US Army chief: Iraq "cannot be won militarily"

[TeeYiYi]

US Army chief: Iraq "cannot be won militarily"
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jun 15, 2004

The war in Iraq will be won when Iraqis take ownership of their destiny but it cannot be won militarily by the United States, the chief of staff of the US Army said Tuesday.

General Peter Schoomaker said "the power of information" and how the conflict is portrayed and perceived also has a major impact on the outcome.

<snip>

But he noted that national power consists of the diplomatic, informational, military and economic.

"Military -- the "m" in the dime -- will not win this," he said. "This will be won at the informational level and at the economic level, with the support of the military for security, and diplomatically."

"This is a tug between whether or not nation states, rule of law, civilization are going to succeed over everything that is the reverse of that. It really is a clash of ideas," he said.

"And this notion of how people are informed, what they think, and how it's described is a very powerful piece of this deal," he said.

More: http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040615170719.ut32ct2e.html

TYY

[MasonJar]

1. He must be dreaming; if our great leader cannot think, why

should we allow theirs to.

[saigon68]

7. These photos may have had something to do w/ it

 IT’S A FESTIVAL OF THUMBS UP WAR CRIMINALS

[Voltaire99]

2. He's a "clash of civilizations" looney tune.

To be sure, Iraq is good and lost, Vietnam-style.

But the general, by suggesting we can "win" in other ways, is just serving as an apologist for the broader imperial scheme.

Want to win? Get the fuck out of their country. Apologize. And pay them reparations for this unnecessary and immoral invasion; something akin to the model followed by Germany in its reparations to Israel is in order.

[maggrwaggr]

3. I agree. Leave. Apologize. Pay the tab.

But that's never gonna happen. There are too many fingers in too many pies.

[goforit]

11. Yah,...greedy corporate fingers via cheney.

[sampsonblk]

8. I Noticed that too

Anyone who subscribes to that way of thinking is automatically crooked in my book, because those ideas should have been debated publicly before we went in, instead of telling the public lies about how we were going to help Iraq and the Middle East in general.

[goforit]

13. But it was debated 24/7 before the war. Bush/Cheney/Congress were

deaf, blind and mute to this debate the entire world was having.

Imperialism was their only motive at all costs!!!!

And now that Bush has chosen his running mate ....KERRY,
This War is "not" the table issue of this campaign.

Just what the Bush Cabal wanted!!!

[daleo]

4. Which side is he on?

Surely not the rule of law, the nation state or civilization, given how they broke every international law to attack a sovereign nation state, then proceeded to mock civilization by torturing the inhabitants of the unfortunate country.

[goforit]

14. Lay down your sword Gen., talk IS cheap!!!!

[oblivious]

5. Remember this quote?

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them."

- Lt. Colonel Nathan Sassaman, battalion commander, Iraqi town of Abu Hishma (December 2003)

[teryang]

6. Cannot be won politically or economically

Reducing the war to the ubiquitous Republican talking points, bullet points, media training, and so on, the war can be won informationally. This is the madison avenue nonsense that the corporatists fall back on in every situation which empirically doesn't fall within their oversimplifications. The bullet points, freedom, democracy, civilization, etc., will overcome the natural resistence and impetetus for revenge caused by invasion, violence, torture, arbitrary rule, mass killings, communication barriers (often fatal), conversion of real estate, resources and markets, and mutual ignorance.

The notion that the white man can come to the heart of Islam and convert that culture to the white man's "civilization" is simply stupid. It doesn't happen that way in real life. Not after WWI and WWII. People just won't put up with it. Once the effort begins, a strong reaction sets in, similar the rejection of foreign tissue transplanted into the human body. If the people doing the rejecting know how to use explosives, it won't stop until you leave. Explosives are the great equalizer.

Are we going to transform Iraq economically? If so how? If it involves taking over their markets and resources, trickle down could take a long time, maybe 50 years under the best of circumstances. However, we don't have the best of circumstances. We have a resistance movement so determined and a security response that will never be sufficient so as to promote commerce. Iraqis risk their lives in the activities of everyday living just to get the bare necessities. No economic transformation there. No order equals no commerce. Inability to ensure the peaceful conditions necessary for commerce means inability to rule. Inability to rule means inability to accomplish a political agenda.

[Tellurian]

9. Great summary!

Truer words were never spoken.

Of course, your words are falling on deaf ears.

nothing new there!

[bemildred]

10. Well said. nt

[ElectroPrincess]

12. It's Time for Yet Another General to Retire - By order of Bush-Co

I'd bet money our General Peter Schoomaker will RETIRE within the year if Rumsfeld remains the Secretary of Defense. Any takers?

[struggle4progress]

15. kick

:kick: