Gunner Palace

[Ddrak]

I don't think we disagree on the fact the military or administration didn't plan for insurgency. I believe your position is that they couldn't plan for it. I don't think that is contrary to my position that is simply that it wasn't planned for and hence was badly planned. I do go further though and say that it would have been possible to plan better had the administration not rushed to war and tooled up for a drawn out guerrila battle, or even tried to enact regime change without occupation.

My predictions were pretty simple (and unfortunately lost cause the board prunes pretty fast) - that if the US rushed to war then it would be a very quick fight and overpowering conventional win by the invasion force. I then predicted it degenerating into low level warfare such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, or the USSR/Afghanistan conflict, or even the Irish conflict. All of these conflicts relied heavily on insurgents/terrorists moving freely through a population and striking where and when the opportunity presented. All of them have utilized weapons such as RPGs, IEDs and ambushes on relatively soft troop transports (the IRA loved blowing up off-duty troop busses remember).

So the assertion that it wasn't foreseeable is just ridiculous. Insurgencies have been happening all over the world pretty much continuously all the last century. To imagine it wouldn't happen in Iraq would require a stupidly large set of idological blinkers, which I believe the current administration just happens to be wearing.

Dd

[vaulos]

I am not arguing that people aren't wearing "blinkers". I'm arguing that EVERYONE (inside or outside of the military) wears those blinkers, and has ever since the beginning of warfare. Or if you want to put it in a more forecastic sense: if we had planned for IED's, the insurgents would have come up with a 'different' way to kill our soldiers, and we would be here arguing that it could/couldn't have been foreseen.

If you don't believe me, take a look at military pre-planning for Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Russo-Japanese War, Franco-Prussian War, the Civil War, the French Revolution (though how you can call France's invading the whole of Europe a "French Revolution" is beyond me), etc, etc.

If you want to argue that in the realm of human thought, a plan existed which would have prevented every possible version of this discussion, then fine. But, if history is any judge, it would have never been heeded, by any government or military, anywhere.

(I'm not saying that man can't evolve; I'm saying they don't.)

[DennyDarksavior]

Generals: Ok guys, we are not going to use the 82 billion dollar budget on weapons and vehichles this time around... oh no... We're gonna plan ahead! YEA!

Soldiers: What do you mean sir? Do you mean to invest it into stock or something?

Generals: NO you morons, think bigger! We have to plan way ahead! Way way ahead to a time when the next big wars gonna come.

Soldiers: Are we gonna put the money to the R&D division sir?

Generals: NO! In the near future all weapons are gonna be lasers! So in order to pre plan ahead, we are gonna add Mirror plates on all the vehicels, boats, and planes to reflect these Laser rays back at the enemy!

Soldiers: uh... wait.... how do you know this?

Generals: Look its bound to happen so we have to prepare! Oh and we need lots of screwdrivers and wrenches!

Soldiers: Why? to fix stuff?

Generals: No you morons! Giant Robots! Yea.. the only way to defeat giant robots is to throw wrenches and screwdrivers into their gears!

[Burz]

the French Revolution (though how you can call France's invading the whole of Europe a "French Revolution" is beyond me)

"Napoleonic Wars".

[vaulos]

I know Burz, but it's generally referred to as "the French Revoution", despite it's extroverted nature. Just seems funny to me.

[Ddrak]

You're dissembling now Vaulos. Fact is, insurgent tactics have been well known for decades and the argument that "they would have done something else" is just plain bullshit. Insurgencies use hit and run ambushes (ie guerilla warfare) because that's the only tactic available against a vastly superior force. That simply wasn't planned for and that amounts to bad planning.

The US picked the timing of the war, not anyone else. The fact is, unlike pretty much every war you listed, this one held that the planning could have been done beforehand.

Your argument is rapidly devolving to "yes, it was badly planned, but so were all these other wars!". Well, yes. There have been a lot of badly planned wars. That's no excuse.

Dd

[superwalrus]

I would not call Napoleon's invasion of Europe part of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution happened before Napoleon was even on the scene, and his enterance marked the end of it. Learn some history folks.

Walrus

[vaulos]

Ddrak- You are arguing for "a posibility"; I'm arguing "inevitability". Lets just leave it at that. I don't really argue with most of your premises, I would just argue with how you are characterizing the conclusion.

[Mukik]

The irony of all this is that in the israeli army they would just put up with it and as the saying goes "win with what you got" our unit in the mc had several sticky fingers and if something we saw was needed..it rarely was still there later on.

[Burz]

the israeli army .

IDF chicks are smoking hotties.