Why Iraq Was a Mistake

1. Please point out where I have harassed or abused you.

2. I did not "assume" that you were one of those people. I asked you if you were one of those people.

 

1. I'm sorry, I don't see examples of good decisions. Could you quote that for me?

2. I cannot recall a time when the informed general view was that the Iraqi's were safe. Are you referring to the time when Saddam was sending them in mass to die in Iran, or was it when he sent them to invade Kurait, or was it when he was gassing them and burying them in mass graves at home?

 

1. Check post no. 73. I gave you few examples of good decisions
2. They were safe from foreign troops

It is no different when Bush administration decided to send American tropps to die in Iraq for absolutely no reasons

 

I don't disagree ... however, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan followed by the invasion of Iraq weren't simply forward planning for the situation we now find being played out between Iran and the US / UN? Both countries give a definite strategic regional advantage and act as the perfect forward staging post for attacking Iran while keeping the war localised to the region. So in that respect, I'm not so sure if the war in Iraq was a mistake or a precursor ...

 

ARGHHHGHHG... I thought you were serious.

That's like saying that an El Al 747 that is hijacked by Libyans is "safe from the Israeli Army" until the rescue mission is executed.

Oh please. We've already been over this. For a quick refresher, read this post.

 

You are very close.

Afghanistan was a necessary requirement after 9/11, but is a horrible location from which to stage a war with Iran.

First, of course, Afghanistan has no sea access. You can't stage a modern war without deep water ports. Guess what Iraq has?

The second consideration is one that is more unique to Iran. Iran is one of the worlds most mountainous countries. Driving a M1 Abrams from Afghanistan to Iran just isn't going to happen.

The people (not you or I) who think only politically and not militarily are completely lost in attempting to analyze world events.

 

And now do you see how none of those things are happening

when the war fist started they said there was like 20,000 insurgents, supposedly, now we have supposed killed or captured 50,000 , so like over the course of the war they not only generated an extra 30,000 fighters for us ot kill , but also generated enough to refill thier ranks

Iraq war will be ending soon, the country wants out, people will be voting for everyone who says they will bring the troops home.

 

ferret:

I've looked, but for the life of me I cannot find what you could possibly be replying to.

Can you add in some quoted text that explains your comments in context?

 

You know, McFox and Will, I had not been thinking of it from this perspective, and I admit my bias is to look first to underlying, at times traditional and entrenched social structures, pods of domestic power, and the like; it's always been my bent and military geo-political considerations are just not "in my ken" first and foremost. A flaw. I would agree with you, Will, that absent military and strategic considerations, no effective analysis can take place.

I would extend this, though, to say that absent political analysis, one is also completely lost in analyzing world events. And this is where I think we have made a critical error from the start. Quickest and easiest example is the failure to realize that the sunni-shia cleavage was a helluva lot stronger than the Bush Administration knew (or, if known, admitted) and trying to implement, by caveat, a constitutional democracy without taking this into account was a flawed policy from the start. I argue it is, in this day and age, wholly irresponsible to ignite a war until such underlying considerations are well understood.

Until these underlying cleavages are addressed, it will be deep doo-doo in Iraq, and likely a broader regional schism than we bargained for. I also happen to think that this bugaboo is no bugaboo - this is not Kennan's Soviet Union, and no policy of containment, in the same model, will work. The movement is broader, and more deeply pervasive. Hence, all the more reason to know what the hell we are doing underneath, before going in with guns blazing. Guns will not cure the 8 year old kid's view of Satan from his ulamic school education.

 

Iraq is well on its way to becoming, a peaceful demeocratic islamic nation?

You think we can just "flip" a culture, how many years have sunnis and shiites not gotten along?

So we just go in there with a bunch of tanks and soldiers, who mostly kids, and just "flip" em. Just like we just go in there and "flip" em

Come on guys lets just get this "flip"ing going

 

I concur that you must also have the political and cultural models for an effective analysis.

