Were US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq a US success?

Misadventures in Afghanistan
By: Abid Mustafa | September 16, 2012 |

“The West has already failed in Afghanistan, just as the Soviets failed in the 1980s and the British way back in the nineteenth century.”– John Humphrys

After having fought for more than a decade in Afghanistan, America has yet to show any considerable gains for its brutal occupation. Nonetheless, there are some diehard American strategists who beg to differ, and argue that America has achieved its primary objective, which was to establish a few military bases in Afghanistan to counter Russia, China and the future Caliphate state for the eventual supremacy over Eurasia. But, even this lofty ideal, when measured against the reality on the ground appears too remote to be categorised as a worthy accomplishment. On the contrary, the rampant instability in Afghanistan not only puts into jeopardy the viability of such strategic objectives, but, more importantly, raises questions about how long can America afford to stay ‘stuck’ in the Afghan quagmire and continue to report failure after failure.Clues about this very prospect were provided at the Nato Summit convened in Chicago back in May 2012. Speaking about America’s ubiquitous nemesis the Taliban, Obama candidly admitted that they were a hardened opponent and whatever gains the Nato had made could easily be undone. He said: “The Taliban is still a robust enemy, and the gains are still fragile. But think about it. We’ve been there now 10 years. Ten years in a country that’s very different, that’s a strain, not only on our folks, but also on that country, which at a point is going to be very sensitive about its own sovereignty.” Just how much time does the world’s lone superpower need with all of its sophisticated weaponry to defeat a rag tag army of no more than 25,000 or so? Did America not assemble under its supervision 400,000 soldiers - not to mentions the tens of thousands of private contractors - on both side of the Pak-Afghan border? After several years of warfare, America is still unable to crush their avowed adversary. The outgunned and outmanned Taliban are definitely proving to be more than a ‘robust enemy’.Equally unfathomable is that it has taken several years for the US to accept the fact that Nato is not only fighting the Taliban, but also the Afghan people. The reference to “be very sensitive about its own sovereignty” is an admission by President Obama that the Nato faces a popular resistance, which cuts right across ethnic fault lines and trumps traditional tribal loyalties.Another fiasco of America’s Afghan war is its exorbitant cost, which has placed a huge toll on the defence budget and this has been further exacerbated by the economic crisis of 2008. America has spent circa $550 billion on the Afghan war since 2001. Other Nato member states, like Britain, have spent in the region of $20 billion. Yet, despite squandering billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money, the Nato has very little to show. President Hamid Karzai’s government is corrupt to the core and hated by ordinary Afghans. His writ does not extend beyond parts of Kabul, and if it does exist elsewhere, it is totally reliant on the foreign forces. According to some estimates the Taliban control around 80 percent of Afghanistan. This, probably, explains why it is so difficult for the Nato to hold on to territorial gains. All attempts to co-opt the Taliban into a political solution have likewise failed.The Financial Times summed up the West’s sorry state in these words: “Five years ago, the Americans were refusing to speak to the Taliban. Now the Taliban are refusing to speak to the Americans. That is a measure of how the balance of power has shifted in Afghanistan. The Western intervention there has failed.” Added to this is the human toll on the Nato forces, which cannot be quantified in monetary terms. So, it came as no surprise to find that the joint communiqué issued at the end of the Chicago Summit expressed the collective desire of all the Nato countries to draw the curtain on their Afghan misadventure. The statement read: “After 10 years of war and with the global economy reeling, the nations of the West no longer want to pay, either in treasure or in lives, the costs of their efforts in a place that for centuries has resisted foreign attempts to tame it.”Whilst 2014 (a date revised several times) is the final withdrawal date for most Nato countries, America and its opportunist partner Britain both steeped in arrogance have still not learnt their lesson and plan to stay beyond this date. No doubt they will do their utmost to delay the inevitable collapse of Karzai’s government and try and save face with their domestic audience. Concluding, the writing is on the wall; America and Nato are heading for a catastrophic defeat and no matter how hard they try to dress up their failings - their only success will be to unite and embolden Afghans along with their brethren across the border in Pakistan to claim the scalp of Pax-Americana and deal a devastating blow to Nato’s first ever mission in Eurasia.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/16-Sep-2012/misadventures-in-afghanistan

The US missed an enormous opportunity.

