"I am still confused as to why they chose to lie"

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ah, there's the rub. First and foremost, I'm not sure there was one that would've resulted in a flawless victory, as it were. I was anti-war in large part b/c I didn't think we could pull off what our government seemed to want to pull off. Second, in my own words (from 2003), "an Iraqi Marshall Plan." Which, to me, meant a HUGE undertaking. Very expensive, and involving more troops.

The Marshall Plan isn't a valid comparison. Again the whole cultural thing. Our Allies weren't exactly working against us in rebuilding their countries, were they? The German majority wanted stability and peace at any cost and didn't support partisan resistance movements. Japan likewise. We don't have that in the NME.

The Marshall Plan also pumped billions into Communist held East Europe. Again, we had cooperation of an idealogical enemy because stability and peace were more important than political posturing in those matters. We don't have that in the NME.

Note also we were only occupying half of Germany, while the Soviets were occupying the much greater territory in the East. Imagine if the US and Britain had to occupy Eastern Europe and defend against Commie and Fascist partisan guerrilla forces. That Marshall Plan wouldn't have been such a stunning success.

The problem, of course, is that Bush's diplomacy was so atrocious that the "coalition" was a joke, so troops were hard to come by. Having utterly failed to build a strong enough coalition, the prudent move would've been to call the whole thing off.

We didn't have a coalition not because Bush's diplomacy was "atrocious" but because all the initial negotiations that take place away from the cameras were rebuffed. That forced Bush to either abandon it entirely, or play it out in front of the cameras to force a measure of cooperation in the Security Council.

We now know that reticence was partly because some French and German officials were on the take. It was also because of idiots who thought such a war would involve WW2-like carpet bombing and artillery sieges resulting in mass civilian death. And idiots who thought there would be hundreds of thousands of casualties in the military from WW2-like strategic-scale battles. People who, apparently, learned nothing from GW1.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why in the sam hell would any of the countries who opposed the war in the first place have agreed to come help us clean up the mess we made? WTF?

We hauled off and did something they thought was stupid/unecessary/wrong, and were all sorts of arrogant and insulting to them in the process. In what universe would they (or should they) come bail us out?

Once again, it isn't about bailing us out. We can take the heat despite all the lefty-liberal whining. It's about the Iraqi people and their future. It's about defusing some of the sectarian tensions in the NME. Like I said, stupid to think they would look past their own noses.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
That's odd. I seem to recall that the Iraqi army was defeated and Saddam deposed. That was the primary mission, and it was accomplished. And at first the insurgents were exactly as described. It didn't take long for that to change, but that doesn't make the initial assessment incorrect even if that assessment was held too long.

The Iraqi army never showed up, and the prewar talk extended to issues beyond simply deposing Saddam. Wolfowitz and Perle and a lot of right-wing talking heads made the "beacon of democracy" case, and mentioned nonsense like Iraq becoming the swing producer for OPEC, yada yada yada.

You can play semantic/dating games regarding the insurgents, and even go back to a day when you could claim there were zero insurgents. The assessments for public consumption, when made, were always behind the times, and tried to minimize any negative news. Too bad that the admin and then-current leadership seemed to buy in to their own pronouncements.

I think you'll find that discussions about reconstruction occured after "mission accomplished," so we couldn't exactly "go back a bit further" to find those statements.

Reconstruction issues were mentioned before the war started, but Rummy in particular didn't want to hear about it, so any serious discussion of the obvious issues were squelched.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the intent was to pay our own contractors to do all the reconstruction.

Yes, we were going to let the French and Swedes bid, too.

Other than infrastructure we believed the Iraqis would want to rebuild their own houses, businesses, and economy. Like the Kuwaitis did.

First, "reconstruction" doesn't imply houses and local businesses. We didn't give a **** about that in WW2, it's a private property/private enterprise problem. Reconstruction has always been scoped to public facilities - infrastructure, governmental, and financial systems.

We had, or had available, pretty solid assessments of the state of the Iraqi economy and how badly things were broken in the public sector, while Saddam built his palaces and took bribes and kickbacks in the oil for food program. Nobody in this administration wanted to pay much attention to reality on the ground if it didn't fit in with their rosy view.

But MtG sees all, understands all.

Nice strawman. Actually, not even a half-assed strawman. Which pair of boots was Dubya wearing this morning?

A small flicker of intelligent analysis (the 10% that was consequential) shows through the smokescreen... then it's right back to polemic rant:

I have a small glimmer of your approval. Now my life is complete.

Is Iraq likely to conquer peaceful neighbors or develop weapons of mass destruction any time soon?

