Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The war was the right thing to do, morally. That being said, it probably wasn't a good idea.

You mean, in the same way that invading Burma to install a democracy there would be good morally?

[chequita guevara]

Consider who the President is.

[Drake Tungsten]

You mean, in the same way that invading Burma to install a democracy there would be good morally?

Obviously.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Iraq was indeed winnable during the first year of occupation. The Iraqi people didn't really like us but at that time they were willing to suspend their disbelief about the reasons for our invasion provided meaningful reconstruction actually occured. Bush claimed that a massive wave of reconstruction was coming and the Iraqi people believed him.

After a year of nothing, and I do mean nothing, meaningful happening wrt recontruction they got progressively more pissed off at us and that is when the insurgency started. I lost track of how many times Iraqis would say to me "Saddam, got this bridge fixed in 6 months. Why can't the Americans fix it after a whole year?" or "Saddam had the power and water working with in weeks of the war yet we still only have 2 hours of power/water per day".

Sounds like the same thing is in Afghanistan.
Only that in case of Afghanistan you have the support of the international community which does most of the reconstruction and police duties.
It looks to me as if America under G.W. Bush generally is very good at fighting wars (and making lots of promises to the populations of the invaded country during the war), but extremly bad (in making their promises true) during the post war phase.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Thue
If you insist on the future president being George Bush there is always George P. Bush, George W. Bush's nephew and George H. W. Bush's grandson.

i think he challenges W on looking dumb

[Arrian]

Oerdin

edit: I was against the war, but the way the reconstruction was bungled cost us any chance of real success. And there may indeed have been a chance to begin with.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

It looks to me as if America under G.W. Bush generally is very good at fighting wars (and making lots of promises to the populations of the invaded country during the war), but extremly bad (in making their promises true) during the post war phase.

...

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise... I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
- GWB

Then this man, who doesn't believe in nation-building, embarks on two wars that require nation-building in order to be successful. Any questions?

-Arrian

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Iraq was indeed winnable during the first year of occupation. The Iraqi people didn't really like us but at that time they were willing to suspend their disbelief about the reasons for our invasion provided meaningful reconstruction actually occured. Bush claimed that a massive wave of reconstruction was coming and the Iraqi people believed him.

Sorry, Oerdin. I know others who were there who don't share your opinion about reconstruction. Funds weren't released because the personnel and equipment to do the work weren't there yet. Period.

Don't forget, our initial plan to use ports in the Med and tranship over Turkish roads was quashed. That doubled the time required to get supplies to Iraq. Why? Because our so-called allies in NATO (who were on the take, but we didn't know it yet) wouldn't support even this phase of the operation and Turkey didn't want to get caught in the middle.

After a year of nothing, and I do mean nothing, meaningful happening wrt recontruction they got progressively more pissed off at us and that is when the insurgency started. I lost track of how many times Iraqis would say to me "Saddam, got this bridge fixed in 6 months. Why can't the Americans fix it after a whole year?" or "Saddam had the power and water working with in weeks of the war yet we still only have 2 hours of power/water per day".

Again, rebuilding things depends upon a whole chain of supply. EG: You have to have steel and cement to build bridges. You have to have roads to transport steel and cement, which requires bridges. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

After GW1 Saddam had the advantage that only select strategic targets were damaged or destroyed. Large portions of infrastructure remained intact but disconnected, and therefore repairs were simply rebuilding the limited number of broken links. Not so after GW2.

These people would have backed the new government and not taken up arms against the Americans if their living conditions improved and so did their employment conditions during that one year.

I call BS on that. Have you any proof that the people who talked to you actually joined the militants and attacked US soldiers and contractors? No. You're just extrapolating to please your own deeply held feelings of abandonment and blah psychobabble blah.

I contend that the people who became militants were always part of the problem and never part of the solution. They didn't undergo some mental mutation because their favorite bridge didn't get rebuilt.

I will concede that some tiny percentage of naysayers might have been subdued in their resentments had the Oerdinesque magic wand been available to rebuild their local bridge. But most become militants because of other cultural and ideological reasons and our presence is merely one small ingredient.