The US has spent most of its time chasing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and in doing so have created a lot of ill will.

You need permission to enter the house of a Muslim man... even if you are a policeman, and you sure don't burst in there at 3 am and make all the women and men and children stand outside while you "search" for weapons etc.

They didn't know... they didn't care... they haven't learned.

They repeated all the mistakes the British did in the four or five times the Brits tried to occupy the country, they didn't even bother to learn from the Soviet experience... they are the last super power... they know what they are doing... the thing is of course that all the times the British went in there they were a super power too, and when the Soviets went in there they were a super power too. The Afghans... like the Vietnamese... don't respect super power countries.

The opportunity they have missed is goals and objectives... if you go in to Afghanistan with no clear goals or objectives then you will fail.

If they had said their goal was to remove the Taleban from power and kill or capture OBL they could have declared victory and left by now... let the CIA sort it out.

Instead they will stay for an indeterminable time... eventually the Taleban will be successful and kill a group of Americans and the government in power in the US will demand revenge... though they will call it justice, and the country will spiral into war and the US/UK forces will have to leave.

I rather suspect it is the mineral wealth of the region that interests the US... just as the Belgians hung on to the Congo as long as they could for the minerals under the ground...

One of the biggest blunders for me is that they did not study the culture and the religion of that country, I know a little bit of the Muslim tradition becuase I live in an area where their is a significant Muslim population. For example the incident in which they showed US troops urinating on dead Afghans or Talibans, in their tradition a individual that died must be buried immediately here in Mindanao the time is usually 24 hours. Plus they consider their deceased as very sacred in their religion. Plus add the Quran burning which is very sensitive, I know because their were incidents here in my country when an individual burned a Quran his family paid the price.

Same old story though... they only really respect their enemy when they leave...

$2 trillion spent and 190,000 lives lost to kill one dictator

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, the Costs of War Project of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University released a report on the casualties and expenditures of the Iraq war.

The preamble of the report states, "The United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003 on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The mass destruction of the invasion, occupation, and civil war followed, and amplified the societal and health disintegration caused by the previous decade of sanctions. Iraqi lives and communities remain war-devastated ten years on. American military and contractor families struggle with the loss of loved ones as well as the emotional and economic burdens of living with long-term injuries and illnesses. Total US federal spending associated with the Iraq war has been $1.7 trillion through FY2013. In addition, future health and disability payments for veterans will total $590 billion and interest accrued to pay for the war will add up to $3.9 trillion."

Indeed, a full stop may be put here. But further details are even more striking.

According to the report, the war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number. When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000. This number includes 4,488 U.S. military members and at least 3,400 U.S. contractors.

The report also contains an update of a 2011 report of the same Institute, which was produced ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. If combined together, the total estimated death toll from the three wars presently stands at a range of 272,000 to 329,000, excluding indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure.

If an interest rate on the war expenses the U.S. is to pay within the next 40 years is added, that would amount to additional $4 trillion.

That's enough for the cost of war. But the big question is whether the human and financial losses were worth the whole endeavor.

The pretext for the war, as is well known, was the false accusations against Saddam Hussein that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. The then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell took a lot of effort to demonstrate to the world some obscure photos meant to prove the accusations. When the U.S. devastated the country by missile strikes and completed the devastation by invading Iraq, it turned out that there were no weapons of the kind. But by that time the job had been done – Saddam was successfully toppled and eventually hanged.

Now, Steven Bucci, the military assistant to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the run-up to the war and today a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think-tank, tried to justify the action taken 10 years ago.

"Action needed to be taken," he said in an interview with Reuters, adding that the toppling of Saddam and the results of an unforeseen conflict between U.S.-led forces and al-Qaeda militants drawn to Iraq were positive outcomes of the war.

"It was really in Iraq that 'al-Qaeda central' died," Bucci said. "They got waxed."

Indeed, sticking to principles is definitely a good thing, if it were not for just two small facts that clearly contradict Mr. Bucci's words.

