Perhaps it’s because U.S. troops based in Japan, Germany and Italy after World War II were not being blown up every day as part of an active insurgency. Despite false attempts by Condoleeza Rice and other Bush adminstration members to pretend that there was a German “Werewolf” insurgent network, U.S. insurgency victims after VE were precisely zero.
For a bit more information about the occupation of Japan in the immediate postwar period, check out this website. It’s a bit hard to read given the background color, but it gives a fascinating account of one unit based down by Nagasaki.
“A Bell for Adano”, John Hersey’s Pullitzer winning story about a Sicilian town occupied by Americans and one major’s efforts to serve as a temporary “mayor” was made into a good movie in 1945. While it is fiction, Hersey spent time as a correspondent in World War II (and even in China during the Japanese invasion in the late 1930s), and his results are echoed by contemporary accounts by Ernie Pyle, grunt-cartoonist Bill Mauldin, and others who noted that nearly every village in Italy was filled with Italians with relatives in America. The Hersey story is, interestingly, echoed in a very good piece on the early days in Iraq written by a Special Forces colonel – I forget the link, but it basically was an account of how his unit had gotten a very good relationship of trust with the local town leaders and then had to move on. However, the connection ends there – the Iraqi village descended into chaos and factional fighting.
So, getting back to the Iraq situation, we’ve lost thousands of Americans in the post-Mission-Accomplished era to insurgents in Iraq. Did we lose any to the Japanese, Germans or Italians after their governments capitulated?
So you think the level of interest is still that high? Really? I’m thinking sensory overload and apathy rule the day. But maybe Canadians are better able to sense how Americans in America feel.
.[/quote]
Like all those apathetic people who threw the Republicans out of control of both the Senate and the House?
So you think the level of interest is still that high? Really? I’m thinking sensory overload and apathy rule the day. But maybe Canadians are better able to sense how Americans in America feel.
.[/quote]
Like all those apathetic people who threw the Republicans out of control of both the Senate and the House?[/quote]
Please. A reversal of the House was as natural as a deep fried twinkie…
[quote]
So, getting back to the Iraq situation, we’ve lost thousands of Americans in the post-Mission-Accomplished era to insurgents in Iraq. Did we lose any to the Japanese, Germans or Italians after their governments capitulated?[/quote]
What’s the difference here? We were allowed to WIN those wars. Were there insurgencies in post WWII? Not that I know of.
So you think the level of interest is still that high? Really? I’m thinking sensory overload and apathy rule the day. But maybe Canadians are better able to sense how Americans in America feel.
.[/quote]
Like all those apathetic people who threw the Republicans out of control of both the Senate and the House?[/quote]
Please. A reversal of the House was as natural as a deep fried twinkie…
[quote]
So, getting back to the Iraq situation, we’ve lost thousands of Americans in the post-Mission-Accomplished era to insurgents in Iraq. Did we lose any to the Japanese, Germans or Italians after their governments capitulated?[/quote]
What’s the difference here? We were allowed to WIN those wars. Were there insurgencies in post WWII? Not that I know of.
[quote=“jdsmith”]
What’s the difference here? We were allowed to WIN those wars. Were there insurgencies in post WWII? Not that I know of.[/quote]
difference would have been that in WW2 the occupied countries WANTED to be freed, badly
entering THAT war made a lot of sense,it was the morally rightful thing to do, the disguised personal grudge between saddam/bush wasn’t
What’s the difference here? We were allowed to WIN those wars. Were there insurgencies in post WWII? Not that I know of.[/quote]
Were Germany or Japan internally divided societies with a strong, regional separatist component, easily extracted riches, hostile neighbours willing to interfere, and a well-organized terrorist organization eager to have a go at occupational, collaborating, or sectarian targets?
As far as I recall, the mission to remove Saddam and defeat Iraq militarily was a cake walk. It happened in less than three weeks.