Iraq wasn't in a condition to do either before we invaded, nor was it close to attaining those capabilities. As far as what Iraq may do soon, it depends on your definition of soon to me.

Is Afghanistan a refuge where OBL and company can freely operate and train terrorists?

OBL and AAZ are still at large, most likely protected in tribal areas of our beloved "ally" south of Afghanistan, while best indications are that Mullah Omar is still in the area of Kandahar. AQs operations have become more decentralized, and the administration (and most of the rest of the world) still considers them a serious threat, so it seems reasonable that they still have a recruiting, operating and training capability.

That sounds like success to me.

Bull****. Five years ago, if you were to define "success" as OBL, AAZ and Mullah Omar at large, AQ decentralized but still considered a threat, both Afghanistan and Iraq with impotent, disfunctional central goverments and ongoing warfare in both countries

AQ is effectively dead. That sounds like success to me.

Find any senior intelligence or government official in the US who will publicly state that line?

Well, that covers the nine-tenths of that [MtG] rant that were inconsequential, and the one tenth on the mark. Oops, no, the Oracle has more to speak unto the benighted:

Gee. Must have hit a nerve.

Now to the point raised: who said anything about 2002 and 2003? This is about rebuilding and fighting insurgents. That's 2004 and on.

So you're stating that the administration had no advance plans, and prior to or during the invasion, made no attempts to anticipate issues related to occupation of Iraq which would inevitably occur after the invasion? Point, set, match.

MtG, of course, knows all and sees all.

Gee, another straw man.

He warned of all these things in advance, before the war was even fought. Oh, wait a minute, he has only taken this position in hindsight.

I stated from the outset that the level of US forces used in the invasion were insufficient for occupation and security, yes.

I also stated my opinion (God forbid, since it doesn't agree with yours ) that the "light" footprint in Afghanstan and reliance on local warlords would be largely ineffective at doing more than dispersing the Taleban and AQ. Actually, even before the invasion of Afghanistan, I posted in some detail at CFC, at Chris Poulos' invitation (hadn't registered there before or posted there since) and talked about the significance of containing Ghazni, Khowst and the routes from Parachinar into southeast Afghanistan.

I also stated my belief that there was no pressing national security need to invade Iraq at the time, although the goal of removing Hussein at some point was "worthwhile." I also advocated a much more agressive, larger force response (a surge, if you will ), very early on in Falluja, ar Ramadi and other areas of the Sunni triangle, before the "security contractors" were barbecued, before the Marines went in, etc.

You have been more consistent than I though, I will admit: You have been an absolute defender Bush's policies regardless of the results before, and you still are.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Colour me skeptical that "international solidarity" would've made a meaningful difference.

When their trade and technology partners put real pressure on them, they respond. That's what I mean by solidarity, not a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing songs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Colour me skeptical that "international solidarity" would've made a meaningful difference.

When their trade and technology partners put real pressure on them, they respond. That's what I mean by solidarity, not a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing songs.

You mean Russia?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Colour me skeptical that "international solidarity" would've made a meaningful difference.

When their trade and technology partners put real pressure on them, they respond. That's what I mean by solidarity, not a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing songs.

The only hippie here is you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
Once again, we saw in Kuwait that "brown people" were perfectly capable of rebuilding their own country. Many US and European contractors made themselves available and the Kuwaitis largely paid for it themselves.

The Kuwaitis had:

(a) A small country, with far less extensive infrastructure.
(b) ****loads of money all over the world, untouched by the invasion.
(c) A small population, a very large number of which were temporary foreign workers. (Useful when needed, bootable when not)
(d) Damage related to a few months of Iraqi occupation, a few weeks of highly focused aerial bombardment (which did relatively little damage to Kuwaiti infrastructure), and half-assed, inconsistent and often spontaneous destruction at and close to the time the Iraqis were pushed out.
(e) Huge logistical advantages for import and distribution of raw materials compared to Iraq.
(f) A monarchy with business operations and financial sophistication and a relatively limited bureaucracy in the areas where it counts, with an ability to get things done.
(g) More modern and operationally sound infrastructure and energy sectors to begin with.


The Iraqis have:

(a) a much larger country with relatively poor infrastructure in many areas in the best of times.
(b) Over a decade of sanctions, with limited outside access to funds, and most of that squandered for palaces, Baath party corruption and various other sinkholes
(c) A large population with high unemployment, degraded/outdated skills in relation to a modern economy, and quality and mix of labor pools seriously distorted from the norms in "functional" mideast states.
(d) Damage in some cases dating back to the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the gulf war, looting, sanctions, years of poor to non-existent maintenance, etc.
(e) Ignoring the security issues, significant constraints on port capacity, rail and road for import of large quantities of imported materials
(f) An inept, megalomaniacal, kleptocratic dictatorship with policies administered by an inept, corrupt and pervasive bureaucracy. (Unlike Kuwait, you couldn't put the same system/people back to running things in most cases)
(g) A mish-mash of technology levels, capability and maintenance status due to Iraq's dodgy relationships and business dealings dating back to the 70's.