One, prior to the invasion no one ever connected Saddam's regime with al-Qaeda – whatever the term might mean. Definitely, if we start labeling all anti-American insurgents as al-Qaeda militants, then it was the invasion as such that led to their emergence in Iraq. If "waxing" something created by yourselves is the basic motto of the U.S. foreign policy, then, Mr. Bucci, thou hast said it.

Second. Whatever is meant by "al-Qaeda central" that allegedly died in Iraq, this surely was not the end of anti-American insurgency globally. Looking at places as distant from each other as Nigeria and Mali on the one hand to Yemen to South-East Asia, we may clearly see that the wars waged by the U.S. in the "Great Middle East" have only given birth to radical Islamist militant movements farther and farther from the initial battlegrounds.

So, the only "positive" outcome of the war Mr. Bucci and the like are talking about was the toppling and hanging of the fallen dictator. But what about the price?

The propaganda is everywhere, even in these so-called peace think-tanks.
If we were obliged to wage war against all dictators in the world, well, why don't we start by USA itself ? After by Israel ?
Dictator ? What hell this word does mean ? Who are they to define dictator ?
The reality is simple, US empire was trying to survive, as US'economy failed since the 60's to match with Japan, european countries, the only solution was US war machine.
In order to stem the growing chinese economy, they wanted the "Great Middle East".
1- To control all oil reserve, and to set the price.
2- Forbidden China to access any oil without the assement of the USA.
3- To burst islamic world into several micro states as little koweit-closely linked to USA-, neighboring little poor countries, this what we can see in Libya.
4- Controlling European union's energies providers.
5- Detering any european partnerships with Russia. Chieftly Germany.
6- Deztabilizing Russia, in order to burst it into several micro-countries. In simple world the destruction of world's orthodox, begining by war with Yougoslavia.
7- Assuring the dollar as world money reserve.
8- Saving Israel, as the new world center. The new Babel's tower should be Jerusalem, and for some christians, jews -Netanyahu, Peres, and all israeli directions are- extremists, the hope of the next incomming of Meshaa.


For these purposes 4 trillions $, several millions people deads, or starving are nothing for these barbaric diabolic tyrans.
Do not forget that this plan -you can read what wrote Brezinki The Grand Chessboard - is failed because Mr Putin decided enough is enough.
Thx to Mr Putin.

Guys, Russia is no1 weapon exported in Iraq today. Iraq buys Russian weapons with US money. Russian PMC are working in there and war didn't affect Russia at all. Am I wrong?

Guys, Russia is no1 weapon exported in Iraq today. Iraq buys Russian weapons with US money. Russian PMC are working in there and war didn't affect Russia at all. Am I wrong?

The US invasion of Iraq cost Russia about 15 billion in signed oil contracts and debt writeoffs.

Iraq is currently talking about buying Russian weapons... but we will see how that goes.

If we were obliged to wage war against all dictators in the world, well, why don't we start by USA itself ? After by Israel ?
Dictator ? What hell this word does mean ? Who are they to define dictator ?

If we look at the late Hugo Chavez it seems a dictator is a democratically elected public official that does not work towards ensuring US interests are kept sacrosanct.

1- To control all oil reserve, and to set the price.

Low oil prices are best for US economy... they don't need all the oil contracts, but they do need it to keep flowing and a low price at the pump.

3- To burst islamic world into several micro states as little koweit-closely linked to USA-, neighboring little poor countries, this what we can see in Libya.

More specifically keep the oil pumping countries separate so they compete against each other and keep the price low.

GarryB wrote:

1- To control all oil reserve, and to set the price.

Low oil prices are best for US economy... they don't need all the oil contracts, but they do need it to keep flowing and a low price at the pump.

It depends Garry. In fact, this is USA that triggered a high price in 1973, and their opec's puppets set US decision. The goal is that, more the price is, more they won. If, and only if the oil will be paid in dollar, and not for another devise.
Saddam hang himself when he decided in early 2000's to be paid in euro, and another devise than dollar. It immediatly triggered US invasion.

