US vs Iraq/Islam = Napoleon vs Spain/Catholicism?

[Vympel]

We'll see what we'll see. Afghanistan was supposed to be the "graveyard of empires" too.

Well, for ignoramuses anyway- I have yet to see anyone make any meaningful connection between the fall of the USSR and Afghanistan, for example.

[Stuart Mackey]

During the penisula war the French, or Monsewers if you prefer ,had a nasty wee problem, and that was that their forces were divided.
British forces, based out of Portugal divided their attention. The frogs could fight the little war or obliterate the British/Potugese and dubious Spanish regualr army, but they could not do both. The result of this was a endless ulcer for France in Spain.
Also, the French could not stop the British from ressuplying at will and supplying the spanish gurrila with arms and money, almost at will, this is not true in Iraq.

Thus the situation you propose has very limited, and very tenuous application to the penisular war. Once Iraq runs out of its existing stockpiles of ammunition and eqiupment it cannot get more, not in the quantitys it needs to fight a modern war. Combine this with their inability to train new recruits in a nation that no longer has the secure areas needed for this. These factor were not true in the penisular.

[Darth Wong]

Thus the situation you propose has very limited, and very tenuous application to the penisular war. Once Iraq runs out of its existing stockpiles of ammunition and eqiupment it cannot get more, not in the quantitys it needs to fight a modern war.

Who said anything about fighting a modern war? I'm talking about bleeding the occupiers.

Combine this with their inability to train new recruits in a nation that no longer has the secure areas needed for this. These factor were not true in the penisular.

I'm sure terrorist training camps will still exist after the Americans take Baghdad.

[Stuart Mackey]

Thus the situation you propose has very limited, and very tenuous application to the penisular war. Once Iraq runs out of its existing stockpiles of ammunition and eqiupment it cannot get more, not in the quantitys it needs to fight a modern war.

Who said anything about fighting a modern war? I'm talking about bleeding the occupiers.

And as I pointed out, Iraq cannot do this, Spain/Britain/Portugal could do this, for the reasons I gave. And all things being equel, a musket ball is a bullet is a cannon ball is a 155mm arty shell. All these things must be made and supplied to where they are needed. You refered to the Penisular war as an analogy, and this is avery tenuous analogy, at best, the strategic situation of that time does not apply.

Combine this with their inability to train new recruits in a nation that no longer has the secure areas needed for this. These factor were not true in the penisular.

I'm sure terrorist training camps will still exist after the Americans take Baghdad.

So how does this compare to the Penisualr war? when Iraq's army is defeated, as they will be due to running out of ammo, combat and resulting lack of equipment, the coalition will be free to deal with terroists at will. Your anology is tenous at best, there is certainly no historic paralls in your choice of anology.

[irishmick79]

The fact that the analogy is not perfect does not necessarily mean it cannot apply. America needs much less in the way of casualties to fold than France did, so supporters of Iraqi anti-Americanism would need much less in the way of resources. What if (horror of horrors) America faces years of continual terrorism as a result of this? There are weapons squirelled away all over Iraqi territory; if the Palestinians can do it, I don't see why the Iraqis can't.

The problem I have with the analogy is that the situations are so incredibly different that you simply cannot make predictions in Iraq based on events in Spain. In Spain, France was able to quickly set up a puppet regime under Napoleon's brother Joseph, and he proved to be incompetent and unpopular in Spain. France spent a lot of time trying to prop up his failing government, despite the fact they were fighting a style war it wasn't prepared to fight and fighting against outside interference as well. The dynamics in Iraq are just not the same. Your comparison more accurately describes the American experience in Vietnam, however. In Vietnam, the americans were trying to prop up a failed and unpopular regime in Saigon, while the Soviets were funneling massive amounts of military equipment into North Vietnam and to the Viet Cong.

You may be right in saying that Iraqi militants would not necessarily need the same amount of resources to continue the fight against the Americans because of the low threshold for casualties Americans have. But you can't draw conclusions from Napoleon's spanish experience yet because similar circumstances have yet to arise. If America sets up an unpopular and failing regime after Hussein is gone, the comparisons between the peninsular campaing and the Iraqi campaign would then be alot more valid.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And Bush is infallible? How do we know we're not walking into the same morass? The analogy isn't perfect, but it's uncomfortably close. Religious fanaticism and nationalism are powerful things. This war has come to symbolize Arab pride; I don't know what kind of news you get down there, but our newspapers print revealing interviews with people in Jordan, Syria etc. who see this war as an opportunity to show that Arabs are not the pathetic pushovers that Americans have been describing for many years. It is an opportunity to reclaim lost Arab pride. These people are starting to worship Saddam as a hero, not because he's a good man but because he stands against America. How do you know you wouldn't face years of hatred if you finally smash him?

One would think in this model, that losing would bolster this Arab pride, but crushing Saddam would break it's back in destroy its symbol.

Simply by lasting more than a few days, Saddam has already breathed new life into Arab pride. Even if he falls, the fact that he put up a good fight will still send the same message. The fact that the Pentagon was forced to publicly admit that they underestimated the enemy will make their hearts beat faster. Their idiotic belief that God has blessed their weapons (bolstered by silly pictures like the one with the farmer and his Kalashnikov in front of an Apache that he'd supposedly downed single-handedly) will persist.

