John McCain thinks the US "already won" the Iraq War

[Terminator X]

On July 15, I attended a reception in Washington, DC, to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam. Geoff Millard and I spoke to Sen. John McCain. When Geoff introduced himself as chairman of the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War, McCain retorted, "You're too late. We already won that one."

http://www.truth-out.org/john-mccain-we-already-won-that-one61699


The man is delusional.

[CleverTitle]

John McCain thinks a lot of things.

[IllicitPopsicle]

What. The. FUCK.

[RadioRaheem84]

You're too late. We already won that one


If he means his class. Then yes.

[Nolan]

We won the oil. That's all that matters.

[The Douche]

Guys, hate to break it you, but the Iraqi resistance is pretty much defeated, and they rarely ever attack coalition foces anymore, mostly secterian violence now.

[Nolan]

Guys, hate to break it you, but the Iraqi resistance is pretty much defeated, and they rarely ever attack coalition foces anymore, mostly secterian violence now.

So we have the oil...and now we can siphon it without being harassed by some popular resistance.

[manic expression]

Guys, hate to break it you, but the Iraqi resistance is pretty much defeated, and they rarely ever attack coalition foces anymore, mostly secterian violence now.
They were bought off, bribed by the occupiers. The surge was supposed to cover that up and make it look like a military victory when it was just a matter of literally buying time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html

[Uppercut]

Will it ever stop?

[empiredestoryer]

i think that poor old john McCains brain was fried by the vietcon when he was their guest for a few years i think he also thinks that the u.s.a won the vietnam war too.....POOR FELLA:laugh:

[Ele'ill]

Guys, hate to break it you, but the Iraqi resistance is pretty much defeated, and they rarely ever attack coalition foces anymore, mostly secterian violence now.




This depends on what you mean by 'Iraqi'.

I don't necessarily believe that the attacks have stopped but I have not looked into the matter recently.

I know that shit has kicked up pretty heavy in Afghanistan and doesn't appear to be stopping any time soon.

In my mind it would make complete strategic sense for any middle eastern resistance against an empire- to at a specific point in time- hold back and regroup. The battle waged using the tactics they use is better suited for toppling an empire from its foundation- the US troops and coalition soldiers are not a foundation. Once a semblance of economic 'infrastructure' gets set up by the US- In Iraq- the attacks will likely start again and be even more debilitating.

In this sense the war will never be won- because the resistance can attack at any time where as the soldiers are only useful while they're there (and enmasse)

[this is an invasion]

Guys, hate to break it you, but the Iraqi resistance is pretty much defeated, and they rarely ever attack coalition foces anymore, mostly secterian violence now.

Clearly you're buying into imperialist propaganda.

[The Douche]

Clearly you're buying into imperialist propaganda.

Yeah, what the fuck would I know? hahaha


They were bought off, bribed by the occupiers. The surge was supposed to cover that up and make it look like a military victory when it was just a matter of literally buying time.

This has a massive ammount of truth to it. They took a lot of insurgent groups, gave them money and equipment, loosely organized them, and started calling them "militias".


I know that shit has kicked up pretty heavy in Afghanistan and doesn't appear to be stopping any time soon.

Agreed, but the Afghan resistance is much more of a popular resistance and a traditional anti-imperialist resistance than Iraq was. I don't think the US will gain the kind of victory in Afghanistan that was gained in Iraq.


In my mind it would make complete strategic sense for any middle eastern resistance against an empire- to at a specific point in time- hold back and regroup. The battle waged using the tactics they use is better suited for toppling an empire from its foundation- the US troops and coalition soldiers are not a foundation. Once a semblance of economic 'infrastructure' gets set up by the US- In Iraq- the attacks will likely start again and be even more debilitating.

In this sense the war will never be won- because the resistance can attack at any time where as the soldiers are only useful while they're there (and enmasse)

As a combat veteran and a special operations capable US soldier, you don't need to explain the concepts of guerrilla/insurgent warfare to me. I am well aware of the strategy they must employ, but I'm telling you, from my experience there, from what my friends who are currently there tell me day-to-day, and from what we can see in the media, the resistance in Iraq, is, in a large way, defeated.

[theAnarch]

essentially the US has won for now, Iraqs oil supply and domestic markets which were once the sole property of Iraqi, French, and German capital are now completely dominated by American companies.