In early 80's, in the goal to strangle soviet's economy, US asked Saudis, and their gulf allies to flood the market with oil, that immediatly melt the soviet's reserve devise, that dive soviet economy in a worst and worst situation.
This is, not the only one, but it is known that it was one of the soviet's union' collapse.


Who controll the energy, controll in fact the world.

Low oil prices benefit the US economy... but that doesn't mean that the US government will do everything it can to keep the price low, often, for other interests they will let the price climb or they will be powerless to stop the price from climbing, and other times they will help it climb.

The US government will happily let a portion of the US population suffer if it is in their interests. Lots of legislation has been passed or not passed specifically to make Obama look bad, both domestically and internationally... purely for political reasons... for which large numbers of Americans have suffered because of that.

Well not too recently US invaded Iraq and far more people died due to direct intervention and the effects are still being felt with many more people dying every day then they used to do under Saddams rule.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_08/10th-anniversary-of-US-invasion-to-Iraq-cost-of-war-tremendous-violence-remains-206/

10th anniversary of US invasion to Iraq: cost of war tremendous, violence remains

189,000 people were killed during the conflict, including soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and Iraqi civilians, according to the report “The Cost of War” drawn up by a team of 30 economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts and physicians and released in March 2013.

Austin wrote:Well not too recently US invaded Iraq and far more people died due to direct intervention and the effects are still being felt with many more people dying every day then they used to do under Saddams rule.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_08/10th-anniversary-of-US-invasion-to-Iraq-cost-of-war-tremendous-violence-remains-206/

10th anniversary of US invasion to Iraq: cost of war tremendous, violence remains

189,000 people were killed during the conflict, including soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and Iraqi civilians, according to the report “The Cost of War” drawn up by a team of 30 economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts and physicians and released in March 2013.

Plus the ones killed v Afghanistan. It really is a genocide. Europe's electorate wouldn't have a problem passing sanctions against Uncle Scam. And these American monsters have the neck to lecture Russia and ban Russia's processors...

Some people say it was a total failure, some say that the US achieved all their goals and were in fact victorious. What do you think?

As Sa'iqa wrote:Some people say it was a total failure, some say that the US achieved all their goals and were in fact victorious. What do you think?

This video will give U enough idea about the results
A simple RPG 29 against an Abrams. US lost at least several hundreds Abrams and armored vehicles. No use to tell more about Apache, against a high skill soldiers with russian manpads, the US helicopter has no chance to survive. The US might lose at least several hundreds of choppers, obviously, -as the propaganda- as usual, du to mechanical faillures. But as we could see du to russian manpads.


Or here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30wpb_CYkck
Russian Manpads vs Apache.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1328031689

In fact the US lost in Iraq, and Afghanistan, because of strong resistance, and especially in Iraq, du to the high skills of insurgents. Most of them were either officers, soldiers, or member of the iraqi republican guards, many of them were engineers, high skills volunteers.
The yankees came in Iraq, with their usual arrongance, believing with just an Abrams, and some hardware, speaking english, listening spice girls, chewing gum in the mouth, they thought it is enough to intimidate people.

But they forgot that, the stock of heavy weaponeries anti aircrafts manpads as Sa-16/Sa-18 were still in insurgents hands, like the anti-tank missiles. The light Rpg-29, was a small part of the stock, most of the part was composed by AT-3/AT-5 and AT-14 if I recall.
It was enough to burn any US tank, any US amrored vehicle, enough to terrorise US army.
Realizing that they lost the war against a high skills insurrection, US played their usual joker....the Al qaida'terrorist network. This is why the occupation extended untill 2010.
Russian hardware demonstrated how efficient it was, how lethal it is. I think even russian does not realize how the quality of their weapon, how the quality is their technology.

Back to the 1991, now I cast a strong doubts about how US won versus Iraqi army. Most of the Mig 29 downed, not because they fought, but because they fled to Iran. During the conflict a Mig 25 downed an F-18.
During Desert Storm, a Mig 25 eluded 8 air to air missiles lauched by an F-15, it demonstrated how very efficent could be an old Mig-25, with a high skill pilot. Let's imagine how a pilote could eluded 8 aam. I think there are still surprises that will emerge from Internet network.