I saw the news footage of that.... They guy next to him had an old muskey which fired mimi balls!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Thus the situation you propose has very limited, and very tenuous application to the penisular war. Once Iraq runs out of its existing stockpiles of ammunition and eqiupment it cannot get more, not in the quantitys it needs to fight a modern war.

Who said anything about fighting a modern war? I'm talking about bleeding the occupiers.

And as I pointed out, Iraq cannot do this, Spain/Britain/Portugal could do this, for the reasons I gave. And all things being equel, a musket ball is a bullet is a cannon ball is a 155mm arty shell. All these things must be made and supplied to where they are needed. You refered to the Penisular war as an analogy, and this is avery tenuous analogy, at best, the strategic situation of that time does not apply.

Combine this with their inability to train new recruits in a nation that no longer has the secure areas needed for this. These factor were not true in the penisular.

I'm sure terrorist training camps will still exist after the Americans take Baghdad.

So how does this compare to the Penisualr war? when Iraq's army is defeated, as they will be due to running out of ammo, combat and resulting lack of equipment, the coalition will be free to deal with terroists at will. Your anology is tenous at best, there is certainly no historic paralls in your choice of anology.

Iraq has had an entire decade to smuggle in ammo for the current war, they probably have more then enough to make the USA pay a heafty butcher bill in Bagdad when we try to take the city. In addition, there are many countries in the world who have a grudge against the United States. If you think theat these countries wouldn't provide ammo to "freedom fighters" in Iraq your deluding yourself. To give just one example, I'm sure Russia would more more then willing to do so just to get even with the US for thwarting their attempted invasion of Afganistan when they were still the USSR.

Secondly, how do you propose we deal with terrorists at will? If we had the chance now we would deal with them right now. Terrorists usually don't go around wearing big signs that say "Hi, Im a Terrorist, you can deal with me now" There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

[Uraniun235]

There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

Appeasement?

[Andrew J.]

I don't think so. The uprising in Spain was a unique event in history, nothing had happened like it before, and nothing like it has happened since. A completely spontaneous, popular uprising of that magnitude is incredibly strange. Of course, it probably would have failed miserably without the support of a major world power. Since a similar situation probably won't arise in Iraq, and since they don't have a major ally, I would hardly expect a Spain-type uprising to occur.

[Darth Wong]

There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

Appeasement?

Ah yes, the favoured buzzword of the last six months.

Appeasement is always bad unless it's your country which is the recipient, right?

[Joe]

Secondly, how do you propose we deal with terrorists at will? If we had the chance now we would deal with them right now. Terrorists usually don't go around wearing big signs that say "Hi, Im a Terrorist, you can deal with me now" There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

Right, try and take a stand and then back down for fear of further encouraging them. Any parent will tell you that this is the correct way to deal with misbehavior.

[Darth Wong]

Secondly, how do you propose we deal with terrorists at will? If we had the chance now we would deal with them right now. Terrorists usually don't go around wearing big signs that say "Hi, Im a Terrorist, you can deal with me now" There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

Right, try and take a stand and then back down for fear of further encouraging them. Any parent will tell you that this is the correct way to deal with misbehavior.

Actually, as long as you bring that up, abusive parenting methods are a big part of what creates misbehaved kids in the first place.

[Joe]

Actually, as long as you bring that up, abusive parenting methods are a big part of what creates misbehaved kids in the first place.

True, but even so, some kids are just fucked up, good parents or not. That being said, the parental metaphor is not a good one for this situation. I shouldn't have brought it into the equation.

[Uraniun235]

Appeasement is always bad unless it's your country which is the recipient, right?

Exactly!

But seriously, I guess I did need a wakeup call there. The US probably should not have done much of what inspired the terrorist action. Although appeasing people who blow up abortion clinics would be a bad thing IMO, but I digress.

[Stuart Mackey]

Iraq has had an entire decade to smuggle in ammo for the current war, they probably have more then enough to make the USA pay a heafty butcher bill in Bagdad when we try to take the city. In addition, there are many countries in the world who have a grudge against the United States. If you think theat these countries wouldn't provide ammo to "freedom fighters" in Iraq your deluding yourself. To give just one example, I'm sure Russia would more more then willing to do so just to get even with the US for thwarting their attempted invasion of Afganistan when they were still the USSR.

And all of this has absolutly nothing to do with a comparison to the peninsular war and the Iraq war, part 3.
Iraq does not enjoy the advantages of the Allies back then nor do the American suffer the problem of France back then. Geograpacally, millitarily and politiacally it is a bad analogy.

Secondly, how do you propose we deal with terrorists at will? If we had the chance now we would deal with them right now. Terrorists usually don't go around wearing big signs that say "Hi, Im a Terrorist, you can deal with me now" There is no practical way to deal with terrorists, beside not pissing them off in the first place. (Or perhaps to stop doing the thing that is pissing them off).

How the hell would I know how to deal with terrorists, other than not creating a situation that make them want to be terrorists. The point is that this war is not a parallel to the penisular war, you cannot compare the two. now dont make more strawmen.