The key would have been massive government works (employing mainly Iraqi labor instead of foreign contractors), actually getting the utilities going (instead of paying billions to American military subcontractors who had no intention of actually building anything other then milking the contracts endlessly for all they're worth), and getting the roads fixed.

Ah, of course. There are only honest contractors in Iraq, and only corrupt contractors coming there from America. And these Iraqi contractors could've made construction supplies out of thin air, if only they had the magic fairy dust (money) to make it happen. Carry on.

We didn't do any of this and we didn't even start doing that until after the first year of occupation when the Insurgency had already gotten under way. After that the US started fixing stuff but by then it was to late; we'd used our grace period doing nothing. That just boils down to complete government incompetance. We had a clear chance to win hearts and minds by showing results and we would have gotten most Iraqis on board if we proved we did what we said but after a year of incomptance and neglect from the administration they took up arms.

You do have a point. This discontent is exactly what the Islamist propoganda has been trying to achieve from day one. And the MSM has been trying to do ever since the projected quarter-to-half-million casualties didn't arise from the initial military invasion and they had to find something else to whine about. Congrats, you've been pwnd.

Lastly, disbanding the Iraqi Army and sending 1 million military aged men with military training out on the street to beg was absolutely stupid.

Well, if you consider being pressed into service, given a uniform, and taught how to march "military training" then you have a point. The majority of the former Iraqi Army were just cannon fodder.

Are you proposing that we should have put them on the US payroll? Because that would've been the only other alternative. No Saddam = no Iraqi govt = no paycheck = disbanded.

Of course, the few rotten apples who turned to militant Islamic groups would still have been of the same mind, only inside the organization instead of outside. I suppose that could be good or bad.

The purpose of disbanding the Iraqi Army was that the officer corps had been purged of those Saddam considered untrustworthy. That made those who remained largely untrustworthy to the civilians and to the US.

Rumsfield and Cheney should be hanged for that as well as the corruption in the nonbid contracts. That is what cost us this war.

Go ahead, shake your fist. It'll make you feel better. Won't make it true, but then what does that matter?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So far you've managed to make most Iraqis' lives worse. If you're going to salvage anything here it's going to be that you didn't allow a holocaust to happen as a direct result of an ill-considered decision to change the status quo.

BS. We aren't causing the violence, that is coming from domestic and foreign Islamist militants and vestiges of Saddam's goon squads.

People have a choice in how they act. They can point a finger at the eeeevil Americans all they want, it is a lame excuse for their own eeeevil acts.

But it is true, our job at this point is to prevent genocide or lesser atrocities amongst the warring factions.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Straybow
[Q] Originally posted by Oerdin
Don't forget, our initial plan to use ports in the Med and tranship over Turkish roads was quashed. That doubled the time required to get supplies to Iraq. Why? Because our so-called allies in NATO (who were on the take, but we didn't know it yet) wouldn't support even this phase of the operation and Turkey didn't want to get caught in the middle.

No wonder,
after all your government successfully managed to piss off nearly all of its allies which only years before supported your invasion of Afghanistan.

[The diplomat]

What good does it do for Kissinger or others to whine and complain that we can't win? I really don't understand the negativism about the war in Iraq. Of course it's tough. War is always tough. WW2 was much much harder than Iraq is but we didn't quit. We didn't say "the war is unwinnable so let's cut and run." We had setbacks but we fought hard until we did win. We should do the same in Iraq. If we are in the process of losing in Iraq, the answer is not to quit, the answer is to figure out how to win and fight hard until we do win. We have the best military in the world. Destroying a bunch of armed militias is definitely doable. Let's have some faith in our military!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So far you've managed to make most Iraqis' lives worse. If you're going to salvage anything here it's going to be that you didn't allow a holocaust to happen as a direct result of an ill-considered decision to change the status quo.

BS. We aren't causing the violence, that is coming from domestic and foreign Islamist militants and vestiges of Saddam's goon squads.

Which wasn't happening to the same extent while Saddam was in charge.