The war in Iraq, and in Serbia was somewhere won by the US because of the help of Russia. Without the help of Russia, US are unable to win any war.
Since 2003, Putin refused to help US, consequently they logically lost their war in Iraq.

As Sa'iqa wrote:Some people say it was a total failure, some say that the US achieved all their goals and were in fact victorious. What do you think?

im genuinely interested in your opinion actually. or why you would ask that question here. if you would pick a NATO-veteran forum wouldnt you think you get a more straightforward answer?. or are you afraid you get some pro-US answer? .

i do not know if this turns out to be another bash-campaign against everything NATO done in Afghanistan ill just give my two cents.

concerning your question, speaking of Goals. yes, the U.S achieved its goals of disrupting the Taliban and pretty much divide and ruin most of the country. it is the foreign policy the U.S has everywhere.

some millitary units and organisations tried to do good out there, but you got to understand they are controlled by politicians. and politicians only favor themselves no matter how many afghans or their own troops get killed. but ultimately its them that have the final say. and the western media does a good job distorting facts.

in the end, the West is back at the very start as they went into the conflict after 9/11. and thats contributed to failing foreign politics, the fact of that Afghanistan is fragmented to bits by war for generations and tribal differences. and the huge corruption that plagues the afghan government and even millitary misconduct.

nemrod wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:Some people say it was a total failure, some say that the US achieved all their goals and were in fact victorious. What do you think?

This video will give enough idea about the results
A simple RPG 29 against an Abrams. US lost at least several hundreds Abrams and armored vehicles. No use to tell more about Apache, against a high skill soldiers, the US helicopter has no chance to survive. The US might lose several at least several hundreds of choppers, obviously, as the propaganda, as usual,  du to mechanical faillures. But as we could see du to russian manpads.


Or here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30wpb_CYkck
Russian Manpads vs Apache.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1328031689

In fact the US lost in Iraq, and Afghanistan, because of strong resistance, and especially in Iraq, du to the high skills of insurgents. Most of them were either officers, soldiers, or member of the iraqi republican guards.
The yankees came in Iraq, with their arrongance, believing with just an Abrams is enough to intimidate people.

But they forgot that, the stock heavy weaponeries anti aircrafts manpads as Sa-16/Sa-18 were still in insurgents hands, like the anti-tank missiles, the light Rpg-29, was a part of the stock, most of the part was composed by AT-3/AT-5 AT-14 if I recall.
It was enough to terrorise US army.
Realizing that they lost the war against a high skills insurrection, US played their usual joker....Alqaida. This is why the occupation extended untill 2010.
Russian hardware demonstrated how efficient it is, how lethal it is.
Back to the 1991, now I cast a strong doubts about how US won versus Iraqi army. Most of the Mig 29 downed, they were, because they fled to Iran. During the conflict a Mig 25 downed an F-18.
During the war, a Mig 25 eluded 8 air to air missiles, it demonstrated how very efficent could be an old Mig-25, with a high skill pilot.
The war in Iraq, and in Serbia was somewhere won by the US because of the help of Russia. Without the help of Russia, US are unable to win any war.
Since 2003, Putin refused to help US, consequently they lost their war in Iraq.

seriously, your level of armchair-general is amazing....

The US war in Iraq was largely because Saddam wanted to sell his oil for currency other than US dollars.

If countries start to trade in their own currencies instead of the US dollar then the US wont be able to print more to pay off debt and would be in serious trouble.

the US economy wont collapse because all the rating agencies that would give it a collapsed economy rating are in the US.

Equally the US makes the rules and clearly breaks the rules when it suits them... you can't lose a game you control and are allowed to break the rules in.

Despite the current Iraqi regime looking at military equipment from outside the US the US intervention was a success for the US.

The US does not care about the damage it did, or the iraqi lives it cost.

the number of Americans killed was very low, and all the damage they did is being repaired.

the most important thing is that to rebuild and repair the Iraqis have to pump oil... and by pumping oil they keep the price down which is what suits the US... it doesn't matter what oil company gets the contract as long as oil is flowing and demand is being met.