As far as I recall, Bush has endlessly said that the fight against Islamic Fascism (not in those exact terms) was going to be generational. It would be long and difficult. So where this “it’s going to be so easy and over quick thing” has gotten into people’s minds is beyond me. I always knew and have stated so on this forum since 2002 that we were going to be in Iraq with 35k to 50k troops for the long haul and by that I meant 60 years. Obviously, I did not expect the levels of violence but hey Bush has never said this was going to be easy. He said we can win this. He said we were winning this and I think to a large extent he has been right about the efforts that he has specifically mentioned. The civil war was not there before. This is a NEW challenge. Was Truman every chastized for his actions in the end and immediately following WWII? Hell yes. How many screamed about his giveaway of Eastern Europe. Then there was the Berlin Airlift in 1949. Did everyone weep and gnash their teeth that we were “losing the war?” Oh yes. Been there and done that.
Did we capture Saddam and remove the Baathist power structure? Yes. So we did “win” that one.
Did we marginalize al Qaeda in Iraq? Did we “win” that one? Oh yes. Where’s Zarkawi? haha
Did we marginalize and stop the Sunni insurgency as an effective threat to the national power structure? Yes.
Did we win the effort to stop the Sunni Shia civil war and sectarian violence? No. This is the new big challenge, but let’s not pretend that the left is being principled on this. They are fully ready to ignore any accomplishment and paint this effort as only defeat because new challenges are arising. So, is Iraq lost? Not by a long shot. Is this new challenge a serious one? hell yes. Is it going to take time and effort to resolve? Oh yes. Maybe 10 years. That is the average length of insurgencies and sectarian conflicts like this unless sufficient force can tamp the fires down. Is sufficient force available or likely to be effective? No. Not really. This is going to have to burn itself out like the wars in the Balkans, northern Ireland, Basque regions did. But hey, it is patently dishonest to pretend that the US has not successfully removed Saddam and the Baathists, stopped al Qaeda from effectively making inroads into the country, prevented the Sunni insurgency from becoming a unified and credible political and military threat. There. My sermon ends there. But this dishonest quibbling like the shock that Bush “lied” about the wmd threat is just so much nonsense. The quotes by everyone from top to bottom and left to right on the threat Saddam posed are a matter of public record. AND these efforts to take Bush’s comments and look at them selectively is also just so much dishonesty. While it may be fun to see some half-assed reporter from some questionable Web site string a bunch of quotes taken out of context for maximum publicity effect amusing, it is not for serious discussion about strategy and how to win this war. We will win. In fact, I think that we already have. Now, it is just a matter of waiting things out until the people involved get sick of fighting. This happened in Kurdistan for 9 years as well from 1991 to 1999 and now? Kurdistan is a model of stability and pluralism. Perhaps, the same will happen in Iraq? Could be, but not many of the avid protesters here are actually familiar with the conditions in Kurdistan during that period of time are they? Strange. That they should be so unfamiliar with important factors that have affected Iraq during the past 15 years? Hah!
What’s the difference here? We were allowed to WIN those wars. Were there insurgencies in post WWII? Not that I know of.[/quote]
Were Germany or Japan internally divided societies with a strong, regional separatist component, easily extracted riches, hostile neighbours willing to interfere, and a well-organized terrorist organization eager to have a go at occupational, collaborating, or sectarian targets?[/quote]
You are right Jaboney (did I say that?). Both societies were pretty homogenous. JD’s historical comparison is highly erroneous at best. Doubtless he’ll disagree because as a Bush supporter he and his ilk are never, ever wong.
[quote]difference would have been that in WW2 the occupied countries WANTED to be freed, badly
entering THAT war made a lot of sense,it was the morally rightful thing to do, the disguised personal grudge between saddam/bush wasn’t[/quote]
First of all, I very much enjoy your avatar. You should post more often just so we can get a laugh more often.
Second, did Germany, Italy and Japan really want to be “liberated?” I don’t think so. AND I can assure you that I would know about the former.