People have a choice in how they act. They can point a finger at the eeeevil Americans all they want, it is a lame excuse for their own eeeevil acts.

Who the **** is excusing anybody? The prime responsibility for atrocities is on the shoulders of those committing the atrocities. The responsibility for creating a chaotic situation which allowed those evil elements to arise/come out of the woodwork falls on those who made the decision to go to war. Whether or not that was a wise decision morally depends on whether or not there was a net gain or loss. Right now, there's been a massive net loss. While Saddam is gone (good) there are massacres (bad). And it's hard to claim ignorance (unless it was willful) at the time the decision was made. The elements for the current situation were all in plain view, and were worried over by anybody who bothered to think about it at all. And while you appear to be setting up the judgment that it is "the Iraqis" fault for their current situation, it seems to me as though those being slaughtered are not the same people who make the decision to slaughter others. These victims are bearing the responsibility of a number of others' decisions. For example, Shia victims are bearing responsibility of:

a) Sunni insurgents (the proximate responsibility)
b) Shia militias (who continue to directly contribute to the sectarian hatred)
c) The US military and Iraqi forces, who are failing to protect them (while certain elements of the Iraqi forces can sometimes be included in b)
d) The US government (for deciding to go to war and unleashing the repressed tensions)
e) Saddam Hussein (for any number of things)
f) The British post WWI (for setting up this ****ed-up country in the first place)
etc.

[TCO]

Actually I disagree with this. Just because we upset the apple cart, does not mean we have to tend it forever. The people involved lacked the will to throw Saddam off. And then had it done for them. If they lack the will to establish order, then that is their problem too.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Are you proposing that we should have put them on the US payroll? Because that would've been the only other alternative. No Saddam = no Iraqi govt = no paycheck = disbanded.

Yes they should have put the Iraqi army on the pay roll and give them a 25% raise to boot, the top brass Bathists would be purged and replaced with American officers but their would be a program of rapidly replacing thouse Americans with capable Iraqui's. The whole process of training a desent Iraqi army wouldn't start from scratch. They would also be able to use most of them as labor for reconstruction projects. So long as the feel their getting a sweet deal they will be loyal.

I'm reminded of severl points from Machiaveli's the Prince which is practicaly a bible for how to assimilate conquored territory. One of the main points is that those people in a forign land who were most oposed to your concuest will be the easiest to win over for they have the most to loss and the lowest expectations for the future, if you mearly treat them well they will be yours. On the other hand thouse who were glad to see you invade or even activly supported your invasion will be very hard to please for they have very high expectations and if their expectations are not meet they will become disatisfied and disalushioned.

The policy of "De-Bathification" was foolish because thouse individuals would have been the easiest to win over, a modest civil service position and regular pay would have done it. Only thouse with close family and ethnic ties to Sadam would need to be purged, no more then a 100 or so. Round them all up and shoot them Godfather style.

So having forfited any chance of getting the support of the elites the only remaining way of ruling the country would be with the support of the people. Timly reconstruction and public services would have done that but as we can see that didn't happen due to incompetence.

Clearly the administraction shoot one foot off with as strategic error and then shoot the other one off with incompetence. No goverment can win when faced with that kind of double whammy.

[Ramo]

1. What specifically do you mean? More detail.

Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. have a summitt where they draft up some rules about suppressing large-scale violence in Iraq. They'd come up with some peace-keeping troops, which might be backed up by Western support. Obviously the details would depend on what the regional powers would agree to, and I have no idea what those might be. As I was saying, the idea is that none of the parties want a civil war in Iraq, so they'd have a vested interest in making sure that this is successful.

2. Understood. We set this paper thing up like we did with VN and then let people blow it off, like we let the NVA do with the SV. I got that already. Carry on. (Sorry for being so dense, I didn't realize that you were being sneaky.)

As I was saying, that's the partition scenario as well. The difference between status quo and partition is that partition brings force balance way further out of equilibrium than the status quo. Therefore, the correcting path back towards equilibrium is going to be a lot longer and more unstable, i.e. far bloodier.