In Afghanistan despite all the claims to create a democracy blah blah blah it was really about getting foothold in a country in that region and they got it.

they will keep troops there for decades... when the US gets troops in your country it is very hard to get rid of them.

OBL is dead, and the Taleban are not in power.

Of course unlike the Soviets, the US and allies fought an enemy that was not supported by a superpower providing them with MANPADS and ATGMs so they certainly had a much easier time of things.

When the Soviets were in Afghanistan mobility by helo was critical and the introduction of Stingers changed the way they could use helos. In fact they changed to more use of artillery, which meant more Afghans were killed, but the west didn't really care much about that.

If the US had to fight an enemy supported by a superpower (ie russia or the Soviet Union) then they would already have left or would never have gone in in the first place.

denied air power and armour losses would have been much higher.

Petrodollar, that was the only real reason for the war not humanitarian help of gased people, since USA along with NATO members where those in the first place which helped to build chemical facilities for development of chemical WMD's such as sarin.

At the time the west tried to blame the Iranians for gassing the Kurds. When it was revealed it was Saddam then the story just went away because there was no interest in a story about Saddam gassing his enemies. After Saddam invaded Kuwaite however the story became Saddam gassing his own people... a bit like US cavalry killing Americans... ie native americans that is.

Airbornewolf wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:Some people say it was a total failure, some say that the US achieved all their goals and were in fact victorious. What do you think?

im genuinely interested in your opinion actually. or why you would ask that question here. if you would pick a NATO-veteran forum wouldnt you think you get a more straightforward answer?. or are you afraid you get some pro-US answer? .

i do not know if this turns out to be another bash-campaign against everything NATO done in Afghanistan ill just give my two cents.

concerning your question, speaking of Goals. yes, the U.S achieved its goals of disrupting the Taliban and pretty much divide and ruin most of the country. it is the foreign policy the U.S has everywhere.

some millitary units and organisations tried to do good out there, but you got to understand they are controlled by politicians. and politicians only favor themselves no matter how many afghans or their own troops get killed. but ultimately its them that have the final say. and the western media does a good job distorting facts.

in the end, the West is back at the very start as they went into the conflict after 9/11. and thats contributed to failing foreign politics, the fact of that Afghanistan is fragmented to bits by war for generations and tribal differences. and the huge corruption that plagues the afghan government and even millitary misconduct.

That is a great answer and my +1 goes to you.
Another interesting question would be how YOU as a Dutchman and an active contributor to US' GWOT feel?
Some of my friends were there, serving with the Americans, and other than the pay (which was OKish for our standards) they pretty much didn't like it.
I personally didn't like our involvement in that whole mess. I felt like we were whoring for US' Geo-Strategic interests (Global dominance).
Hope you don't view my answer/question as mere NATO-bashing (though I truly detest that organization).

...seriously, your level of armchair-general is amazing....

Thx sir for the compliment.

...the US intervention was a success for the US.

Regarding Iraq's situation -country under embargo, and blockade, an army completly weakened, furthermore, isolated, and only less than 20 million-, against US coalition that were several hundreds millions, the most richest countries, modern weaponneries, it is obvious in these conditions, that US campaign had to success, in order to catch Bagdad, Mossol, and Basrah. However if we see the result, general withdrawal, far worst than Hanoi withdrawal it was more than shame. But the ascertainment doest not stop here. If the purpose was only to destroy Iraq, and Afghanistan, seeing the invesstimment, several trillions $, several hundreds thousands casualities in the coalition it was disaster. More than a disaster for US strategists, knowing the fact they intended to change the Iraq regime by a friendly regime, after, this step, they planned -Wolfowizc, Perle, Bernard Lewis, Zbig Brezinki, etc....- to change iranian, pakistani, saudi, syrian, turkish, egyptian, jordan regime, in order to modify the entire middle east map following the israelis'interest. The steps after were obviously China, and Russia. These wars were part of global goals, in order to consolidate US global hegemony. If we compare regarding the initial US strategists' purposes, it is obvious that, it is a disaster these campaignes in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Moreover, do not forget, that, US is economic depression.