There is also the fact that there was never an Iraqi resistance movement like the national liberation movements in Vietnam, Namibia, or the Congo. These so called Islamic groups are guerrillas for deferent sections of the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie in Iraq vying for power now that the small group of Sunni capitalists represented by the Baath Party are gone.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah. I never saw a real resistence group of any kind in Iraq. There were more non violent groups that a had a more active and effective anti occupation resistence. The armed Iraqi resistence was a hodge podge of Baathists, Islamists, Al-Sadr's men, and Al Qaeda. There were very few socialist groups that I knew of. A lot of the resistence groups were also passing out nwo zog type propaganda.

[Shokaract]

Mission accomplished... again?

[Ele'ill]

As a combat veteran and a special operations capable US soldier,

I know what 'special operations capable' means.


I'm curious as to why you want me to know.



you don't need to explain the concepts of guerrilla/insurgent warfare to me. I am well aware of the strategy they must employ, but I'm telling you, from my experience there, from what my friends who are currently there tell me day-to-day, and from what we can see in the media, the resistance in Iraq, is, in a large way, defeated.


I'm confused by your wording- the 'Iraqi' resistance might be but there is still high risk from Insurgent attacks. Correct?

I'm saying the resistance in Iraq will pick up again once there's a little bit of effort put into infrastructure by whoever. (presumably the US)

[Sir Comradical]

He's absolutely right. They've installed a puppet government that gives out the right oil concessions at the right price. As Tyler Durden said in Fight Club "Murder, Crime, Poverty these things don't concern me", I suspect Mr McCain would co-sign this sentiment (even though it was sarcastic in the film).

[The Douche]

I know what 'special operations capable' means.


I'm curious as to why you want me to know.


As somebody who spent a decent ammount of time in a special operations capable unit, I am pretty familiar with small unit tactics, and the strategy involved in employing them. I don't mean to be insulting here (though it may sound that way) but I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp of how to conduct insurgent warfare than most people on here.


I'm confused by your wording- the 'Iraqi' resistance might be but there is still high risk from Insurgent attacks. Correct?

Yes and no. The resistance in Iraq is done in my estimation. Will conflict continue? Yes, probably, but in a secterian way, not in any progressive manner. (nobody wins in a struggle of shia vs sunni) There isn't much of an occupying force to engage anymore, and attacks against coalition forces have been diminishing for sometime now anyways.


I'm saying the resistance in Iraq will pick up again once there's a little bit of effort put into infrastructure by whoever. (presumably the US)

I don't think so, who is left to resist? The insurgency doesn't have the willingness, unity, or capabilities to fight the coalition forces, and there is certainly no socialist resistance springing up out of nowhere, and I don't consider the secterian violence which has been raging to be "resistance".

[FreeFocus]

Quite unfortunate. I guess the pigs could use an unlikely refresher from the insurgents.

[Ele'ill]

As somebody who spent a decent ammount of time in a special operations capable unit, I am pretty familiar with small unit tactics, and the strategy involved in employing them. I don't mean to be insulting here (though it may sound that way) but I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp of how to conduct insurgent warfare than most people on here.


I disagree. I think if your background is genuine (don't give me information-I'll assume that it is)- you'd be able to execute small unit tactics better than most people on here- but to say you understand Insurgent tactics- and general strategy better is- to be honest- a bit insulting. (I'm talking about long term strategy and goals- not specifically small unit tactics)

Isn't the majority of the Marine Corp 'Special Operation Capable"?

Because they can facilitate partial missions that actual special operations soldiers would-?

I have a little bit of experience/knowledge with the Military- These are genuine questions.

My negative attitude towards what you said has to do directly with soldiers telling me that unless I've served in the military I have no say in what happens to the country politically- regarding war etc. and I understand that this isn't what you're saying.




I don't think so, who is left to resist? The insurgency doesn't have the willingness, unity, or capabilities to fight the coalition forces, and there is certainly no socialist resistance springing up out of nowhere, and I don't consider the secterian violence which has been raging to be "resistance".

I don't entirely disagree with this- I'd add in there that they will regroup perhaps outside of the country and wait for some type of 'imperialist infrastructure' to begin- in which case their attacks will be more towards causing economic intimidation, damages and disruption than actual lives taken.

[Revy]

Even if the US has "won" that does not vindicate the "victory". All that proves is a successful crime against humanity. Duh. Being good at imperialism doesn't make it good.

[The Douche]

I disagree. I think if your background is genuine (don't give me information-I'll assume that it is)- you'd be able to execute small unit tactics better than most people on here- but to say you understand Insurgent tactics- and general strategy better is- to be honest- a bit insulting. (I'm talking about long term strategy and goals- not specifically small unit tactics)


I was junior non-commision officer in my unit. Our unit served corps/division level interests. It is necessary for each individual in our team to understand the big picture, and when you're out in the field with only 5 or so other guys, it is quite important to understand what the enemy does and why they do it. Not to mention that for the past 20 years or so, the doctrine of the kind of unit I was in was as a "stay behind" force incase the soviets invaded western europe. In case you're interested I was in a LRS company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Surveillance)


Isn't the majority of the Marine Corp 'Special Operation Capable"?

No, the marines do have special operations capable units though, like force recon.


Because they can facilitate partial missions that actual special operations soldiers would-?


Special operations capable essentially means that the unit is capable of operating in support of or alongside special operations units. In my case, it was in support of, through independent missions in gathering intelligence, target acquisition or "interdiction" (i.e. sniping or snatch and grab)


My negative attitude towards what you said has to do directly with soldiers telling me that unless I've served in the military I have no say in what happens to the country politically- regarding war etc. and I understand that this isn't what you're saying.

That attitude is, sadly, all to common in the military.


I don't entirely disagree with this- I'd add in there that they will regroup perhaps outside of the country and wait for some type of 'imperialist infrastructure' to begin- in which case their attacks will be more towards causing economic intimidation, damages and disruption than actual lives taken.

I think this is mostly just wishful thinking. There is no unifying force to bring the insurgency together in an organized way to combat imperialist forces, the numbers of which are dramatically drawn back now. If in a few years Iraq does fall to an Iranian backed insurgency (the most likely scenario imo) it can easily be blamed on the ineptitude of the Iraqi government, not a defeat of the US. (that blame of course, coming from the US, but what the media says might as well be true, regardless of how true it actually is)

[bleh]

How the hell did the U.S. "win" the Iraq war? It basically cut and ran while trying to save as much face as possible. Other then that it was an unequivocal defeat. Originally the plan was to turn the country into a client state headed by a Iraqi National Congress type proxy with permanent U.S. military bases that could be used to further dominate the region and (ideally in the minds of some high level U.S. officials) a privatized oil industry that could break the OPEC cartel. Instead it almost got defeated by an Sunni-based insurgency only a few thousand persons strong (and with only about 20% of the population supporting it- distinct from those who opposed the U.S. occupation, which was the majority) to the point that it had to depend on the Shia clerical establishment and Iran backed Shia fundamentalist parties to prevent itself from being crushed. Al Sistani forced Lord Bremer to hold elections, which led U.S. allies like Chalabito be sidelined and power to be taken by Shia fundamentalist parties that had close ties to Iran were and/or were created by the Iranian government in the 1980's as proxies. All "THE SURGE" was was U.S. backed death squads ethnically cleansing Baghdad (the central battle of the mini-civil war between various bourgeois forces) and the major Sunni insurgents (The Terrorists) consequently agreeing to be payed off and armed with protection and a piece of the pie in return for turning on their salafist allies (so-called "Al-Qaeda"), which were a minority faction to begin with.

So now the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq (its dragging its feet and can still pull a few tricks but given the current make up of the Iraqi government its unlikely they'll succeed), Iraq is ruled by political groups with close ties to Iran (and Iran becoming more powerful in the region is the main reason behind the current WMD and mushroom cloud crap resurfacing again-even cia terrorist Allawi has to kiss Tehrans ass), the U.S. will not have military bases in the country (Bush inserted such and other similar language in the original draft of the status of forces agreement but was forced to instead set a withdrawal date), its power and prestige in the region and globally has severally diminished, and trillions of dollars of U.S. money has been wasted.

"THE SURGE" is just a pr ploy to tell the public back home that Bin Laden has been defeated and the mission has been accomplished. Of course its all silly as no strategic objectives have been completed and in fact the U.S. has been weakened.

[The Douche]

The surge was not aimed at Baghdad, I was in Baghdad during the surge, there wasn't that much fighting, certainly not as much as there was in the northern parts of the country.

Clearly what John McCain was referring to was a military/PR victory in Iraq which I think is true. Because as coalition forces pull out the allready weak insurgency will not be able to attack them, yea once there is only Iraqi security forces left the civil war will most likely resume, likely resulting in a pro-Iran government. (hmmm, didn't I just say all that?)

That however, in the public mind, does not constitute a defeat for the US, it is a defeat for Iraq. The US is essentially not capable of winning wars anymore, I don't think a superpower can win 4th generation warfare. Can the US militarily defeat an enemy? Yes, probably any enemy in the world, but just what constitutes a "W" is not very clear anymore, and the conditions that made something a "win" in 1955 or 1974, probably can no longer be achieved by imperialist armed forces anymore.

