Iraq War Now Longer for America Than WW II - And Continuing to Get Worse

[Bob Geiger]

While Americans enjoyed family, friends, football and turkey over the long weekend, a regrettable milestone was hit: As of yesterday, the Iraq war, which has gone on for a bit over three years and eight months, has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II.

Senator John Warner (R-VA) made that observation in a November 15 meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which he chairs, when he noted that Sunday would mark the day when U.S. involvement in Iraq exceeded that of World War II.

"I remember the period well. I was a young sailor in the following year of that war," said Warner of World War II. "And accordingly, I note that on November 26th, 2006, this year, but a few days away, our involvement in Iraq will surpass the length of this historic World War II period."

America's only longer wars have been the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years).

At least 300 Iraqis were killed over the extended weekend, including 200 in a series of bombings on Thursday. Six Sunnis were burned alive by Shiite militiamen on Friday after leaving worship services -- and right in front of Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene.

Meanwhile, two U.S. Marines were killed Saturday in Anbar province, raising to at least 2,875 the number of U.S. servicemen who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war. Fifty-six American troops have died so far in November.

One of the only Republicans in Congress with a shred of integrity when it comes to this war is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been a steady critic of the Bush administration's conduct of the war for the last two years. Writing in a Washington Post editorial yesterday that "the future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans," Hagel made the point that "there will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq."

Here's more from Hagel:

"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government."

Near the end of his column, Hagel says what most Americans now understand: "The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq."

This kind of realism has never been much of a surprise coming from someone like Hagel who, unlike most in the Bush administration, is actually a Veteran who has seen combat.



Meanwhile, there was an interesting piece on CNN over the weekend in which correspondent Michael Ware, who has been on the ground in Baghdad for some time, makes it clear that what is going on in Iraq is obviously a civil war.

Here's Ware when asked by anchor Kitty Pilgrim about the disconnect between what he sees there every day and assertions by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military in Baghdad that Iraq is not a civil war:

"Well, firstly, let me say, perhaps it's easier to deny that this is a civil war, when essentially you live in the most heavily fortified place in the country within the Green Zone, which is true of both the prime minister, the national security adviser for Iraq and, of course, the top U.S. military commanders. However, for the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like.

"This is what we're talking about. We're talking about Sunni neighborhoods shelling Shia neighborhoods, and Shia neighborhoods shelling back.

"We're having Sunni communities dig fighting positions to protect their streets. We're seeing Sunni extremists plunging car bombs into heavily-populated Shia marketplaces. We're seeing institutionalized Shia death squads in legitimate police and national police commando uniforms going in, systematically, to Sunni homes in the middle of the night and dragging them out, never to be seen again.

"I mean, if this is not civil war, where there is, on average, 40 to 50 tortured, mutilated, executed bodies showing up on the capital streets each morning, where we have thousands of unaccounted for dead bodies mounting up every month, and where the list of those who have simply disappeared for the sake of the fact that they have the wrong name, a name that is either Sunni or Shia, so much so that we have people getting dual identity cards, where parents cannot send their children to school, because they have to cross a sectarian line, then, goodness, me, I don't want to see what a civil war looks like either if this isn't one."

Said Pilgrim in response, " That is the starkest description I have yet heard, Michael."

Ware closed by also making it clear that, as it stands now, the Iraqi government is not capable of governing, saying that "the U.S. military is desperate to put any kind of reasonable face on this apparition that they call the Iraqi government."

You can see the Ware clip at Crooks and Liars.

Hope you all had a good holiday weekend… Now it's back to the real world, folks.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[neoblues]

1. Hiding the violence...

A relevant video making it's rounds on DU; about the coverage of the violence in IRAQ and how it's sanitized, why it's so hard to get and the lack of journalistic analysis from our perspective...

Iraq: The hidden story

I was going to make an inappropriately light remark: "how could it be getting worse; all our troops have to do is stay inside their bases...", but wouldn't that be the same as if they pulled out? Except that we still see U.S. casualties, I would've thought that's what they were doing. That's probably what I'd want to be doing if I was there; not so much because I'm cowardly, but because it seems pointless--if you go out, you're (a) likely to get killed or injured, and (b) you're liable to have to engage in battle with IRAQI's--just because they don't want you there, and (c) any hostilities you engage in will probably injure innocent IRAQIs and, even those not-so-innocent IRAQI casualties will surely just draw even more IRAQIs (relatives/friends) into joining in the violence. Then too, our military is an offensive tool, it just doesn't work well as a police force--and to the extent that it can do such duty, it's even more than useless when we don't speak the language or understand the customs of the people we're dealing with.