And there were at least two dozen downed Apache helicopters at least what i could dig up 22 Apache helicopters in Iraq alone and this number is very low because usually US was very careful where iraqi SAM's and MANPADS could be and were scouting before they were usually entering to deep into enemy territory before having enough intel about their SAM/MANPAD capabilities however your figures are specially for helicopters (apaches) to far stretched.

In the past, I could believe US hoax, but the recent history demonstrates clearly that US occupation never ended easily, with flowers. If you don't eject them by the force, they never left your country, especially geostrategic countries like Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Seeing what I wrote above, about the initial purpose and the huge coasts of US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think that US could withdraw with only a few dozens of armored vehicle, and few choppers disabled -most of them du to mechanical faillure, as from CNN, Fox, etc...-, few thousands deaths ?

im genuinely interested in your opinion actually. or why you would ask that question here. if you would pick a NATO-veteran forum wouldnt you think you get a more straightforward answer?. or are you afraid you get some pro-US answer?

I am not registered at any NATO-friendly forum. The reason why I asked is becasue I'm confused in this matter. US losses were quite high (but not extraordinary) and they've spent a lot of money on these wars - but we also have to look at a long-term geopolitical gains vs losses as the best policy is a long term one. George Friedman said that Iraq war was a 100% success.

there is only one definition of destroyed, if you hit it and it stops working it means it is destroyed,

Really? According to my definition a tank is destroyed when it's damaged so hard that repair is either impossible or too costly. So a tank may be damaged and stop working but then repaired in 24h or a few days.

The US won't recoup the loss from Iraq (economically) probably ever.
Not even going to talk about the human loss.

So, yeah, that is a problem....

...seriously, your level of armchair-general is amazing....


Thx sir for the compliment.

I think you have to appreciate Airbornewolf, that up until fairly recently Nemrod has believed generally what the US has said pretty much about everything and is a bit disillusioned over the whole thing... very much like I am myself. Most of the morals and standards the US spouts I actually agree with and respect... the problem is that the preacher is the worst offender and uses his morals and standards to judge others when it suits and ignores them when it suits too... and most importantly never follows those same rules and standards itself.

Venezuela is a dictatorship, yet Hugo Chavez was democratically elected and the US tried to have him removed from office using illegal means. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.... the latter under military dictatorship were ignored in terms of sermons and showing them the right path... sounds like the US is crazy... but very simply the obvious rule is there are no friends, there are only interests and you can see the Saudis and Pakistan under military rule were useful to the US so they can do no wrong. Hugo Chaves on the other hand seemed to be turning to Russia so he had to be eliminated or at least given a good talking to.

talk about finding out there is no such thing as

Spoiler:

Regarding Iraq's situation -country under embargo, and blockade, an army completly weakened, furthermore, isolated, and only less than 20 million-, against US coalition that were several hundreds millions, the most richest countries, modern weaponneries, it is obvious in these conditions, that US campaign had to success, in order to catch Bagdad, Mossol, and Basrah. However if we see the result, general withdrawal, far worst than Hanoi withdrawal it was more than shame.

Ignoring the fact that it was a superpower against a greatly weakened country that did not have the support of another superpower, the US basically did what it wanted.

If the purpose was only to destroy Iraq, and Afghanistan, seeing the invesstimment, several trillions $, several hundreds thousands casualities in the coalition it was disaster.

But the money spent was in weapons... the resupply and restocking will be more money spent on the US economy. Not long ago the Saudi government ordered 60 billion dollars worth of weapons. There will be billions of dollars more of US taxpayers money given to Iraq and Afghanistan... you don't think they will be allowed to spend that money any way they like do you? It will be US contractors that get that money, though a lot will also disappear into pockets... most ending up back in the US.

These wars were part of global goals, in order to consolidate US global hegemony. If we compare regarding the initial US strategists' purposes, it is obvious that, it is a disaster these campaignes in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Moreover, do not forget, that, US is economic depression.

the US certainly wants all governments to be pro US, but the more they directly involve themselves in making that happen the less likely it will happen.

When it doesn't happen it is only a failure for those who are naieve enough to think it ever could happen.

[quot]George Friedman said that Iraq war was a 100% success.[/quote]

Then he obviously doesn't have any children in the US military...