THAN VEITNAM ERA
KEVLAR ARMOUR
AND SO ON
WHICH AS YOU ALL SEE WITH OUT THEM THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN 30000 DEAD
SOLDIERS AND THEY ARE ALL REASONS NOT RELATED TO ANY AMERCAN BRAVERY OR SMARTNESS AGAINS THE REAL MEN
RESISTANCE MEN
BY THE WAY RESISTANCE IN IRAQ IS POPULAR TOO BECAUSE IT PROVIDES PEOPLE WITH SOCIAL SERVICES BECAUSE RESISTANCE MEN ARE AT THE END IRAQI PEOPLE FEELS HOW THERE PEOPLE SUFFER
AS ADVICE IRAQI RESITANCE TV (ALZWRAA) YOU CAN FIND OUT WHAT I MENTIONED ABOVE AND MORE YOU WILL SEE RESTANCE MEN INSIDE SCHOOLS GIVING AND SUPPORTING CHILDREN WITH GIFTS
AND FIGHTING IN STREETS AND EVERY WHERE ON IRAQ
(PEACE ( UPON YOU