Mr.Flibble

Thanks everyone for the warm welcome. Due to my time constraints tonight, I cannot guarantee a prompt response either.

Actually, war is not always war. But let’s deal with some important clarification issues first. The current conflict in Iraq was initiated by the presentation of evidence that was later revealed to be inaccurate and false. The utilisation of "pre-emptive self-defence" as cause for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was completely baseless. Pre-emptively attacking a nation requires irrefutable proof that nation A has the capacity and mens rea to launch an attack against nation B (see Israel and the six-day war). Iraq, despite its bluster, did not have the capacity to attack America or even its regional allies with any significant military ordinance. This fact was sufficiently known to many in the Intelligence community both within America and in Europe. The majority of the information about Iraq's WMD program was collected by individuals such as Achmed Chalabi, a convicted criminal and unreliable intelligence source to say the least. Even if there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the Bush Government knew this while presenting their case before the UN, its recent discovery does retro-actively categorize the US invasion of Iraq as a unilateral military action that is illegal under international law. I state this knowing full well that international law is only as effective as its enforcement capacities. Now if we are using the standard definition of war as a conflict between two sides then we must define the nature of America (and its allies) opposition in Iraq. Who are they fighting? Who is supporting their adversaries? What are the stated goals of the belligerents? The current situation in Iraq is pitting American forces against militia's and guerrilla forces from both the Shiite and Sunni communities. These groups, supported by considerable domestic tension and armaments and training from foreign state and non-state actors have multiple goals, from simple continual destabilization to the establishment of a theocratic republic. The American army is neither capable nor orientated towards fighting an asymmetrical war against such diverse opponents with such diverse goals. Japan and Germany were nations with traditional military forces and homogenous populations that were orientated over centuries to follow a central political decision making body. Iraq was formed by the British in the early part of the 20th century from three divergent ethnic and religious groups to ensure resource access and transportation as well as cementing regional hegemonic influence. The only form of authority that had successfully governed the country was based on secular totalitarianism. A form of government, though brutal and despotic, prevented the complete dissolution and instability we are witnessing now. With these points in mind, the possibility of victory in line with traditional military concepts is impossible. One cannot win in asymmetrical warfare against an indigenous force driven by pre-existing ethnic tensions. That is a fact supported by a plethora of historical examples. The only means in which success can be measured is by the ability of trained and deployed local regiments in front-line combat duty to maintain relative stability after the departure of foreign military forces. That is why you cannot merely have “win†and “lose†in Iraq. America can never defeat the insurgents; it can only transfer the fight to Iraqi military and law enforcement forces. The measure of its success will not be “terrorist†body counts but months in which the nation avoids complete civil-war. Nothing that Bush has said indicates that he is capable of performing that task.