We actually could win the Iraq war with military force.

[eridani]

That is, if the goal is establishment of permanent bases there to dominate the region. The fly in the ointment is that what this will take is outright genocide. Good news in a backhanded sort of way--the widespread belief that loss is inevitable means that most of our elite governing class has not yet considered jumping into that dark abyss. There is a substantial fraction of our citizenry that is advocating genocide though--check any wingnut blog for examples.

[aquart]

1. No, we couldn't.

What we could do, with "adequate" force, is depopulate the area while beggaring ourselves. If we killed three or four million Iraqis...come on, we're close to our first million...we could give much of the country the quiet tranquility of a graveyard...BUT WE WOULD BE SPENT, EXHAUSTED, AT THE END OF OUR RESOURCES.

We would also be international pariahs. We seem to think that we can act and the rest of the world just sits by and watches, like it's something on TV. They haven't been sitting. They've been making trade and military agreements that LEAVE US OUT.

The result: We kill our millions, raise the hatred of the known civilized world, and then an alliance will form to RESCUE Iraq and its oil. An alliance of China, India, and Russia, or any of the above and the European Union. They ride to the rescue with fresh clean soldiers and wipe us out. THEY get the roses and cheers. Then, THEY take control of the Caspian Basin oil. As heroes.

We sink into a century of despair and oblivion, losing our port cities to global warming because we don't have the money to protect them.

THAT's what we'd get for "adequate force." Absolutely nothing.

[eridani]

2. Probably why the ruling elite doesn't actually want to do it

Plenty of raving nutcases in the Bush base do, though.

[Az]

3. You can't kill people into accepting a different culture

You can oppress them (Darth Vader et al). But the win the Bushies want is completely myopic in that it is dependent on them accepting a cultural value of moral consensus rather than moral authority. The gap between our cultures mindsets is simply too wide at this point. Democracy is a wonderful thing but only when and if the people want it.

Democracy is predicated on the concept of the social contract. Namely that we must abide each other and work together to form a consensus of our societies path. The social contract is easily destroyed if a sizable portion of the society refuses to accept it and insists that it alone has the true path society is supposed to take.

[Disturbed]

4. When some of the people in Iraq are dousing others

in gasoline and setting them on fire, bombing market places, mosques, setting off car bombs, blowing up police stations, killing busloads of people etc. Does anyone really believe that these people want democracy? These people will keep doing these things until they get what they want or enough of them are killed that these events become rare. What is going on is chaos from multiple factions that will keep fighting each other and US/UK Occupiers. No amount of US Military Force will stop the secterian madness and the Insurgency against the Occupation until the perpetrators decide to stop it.

[Az]

6. Conflict is not always military

This is the thing the Bushies seem to have completely missed. Their war on Terrorism is a tremendous mistake. When a people cannot respond to military force with military force they will respond by other means in order to preserve their way of life. An overwhelming military force will inevitably create a civillian response that strikes at the host of the oppressive force by other means. So the war on Terrorism just creates an increased impetus to turn to terrorism. If they cannot stand up to our military they will struggle by other means.

[Selatius]

5. We could wipe them all out with chemical weapons, carpet bombing, and death camps.

We have the firepower to wipe out entire cities without using nuclear weapons. All that would be left is the peace of death.

When faced with a guerrilla rebellion, one brutal method of crushing resistance is to kill the civilian population that offers support and comfort to the insurgency. This is true, but it is also illegal. Of course, other methods that attempt to drive a wedge between guerrilla fighters and the civilian population are more legal and humane but time consuming and often unsuccessful, but if the goal is military victory and laws and regulations are subordinate to the objective of military victory, genocide becomes an all too attractive option.

This is how the US won against Native Americans. Otherwise, we would never successfully take their land without our country resembling Israel in the West Bank today.

[GeorgeGist]

7. rubbish

grow up!

[Hubert Flottz]

8. Just like the Nazis won in Eastern Europe?

If it were America, would you stop fighting the invading forces? Did your Civics teacher never tell you, how hard people will fight to defend their homeland?

[eridani]

9. Would genocide require boots on the ground? n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Nope, we could nuke them!

And I wouldn't put anything past the PNAC nutcases!

[mmonk]

11. Not really.

Holding people under occupation is a slow death (of manpower and soul).