All of the issues regarding Iraq were well known before invasion, and any comparison to the reconstruction in Kuwait is just ignorant.

[Straybow]

MtG, so much of your polemic sounds like sour grapes. Like someone who feels personally betrayed. Were you an advisor to the Bush admin who was disregarded and washed out? No? Then I'm not feelin' your pain. At least you haven't swung into the kook fringe like Ted.

Your objection that going into Iraq was unnecessary is noted. But I would say going into Afghanistan was also unnecessary. All we really needed to do was improve our own security measures.

We wanted to capture or kill OBL, and felt justified in doing so, and our allies felt it was justified. We had the agreement of our own "loyal opposition." The small footprint decision was made for other reasons. For example, we have limited ability to supply our forces in land-locked territory.

The admin wanted to limit involvement to specialized troops. They actually didn't want to go in there as bigshot Americans pushing everybody around, which is a good thing. It also has it's weaknesses, as we've all seen. Get over it.

We also wanted to depose Saddam. The "we" here is a smaller segment of the political spectrum. Most of the reasons given for opposition, at the time, were so blatantly partisan or idiotic as to have no weight in the admin's eyes. Did they paper over some legitimate opposition? Seems to be so; get over it.

Now we're in Iraq and everyone wants to be a prophet who predicted the doom of this venture. It does absolutely no good. It doesn't help the Iraqis (you know, the people who are actually suffering). It doesn't make the insurgents go away. It doesn't help the soldiers fight them. It doesn't even really make political careers unless they are facing redistricting or something like that.

I never start these discussions, I only respond to the whining or the vitriolic bile people spew. It has nothing to do with being some sort of Bushie; I'm not (other than the vast idealogical chasm that makes Bush preferable than the opposition). There is a reality out here other than their conspiracy theories.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Iraqis have:

(a) a much larger country with relatively poor infrastructure in many areas in the best of times.
(b) Over a decade of sanctions, with limited outside access to funds, and most of that squandered for palaces, Baath party corruption and various other sinkholes
(c) A large population with high unemployment, degraded/outdated skills in relation to a modern economy, and quality and mix of labor pools seriously distorted from the norms in "functional" mideast states.
(d) Damage in some cases dating back to the Iran-Iraq war, as well as the gulf war, looting, sanctions, years of poor to non-existent maintenance, etc.
(e) Ignoring the security issues, significant constraints on port capacity, rail and road for import of large quantities of imported materials
(f) An inept, megalomaniacal, kleptocratic dictatorship with policies administered by an inept, corrupt and pervasive bureaucracy. (Unlike Kuwait, you couldn't put the same system/people back to running things in most cases)
(g) A mish-mash of technology levels, capability and maintenance status due to Iraq's dodgy relationships and business dealings dating back to the 70's.

All of the issues regarding Iraq were well known before invasion, and any comparison to the reconstruction in Kuwait is just ignorant.

Sounds like reconstruction problems weren't due to lack of planning on our part.

Now, if you want to say we bit off more than we could chew, you'd have a point. But everybody seems to be having rhetorical orgasms attacking a lack of a "plan" that would mystically make all these problems go away.

[Arrian]

Straybow,

There is a reason I put "Iraqi Marshall Plan" in quotes like I did. I know that Iraq circa 2003 is not terribly analogous to Europe in 1946. The point is that I was envisioning a truely MASSIVE reconstruction effort resulting in the employment of millions of Iraqis (instead, say, of disbanding the army, failing to clear out the weapons depots, and having no particular plan to create employment. BRILLIANT!).

-Arrian

[Straybow]

First, "reconstruction" doesn't imply houses and local businesses. We didn't give a **** about that in WW2, it's a private property/private enterprise problem. Reconstruction has always been scoped to public facilities - infrastructure, governmental, and financial systems.

Not so. Housing was definitely an issue in cities in post-WW2 reconstruction. And the purpose to reconstruction is to allow local businesses to resume operation and rebuild the economy.

OBL and AAZ are still at large, most likely protected in tribal areas of our beloved "ally" south of Afghanistan, while best indications are that Mullah Omar is still in the area of Kandahar. AQs operations have become more decentralized, and the administration (and most of the rest of the world) still considers them a serious threat, so it seems reasonable that they still have a recruiting, operating and training capability.

