Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Arrian]

You seem to be implying, in retrospect, a need for an Iraqi Marshall plan far more expensive than what we've spent.

Yes, I do think that a more robust reconstruction plan would have helped. Note that I specified both more money and more troops for such an effort. Obviously, the two go hand in hand, because sending and supplying the troops costs $$, as does additional reconstruction work (included within this would have been, IMO, a specific plan geared towards employing Iraqis, rather than giving out contracts to US firms).

Even then, going into Iraq would have been risky. But I think it's fairly clear that going in with an attitude of "we don't do nationbuilding" was asking to fail.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

We've actually spent very little on reconstruction and instead most of the money has been spent stationing troops and supplying those troops via a complex system of extremely highly paid subcontractors.

Of the money was spent on reconstruction in the last 3 years almost none of it was spent in the first year. That was the critical time where the people really wanted to see some sort of concrete evidence that reconstruction would occur and that life would improve. Instead they saw almost nothing being built or repaired and the security situation went to hell in a hand basket. Now it is to late and no amount of reconstruction spending will convince people to give us another chance. It is a lost cause.

The best we can hope for is to arm one faction hoping that they will win the inevitable civil war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yes, I do think that a more robust reconstruction plan would have helped. Note that I specified both more money and more troops for such an effort. Obviously, the two go hand in hand, because sending and supplying the troops costs $$, as does additional reconstruction work (included within this would have been, IMO, a specific plan geared towards employing Iraqis, rather than giving out contracts to US firms).

Even then, going into Iraq would have been risky. But I think it's fairly clear that going in with an attitude of "we don't do nationbuilding" was asking to fail.

-Arrian

Yes, more troops and a marshall plan would probably have helped, but as you say, it was predictable the admin would short those (actually I dont think it was certain, at least on the troops, but Ill grant you that for the sake of argument) Was it predictable that they would NOT take decisive action against Syria and Iran? You see the problem with saying its inevitable based on something like your prediction,is that policies A, B, C and D could ALL have made a decisive difference, and while the admin failing to do A and B may have been predictable, their failing to do C and D was not, and their failing to do any was not only unpredictable, but improbable.

[Gatekeeper]

What's McCain's idea for victory? To ship another 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops over to Iraq to help crush the insurgency? Yeah, whatever. If he's really serious about "victory," then he knows damn well that nothing less than another 100,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

The f*cking invasion force should have been 500,000 in the first place. But, hey, we were supposed to be able to win this war on the "cheap" with "high technology" and "light, mobile forces."

Whatever. If you're serious McCain, tell the truth: It's going to take far more than another piddling 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to even have a prayer of quelling the insurgency.

McCain, pandering to the right wing. It hurts to see him doing this, 'cause I rather liked him as a straight shooter. Amazing what a desire for the presidency can do to a person.

Gatekeeper

[Arrian]

Was it predictable that they would NOT take decisive action against Syria and Iran? You see the problem with saying its inevitable based on something like your prediction,is that policies A, B, C and D could ALL have made a decisive difference, and while the admin failing to do A and B may have been predictable, their failing to do C and D was not, and their failing to do any was not only unpredictable, but improbable.

I did doubt that the Admin would go after Syria and/or Iran, actually (either bombing or actual ground incursions). Certainly not Iran - are you joking? Syria was a bit more "doable" but still problematic.

If you're trying to convince the world that we're not at war with Islam or at war with the arabs (in general), attacking country after country in the ME is going to undermine that argument. Now maybe the Bush Admin would have ignored that and bombed (or invaded) Syria anyway, but I don't recall ever thinking that was likely.

I certainly didn't think that we would be able to successfully prevent Syrian/Iranian intervention in Iraq. I figured we'd be too busy trying to control Iraq to go after them, and furthermore the sheer size of the borders would make interdiction a major problem.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
What's McCain's idea for victory? To ship another 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops over to Iraq to help crush the insurgency? Yeah, whatever. If he's really serious about "victory," then he knows damn well that nothing less than another 100,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

The goal wouldnt be to use US troops to crush the insurgency. AFAIK McCain agrees with B-Ham AND the Admin, that this is for the Iraqis to do. What the surge would do, combined with a redeployment of troops within Iraq (esp from Anbar, where all theyre doing is playing whack a mole anyway), is to bring Baghdad under control, thus weakening both the Sadrists and the AQniks, and creating space for political compromise by the moderates on each side. And to buy time for the training of the Iraqi army and the reform of the Iraqi police. AFAICT there are US military leaders in Iraq who think thats the best strategy. It doesnt seem that B-H seriously addressed that strategy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I did doubt that the Admin would go after Syria and/or Iran, actually (either bombing or actual ground incursions). Certainly not Iran - are you joking? Syria was a bit more "doable" but still problematic.

If you're trying to convince the world that we're not at war with Islam or at war with the arabs (in general), attacking country after country in the ME is going to undermine that argument. Now maybe the Bush Admin would have ignored that and bombed (or invaded) Syria anyway, but I don't recall ever thinking that was likely.

I certainly didn't think that we would be able to successfully prevent Syrian/Iranian intervention in Iraq. I figured we'd be too busy trying to control Iraq to go after them, and furthermore the sheer size of the borders would make interdiction a major problem.

-Arrian

By accepting (initially) large scale smuggling of weapons and fighters across the borders, and waiting till the main issue with Iran was nukes, they ensured that an attack on Iran would be seen as about nukes, and hence about Israel, and NOT about Iraq.

As for the size of the borders, yes thats true if youre trying to stop the flow AT the border - thats why intervention would have been the option I would have expected.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian

Arrian, I saw a interview with a Sunni shiek in Jordan, a leader of the resistance, who said just what I just said. Laugh all you want, but that is what it going to happen. As soon as we leave, the Sunni's win.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
McCain, pandering to the right wing. It hurts to see him doing this, 'cause I rather liked him as a straight shooter. Amazing what a desire for the presidency can do to a person.

Gatekeeper

except calling for more troops is exactly what McCain has been doing for over 2 years, including back when the right wing hated him for attacking their precious Rumsfeld.

[Arrian]

You really thought that attacking Iran in retaliation for their mucking about in Iraq was a viable option? Explain.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Laugh all you want, but that is what it going to happen. As soon as we leave, the Sunni's win.

Not if Iran has anything to do with it.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Psst, the Soviet Union has crumbled and China is now a proto-Capitalist state.

We won without fighting a nuclear war.

The wars we did not win were the wars I identified, SK and Vietnam. We chose not to fight communism, but to wait it out. Communism fell of its own accord because of its bad economics.

[Arrian]

Which was a basically sound overall strategy.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It is good to see you back Ned. This place just wasn't the same without you.

When the only colors you see are shades of red, from pale pink to bright red, I understand how you feel when the other colors of the rainbow make their presence known.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
You really thought that attacking Iran in retaliation for their mucking about in Iraq was a viable option? Explain.

-Arrian

As soon as you have evidence of smuggling of weapons, fighters, etc you launch a surgical strike. If the evidence is clearer wrt Syria, so much the better, as you can then use Syria as an example for the Iranians. You escalate as needed. Of course you offer to talk as well. Now in THOSE circumstances reaching out to talk with Iran and Syria would have made complete sense, as then youd have leverage.

That they didnt was due to A. Their belief that the Iranian govt would fall imminently anyway. I also thought that possible, but then I wasnt privy to whatever intell they had. B. The narrowness of their support at home, which could have been remedied at any of several points, but not after things began to look worse, spring 2004. C. Rumsfelds continued apparent belief that nothing that happens in the Mid east is important as preparing the military for war with China.