But, "if we leave, they'll kill each other". Well, to some extent, that IS on our heads, and we also desperately need for them to form a functioning, secure government. Alas, they are killing each other with us there--it seems we aren't slowing the violence to any noticeable degree. Anywhere but in the Green Zone anyway. We have three separate, incongruous, incompatible parts and just because they were cast together arbitrarily decades ago--and held together by coercive military force (a military and secret police--of and by IRAQIs and which speaks the language, knows the culture and knows the ground like the back of their hands) directed by a dictator, we seem to think they should stay as one. In the end, short of massive genocide, they will have the last word--just as they should. If we had a chance of preventing the violence while letting them create their own government, perhaps there would be reason to stay, but we don't. I'm not even sure our leadership could agree, even without Bush, to allowing the IRAQIs to determine their own government or governmentS. Better we're gone; leaving enough force in the region to prevent major external interference.

A Bad solution. Sure enough, but the Republicans have left us with nothing but Bad solutions.

[Puppyjive]

3. Should commanders be held responsible?

I have a 2 year old nephew who's father is in the Army. He called my sister and was crying because one of his fellow troops lost his life. I never thought I would say this, having spent 9 years in the military, but it's time to start holding commanders accountable for sending troops in areas where they lack proper equipment and protection. The troops do not want to ask for help because they know that the equipment will just be taken from some other unit that needs it just as bad. We can't continue to think we can make a difference in the Middle East. I spent enough time there to know that we were just brewing hatred, especially in Saudi. My gut instinct told me that the terrorist were of Saudi origin. I feel helpless because I know that the troops are basically being asked to patrol the inside of an active volcano. The volcano is going to blow and take our troops with it. Every time I deployed to the Middle East, I kept asking myself why would we defend such countries that despise democracy? My solution has always been to let them fight their own battles. They will continue to sell their oil to us because they need to support their rich lifestyles. Is a mission worthy when it fails before it ever starts?

[neoblues]

4. Good Question and Welcome.

It just makes sense that we're antagonizing the whole region with our presence; over a hundred thousand troops can scarcely be expected to be able to stop crime/sectarian violence in a region in which they can't even communicate, and it's pretty sure they're going to be a painfully visible target of discontent. Whether it has anything to do with them or not, if life has turned to virtual hell on Earth and everywhere you turn there are U.S. soldiers trying to run things or run the people who are supposed to run things--a human being can't help but associate them with the bad times and blame them.

If there's practically no hope of succeeding, it's costing hundreds of billions of dollars, it's placing our troops in a terrible situation where they're hated, and the people are trying to ambush/kill them, but the bad guys blend in perfectly and cannot be stopped, and the people blame us and want us to leave... Seems like we ought to leave. We can offer guarantees of "national" security from afar; even the threat alone of us coming back would be enough to keep the regional powers from stepping in in any obvious way... Still, the three groups are going to have to work this out for themselves--and while they aren't making any progress, we can't be expected to wait forever.

We surely should've sent better trainers; it's hard to believe we didn't fund and ensure everything that could be done was being done on that front, but really, how much training do men need to form into militias to ensure security? Seems the local sects are doing just fine. IRAQ had many hundreds of thousands of men who'd received basic military training--just how much more training does it take? If it's left to them to do whatever it takes to save their cities, their mosques, their families and friends... they'll do it when it becomes their responsibility and they're allowed to do it. The end result, though, may not end up with a national goverment the likes of which "we" feel we need. No easy answers... thanks mister President; we've ensured they have no WMDs, can we go now?

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Puppyjive!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[niceypoo]

2. The WWII analogy isn't really relevant...

...unless you are comparing the US actions with those of Nazi Germany in poland or the USSR. Vietnam is a far better fitting comparison (Quagmire). Having said that, I will also state that we can hang up hopes of this ending within the next two years. The bushies will never admit the obvious.

[derby378]

5. I disagree - it's a study in opposites

In WWII, we were clearly attacked by elements of the Japanese military at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war (and got it), and the nation immediately shifted itself into war mode. Americans could no longer buy basic necessities without a ration card. The entire economy was reworked to maximize produciton for the war effort - rifles, bombs, planes, tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers, you name it. Less than four years later, it was all over.