[REDSOX]

John mccain is not just a dangerous warmongering individual but i believe a very disturbed man

[Robocommie]

That however, in the public mind, does not constitute a defeat for the US, it is a defeat for Iraq. The US is essentially not capable of winning wars anymore, I don't think a superpower can win 4th generation warfare. Can the US militarily defeat an enemy? Yes, probably any enemy in the world, but just what constitutes a "W" is not very clear anymore, and the conditions that made something a "win" in 1955 or 1974, probably can no longer be achieved by imperialist armed forces anymore.

What changed?

[Os Cangaceiros]

What changed?

I would think that one of the big changes is that the objectives of modern war no longer put annihilating enemies (i.e. WW2, Korea, Vietnam) at the utmost importance...nation building as a counter-insurgency tactic seems to be just as important. Granted the U.S. has had some experience with this in the past (The Phillipines, for example), but having a military geared for fighting huge tank battles and such no longer seems very practical.

One of the concepts in Hardt & Negri's Multitude is that war can now be waged perpetually & endlessly, both through advances in technology (predator drones, air raids, etc.), proxy forces, privately run military forces, etc. I think that's a fairly accurate prediction of where we're headed, personally...if the U.S. doesn't have a reason not to leave conflicts (i.e. the loss of U.S. soldier's lives), war and conflict will be the normal state of things.

[The Douche]

What changed?

Explosive has it.

It used to be, to win a war, you had to raise your flag over the enemy capital, kill their leader and accept surrenders from their generals (i.e. what the US did in the first year or so of the Iraq war). But that doesn't cut it anymore, because we don't really fight wars "state against state". And when those wars do occur (say, Russian vs Georgia for instance) they over very quickly.

Insurgent war revolves around very different objectives. The US can paint Iraq as a victory, we got Saddam, we left them a relatively stable country, they have "democracy", etc. If the insurgency does make a come back and sieze the country, it will be painted as the failings of the Iraqi government, not the US, so it doesn't negate the "victory".

The conflict can continue, literally, forever in Iraq and it can be claimed as a US victory. As long as there is not a large ammount or regular loss of US life, then it looks like a victory, the US went in, fought, won regime change, defeated the enemy, and left.

[bleh]

Ok I accidentally deleted my response so Im just going to quickly reiterate what i wanted to say.

The surge was not aimed at Baghdad, I was in Baghdad during the surge, there wasn't that much fighting, certainly not as much as there was in the northern parts of the country.
I didnt say otherwise. I said "the surge" as used in political theatrics in the U.S. is propaganda. In that narrative "Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad." You can see a fuller version on Wikipedia wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007 . This helped calm down Baghdad. I said what really happened was that the U.S. helped its allies ethnically cleanse the city, which led the Sunni insurgency to attempt to strike some compromise.



Clearly what John McCain was referring to was a military/PR victory in Iraq which I think is true. Because as coalition forces pull out the allready weak insurgency will not be able to attack them, yea once there is only Iraqi security forces left the civil war will most likely resume, likely resulting in a pro-Iran government. (hmmm, didn't I just say all that?)

I dont know where you got the idea that I was directing my response towards you. "Military/PR victory" are two sererate things. There was no military victory. The U.S. did not invade Iraq to fight/contain "Al-qaeda" and/or Sunni nationalists. It went in to overthrow Saddam and install a friendly client state that it could use to further dominate the region. That clearly didnt happen. Thats why the U.S. has suddenly discovered the WMDs in Iran. As for "Pr victory", thats just trying to save face to the U.S. electorate. Its of no significance. John McCain was refereing to "the surge" "helping turn the tide" and as you said with your own experience, it isnt the truth.



That however, in the public mind, does not constitute a defeat for the US, it is a defeat for Iraq. The US is essentially not capable of winning wars anymore, I don't think a superpower can win 4th generation warfare. Can the US militarily defeat an enemy? Yes, probably any enemy in the world, but just what constitutes a "W" is not very clear anymore, and the conditions that made something a "win" in 1955 or 1974, probably can no longer be achieved by imperialist armed forces anymore.

In the public mind in the U.S. to an extent but not in reality.

[Dimentio]

Yeah. I never saw a real resistence group of any kind in Iraq. There were more non violent groups that a had a more active and effective anti occupation resistence. The armed Iraqi resistence was a hodge podge of Baathists, Islamists, Al-Sadr's men, and Al Qaeda. There were very few socialist groups that I knew of. A lot of the resistence groups were also passing out nwo zog type propaganda.

Actually, the underground political world in the Arab World today is somewhat reminiscent of its equivalent in the USA.