Third, lots of people believed that peace was most important hence a whole ream of documents and studies and discussions on the dangers of appeasement so I think that you are recalling the World War II moral clarity with 100 percent hindsight.
This was not a thinly disguised grudge between Saddam and Bush. If it were, why then would the French national leadership and intelligence have weighed in on the “dangers” of Saddam’s wmd programs? Why would France have voted for binding resolutions against Saddam 17 times in the UN security council? To give the US face in its grudge with Saddam? Come on. I thought the French were supposed to be the sophisticated thinkers while we Americans were the bumbling country rubes? Haha. Very very very weak. But how very very very cynical. And that IS more important in political posturing isn’t it? Looks better if in fact you prefer style over substance. Voila! magnifique! and tres tres chic! Supersonic! or rather supersonique! haha
[quote=“fred smith”]As far as I recall, the mission to remove Saddam and defeat Iraq militarily was a cake walk. It happened in less than three weeks.
As far as I recall, Bush has endlessly said that the fight against Islamic Fascism (not in those exact terms) was going to be generational. It would be long and difficult. So where this “it’s going to be so easy and over quick thing” has gotten into people’s minds is beyond me. I always knew and have stated so on this forum since 2002 that we were going to be in Iraq with 35k to 50k troops for the long haul and by that I meant 60 years. Obviously, I did not expect the levels of violence but hey Bush has never said this was going to be easy. He said we can win this. He said we were winning this and I think to a large extent he has been right about the efforts that he has specifically mentioned. The civil war was not there before. This is a NEW challenge. Was Truman every chastized for his actions in the end and immediately following WWII? Hell yes. How many screamed about his giveaway of Eastern Europe. Then there was the Berlin Airlift in 1949. Did everyone weep and gnash their teeth that we were “losing the war?” Oh yes. Been there and done that.
Did we capture Saddam and remove the Baathist power structure? Yes. So we did “win” that one.
Did we marginalize al Qaeda in Iraq? Did we “win” that one? Oh yes. Where’s Zarkawi? haha
Did we marginalize and stop the Sunni insurgency as an effective threat to the national power structure? Yes.
Did we win the effort to stop the Sunni Shia civil war and sectarian violence? No. This is the new big challenge, but let’s not pretend that the left is being principled on this. They are fully ready to ignore any accomplishment and paint this effort as only defeat because new challenges are arising. So, is Iraq lost? Not by a long shot. Is this new challenge a serious one? hell yes. Is it going to take time and effort to resolve? Oh yes. Maybe 10 years. That is the average length of insurgencies and sectarian conflicts like this unless sufficient force can tamp the fires down. Is sufficient force available or likely to be effective? No. Not really. This is going to have to burn itself out like the wars in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Basque regions did. But hey, it is patently dishonest to pretend that the US has not successfully removed Saddam and the Baathists, stopped al Qaeda from effectively making inroads into the country, prevented the Sunni insurgency from becoming a unified and credible political and military threat. There. [color=red]My sermon ends there.[/color] But this dishonest quibbling like the shock that Bush “lied” about the wmd threat is just so much nonsense. The quotes by everyone from top to bottom and left to right on the threat Saddam posed are a matter of public record. AND these efforts to take Bush’s comments and look at them selectively is also just so much dishonesty. While it may be fun to see some half-assed reporter from some questionable Web site string a bunch of quotes taken out of context for maximum publicity effect amusing, it is not for serious discussion about strategy and how to win this war. We will win. In fact, I think that we already have. Now, it is just a matter of waiting things out until the people involved get sick of fighting. This happened in Kurdistan for 9 years as well from 1991 to 1999 and now? Kurdistan is a model of stability and pluralism. Perhaps, the same will happen in Iraq? Could be, but not many of the avid protesters here are actually familiar with the conditions in Kurdistan during that period of time are they? Strange. That they should be so unfamiliar with important factors that have affected Iraq during the past 15 years? Hah![/quote]
[color=red]So why did you keep posting your pompous, sanctimonious drivel after that point, Frot? Kindergarten class* not start yet?[/color]
BroonAndOnAndOnAndOn…
*As a student. You’re not smart enough to actually teach 3-year olds.