In Iraq, America was forced into an invasion by the will of an illegal Commander-in-Chief, who didn't even bother to ask Congress for a declaration of war. Instead, he rattled on about WMDs and how "Saddam must disarm" before the Yankees did it for him. Now that we've reached the same chronological milestone as WWII, there is no end in sight, civil war has broken out in Iraq, and the only winners in this equation appear to be Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower tried to warn America about half a century ago.

[ZENmud]

7. WW II timeline seems wrong - as I published in October

(Watching Stone's film "NIXON" as I type this ;-) '...a 19yr-old kid, she said it's a Wild Beast')

On my blog, I produced the day-count for US involvement in WW II, based on December 7, 1941 as a starting date, and September 2, 1945 as its endpoint (Surrender of Japan); although December 9, date of the last official Declaration of War, is arguable against the 'surprise' attack at Pearl Harbor.

That is 1365 days, or: 3 years, 8 months, 26 days.

Many media mentions today of this 'event', but why do they say 3yrs/8mo - without the 26 days? :-?

By my published calculations, Bush the Lesser will drag us past the WW II duration, on or about December 16th.

See No Mission Accomplished

crystelZENmud: Macrovisionist commentary

[hughee99]

8. IIRC, the US occupied Germany

until around 1949 and Japan until about 1952.

[Malidictus Maximus]

11. Hell, we *STILL* have troops stationed in Germany!

[hughee99]

12. Having troops stationed in Germany is a little different than being an

occupying, controlling power, but yes we do. We still have troops in Japan as well.

[William769]

9. Compliments of the George W. Bush cabal.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Unlike 90% of the Mainstream Media

I like, admire and trust Ware. His reporting is full on fact and he doesn't pretty it up.
If he says it is a civil war then it is.
As for this war being longer than WWII, maybe the wingnuts will awake from thier fantasy that they are reliving the era and we are really fighting Hitler, and now face reality.

[calimary]

14. Indeed, he does say that.

I've got the quote in here (and thank you, DU for all the reference guidance!). Humbly submitted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2990334

[heinz]

13. I think comparing the two is wrong

Good point Derby, clearly you understand whats going on. Lets not get confused in what is a war, or what is a military action. Comparisons to WW2 are completely wrong. WW2 was a war, and we were attacked and we made it a point to win, as quickly as possible. Consider what we did, literally conquer the world in as little as 5 years during that period, puts it into perspective. Getting into Iraq without really having any plan at all, other than getting Saddam and war profiteering which we have done, may have been the only objective at all. During WW2 if you were the enemy, or you harbored the enemy I guarantee you would have faced certain destruction as well as your home and family. In this particular situation we respond much like Israel with little tit for tat firepower, without completely destroying were the attacks come from, as if their was someone there that needed protection. Try not to make sense of this, those people are religious nut jobs, and have been fighting over all kinds of stupid shit, like the correct interpretation of Islam, or whatever, have been fighting over this crap for 1000 years and will keep on. The best we can ever hope for other than for the Muslim religion to be wiped from the planet, is to try and stay out of there way as their lobbing grenades back in forth into each others schools and homes. These people are full of hate, and they hate each other, themselves, their whole pitiful existence. If Ike were still around he wouldn't have been stupid enough to get involved in the first place, and if he had to or were forced into it, i guarantee you there would not be a single building standing right now in Iraq, and it would have been over 2 years ago. From our perspective Bush may look like a complete idiot, but in smoked filled back rooms, his buddies are scratching each other's backs and their pockets are overflowing with cash, and he's probably looked upon as the smartest guy in the room.

[krispos42]

15. The problem is that the war has been over for years

Combat operations ended with the dissolution of the Iraqi Army, sometime in late April of 2003. Since then we've been doing (poorly) occupation duty.

Unlike Germany and Japan (and probably Italy as well), the Iraqis were not exhausted mentally and physically from years of nonstop war production, land, sea, and air combat, and nearly constant aerial bombing of military and industrial targets. We also had a formal declaration of surrender, and there were no inheirant ethnic or religious divisions fanatical enough to keep on fighting.

While both Vietnam and Iraq are quagmires, I think it is important to look at the length of occupation and the lengh of combat. In Germany it was about 1:1, with Japan it was like 1.5:1. Here it is about 30:1. And climbing. A month of occupation duty for a day of combat.

THAT is a truly terrible ratio!