A serious threat, as in, they still intend to harm and will bring all their resources to bear, yes. Serious threat, as in, we're shakin' in our boots... no.

Bull****. Five years ago, if you were to define "success" as OBL, AAZ and Mullah Omar at large, AQ decentralized but still considered a threat, both Afghanistan and Iraq with impotent, disfunctional central goverments and ongoing warfare in both countries

Not so. The first question asked was, "What if you can't capture OBL?" Then we'll damage them as much as we can.

AQ is effectively dead. That sounds like success to me.

Find any senior intelligence or government official in the US who will publicly state that line?

I caught a little of something a week or so ago (sorry, can't be more specific and a quick google didn't help) in which a senior intelligence guy said the AQ command structure was 85% destroyed. The real threat, he said, wasn't so much AQ as the lesson OBL taught by example. Whether AQ rebulds its network or not, independent cells can operate on a shoestring budget without a complicated structure, drawing from local resources by theft, drug-dealing, etc.

[Ned]

Plan? I think what has happened in Iraq was highly predictable and there is very little we could have done to lesson its impacts except to get out quickly, and this required us to maintain the Iraqi army and essently turn the country over to it.

Why do I say this: Lebanon. Our forces arrived with the best of intentions and with the support, it seems, of the people. But soon one element, in the pay of Iran, began attacking us. Our position there quickly became untennable, and we had to pull out. There was no choice.

Thus I fully expected the same thing to happen in Iraq, which it did in spades. AQ and the Baathists on one side. Sadr and the Iranians on the other. All of them want us gone and are attacking us and each other.

Again, I say, there is absolutely nothing we ever could do or can do about this except to get out as fast as possible But since we disbanded the Iraqi army in 2003, we have had to replace it. This has been going on for years, now, and if anything is wrong in Iraq, it is the pace of equipping and traning of this army. We got out of Vietnam in less time.

The main reason Bush I did not depose Saddam is that he and his administration directly experienced Lebanon and knew what would happen in Iraq. It is a wonder that Bush II refused to listen to his Dad and the other advisors from the Reagan-Bush era who told him point blank that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
Sounds like reconstruction problems weren't due to lack
of planning on our part.

Actually, they're exactly the sort of problems which can be anticipated and planned for. The planning, logistics, engineering, construction and operational details (sanctions and war damage vs other forms of neglect and vandalism) aren't that different in concept from major development/redevelopment problems in the the third world.

Security turned out to be another issue, but the consensus view was that security was not going to be a problem - that's not a reason for lack of occupation/reconstruction planning.

The scale is different, but that's primarily an administrative/contracting/cost matter, not a barrier to feasibility and not an excuse for lack of planning.

Now, if you want to say we bit off more than we could chew, you'd have a point.

We could have chewed it if we used more than three teeth.

But everybody seems to be having rhetorical orgasms attacking a lack of a "plan" that would mystically make all these problems go away.

That's probably because the majority of these problems were predictable, and in large part, solvable or mitigable.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Arrian
There is a reason I put "Iraqi Marshall Plan" in quotes like I did. I know that Iraq circa 2003 is not terribly analogous to Europe in 1946. The point is that I was envisioning a truely MASSIVE reconstruction effort resulting in the employment of millions of Iraqis (instead, say, of disbanding the army, failing to clear out the weapons depots, and having no particular plan to create employment. BRILLIANT!).

I appreciate your meaning, but that kind of thing wasn't (and isn't) going to happen without close cooperation of all the major Western powers. Waving money around isn't the obstacle; we can do that part ourselves.

All we could do with the Iraqi Army is make them virtual prisoners of their camps. Yeah, that would go over well: internment camps.

We didn't have the human resources to organize, train, feed, and employ them. Just raising trustworthy, arabic/english-speaking human resources would've been more than the US and Britain can handle alone.

I suppose we could have rolled them bones and taken the chance at appointing Iraqis to the task. In the south most of the soldiers simply became the local Shia militias. That wouldn't have changed unless you want to try appointing Sunnis over them. Good luck.

Sadly, as long as the public gives tacit support for sectarianism then the extremists will have a free hand to bomb and kill in the name of Allah.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
MtG, so much of your polemic sounds like sour grapes. Like someone who feels personally betrayed. Were you an advisor to the Bush admin who was disregarded and washed out? No? Then I'm not feelin' your pain. At least you haven't swung into the kook fringe like Ted.

I don't like incompetence. Especially if I'm stuck footing the bill for it, but at least the FUBAR has set the price of oil for the indefinite future to a level where I'm making money hand over fist, like back in the Enron implosion and Cali deregulation fiasco.

The problem is all the other people who will be footing the bill for it, but personally, Bush's mismanagement has done me real well.