Different strokes for different folks. I think that everyone is forgetting how serious the communist threat was and how the USSR acted as a hostile neighbor, willing to interfere with efforts to fund well-organized terrorist organizations: Red Brigade in Japan, Bader Meinhof in Germany? with “peace” movements eager to have a go at occupational, collaborating or sectarian targets (read industrialists). So spare me the limited understanding and view of history.
Yet, the comparison to Japan, Germany and Korea is brought up with great regularity so let’s look at the appropriate comparison. The US and its forces will remain stationed in Iraq for 60 years like we have been stationed in these three. Will we face the same sets of peaceful circumstances? Who knows. But for now obviously not. Yet, forgetting aren’t we that while not always as intense in the violence, the student protest movements in all three nations but especially Korea and Germany numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Remember that? All the fear and gnashing of teeth over Reagan’s deployment of Pershing missiles in Germany? How we were going to “lose” our ally over our overly provocative actions? Yet, they turned out to be the correct actions as Soviet generals and leaders have fully admitted and the “peace” brigade turned out to have been to a great extent funded and directed by forces that were in the pocket of or fully willing to collude with Soviet goals. Surprise surprise and NOW? Perhaps, history is repeating itself? I certainly have not been overly impressed with the sense or intelligence of the Code Pink group.
[quote=“fred smith”]I think that everyone is forgetting how serious the communist threat was and how the USSR acted as a hostile neighbor, willing to interfere with efforts to fund well-organized terrorist organizations: Red Brigade in Japan, Bade Meinhof in Germany? with “peace” movements eager to have a go at occupational, collaborating or sectarian targets (read industrialists). So spare me the limited understanding and view of history.[/quote]:lol: Sure, I’ll spare you the limited understanding of history… you’re full up on limited understanding. I can’t believe you’re comparing minor terrorists movements with the scale of sectorian strife and depth of division we’re seeing in Iraq. And sure, the USSR was a hostile neighbour, ever ready to send in the tanks. But the Soviets used overwhelming force and secret police, they didn’t stir the civil war pot. Caulk some of the leaks in your limited understanding with that.
Are you familiar with many of the post-election processes in Eastern Europe? What happened in Korea? Not a civil war? Vietnam? Not a civil war? Cambodia and Laos? Not a civil war? China? Not a civil war? Afghanistan? Angola? Mozambique, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. None of these civil wars? None had any Soviet involvement? Arms, funding, training? Oh. Really?
You have stated the phrase and for once I agree wholeheartedly. Take it to heart! Anyway, bit busy today. Having a nice clash with Broon Ale. Why not read up on a few of his posts and learn how to argue intelligently, albeit flippantly. I disagree vociferously with everything that man posts but he does so in a highly intelligent, highly engaging, very clever, most amusing, deliciously sardonic fashion. You could learn a lot from your betters. Think of the treasure you have to mine given that your better would be the better part of the 6 billion people who inhabit this planet.
[quote=“fred smith”]
You have stated the phrase and for once I agree wholeheartedly. Take it to heart! Anyway, bit busy today. Having a nice clash with Broon Ale. Why not read up on a few of his posts and learn how to argue intelligently, albeit flippantly. I disagree vociferously with everything that man posts but he does so in a highly intelligent, highly engaging, very clever, most amusing, deliciously sardonic fashion. You could learn a lot from your betters. [/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]You could learn a lot from your betters. Think of the treasure you have to mine given that your better would be the better part of the 6 billion people who inhabit this planet.[/quote]No doubt. Maybe even all of them. So much to learn, and yet, so little learned from you. Why would that be? Hmmm…