Then we break into some very interesting ground for agreement. When we (I think it was George himself) announced that Iraq would remain one state and would not break up into smaller states I said WHAT THE HELL? WHO ARE WE TO TELL THEM HOW TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES? I know that part of this was due to our alliance with the Turks and part was a (potentially mistaken) feeling that it was neccessary to assure the Iraqi's that we were not trying to destroy their country. In particular, I felt that we were not keeping faith with the Kurds of Northern Iraq. In the long run, Iraq was and is an artificial state. It may do better as a number of smaller states. But, that's not up to us.

Regarding the Shia/Sunni schism... that's only the tip of the iceberg. In the Muslim world, Sunni's murder Sunni's and Shia's murder Shia's. The family and the small group of families (or tribe) are also extremely important.

Unfortunately, here's where we're going to disagree wildly. We can't wait until we understand this culture completely to act. We can't wait until we know the entire path before we set out on this journey. We are going to have to take the data we have now, make decisions, and act. As we act, we must analyze new data and constantly adjust with new strategies.

Knowing this, we are going to make mistakes. This is going to be a long and unpleasant conflict for everyone involved, even the winners.

On a more humorous note, have you read TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2: ARAB CULTURAL AWARENESS: 58 FACTSHEETS? It's a guide to Arab culture for 18 year old G.I.'s. For what it is, it is very well done. Because of what it is, it is pretty funny.

 

ferret, ferret, ferret... who told you this was going to be easy?

Let me quote for you a later except from the same message:

Liberty and freedom are the most precious things in the entire Universe. They aren't cheap. They aren't easy. But -- they are worth the price.

 

Will, about to take the lad out for some ice cream (a far more important thing than my blustery on this fine morning), so haven't had time to look more deeply at this or your earlier referenced post.

Just wanted to say, here at least, in wholehearted agreement, and glad to see you say it. Any facile look at cleavages is just that, facile. Too many will now launch onto the sunni-shia split as the cleavage of choice, when others may be far more salient, as you point out. Religion is easy, but language, regionalism, tribal allegiances, industrial-rural, educated-illiterate (intelligentsia privy to ideas outside the local purview). So many.

And you're right, here is where we part ways. I say it is absolutely imperative to know these bases first. If analyses of these things is a scalpel, war is a cudgel, and may bring on wholly unwanted results if the first isn't known. But I will give a more deserving reply at some point after my son stops tugging his pa's hair to get the hell outside.

 

So true ferret

 

Funny though. We have not been attacked though since 9/11. Wonder how you explain that? Hmmm....

 

will, we arn't even really fighting al queda people in iraq, we are mostly fighting iraqis now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

Thye have been gasing up the Al Queda thing like every other line of BS since the war started, we found the trailers that have the WMDs, we will be greeted as liberators, there is only 20,000 insurgents, its all lies

The shinning democracy is not happening, people of the US don't have patience for stuff like this, they are going to vote for people who say they will bring the troops home. Every politican has pretty much flipped to a bring the troops home stance. Not everyone is hanging tough in colorado, most people see the war as big waste of lives and money.

Do you think more or less people are dieing in Iraq now or under saddam, I mean on average. Do you really think its less now?

Whatever good that could have have came out of iraq has mostly been blown away.

I'm sure all the families of people who have been killed and maimed so far are with you on that, I'm sure they sit around and say how great it is that there kid got to die for ... what are they going to get another islamic state where woman were rucksacks and people get their hands chopped of for stealing bread. I would be so stoked if one of my family memebers got to be maimed so some iraqis can have an islamic state ... yippie

 

Look who is trolling?

But they haven't. How do you explain this? Where have you been the last 5 years, on an alternate plain with "Dutch" Dalton?

Really, like what?

 

How many years did they wait between the attack before 9/11 and 9/11?

 

Are you ok?

 

Do you know? What was latest terrorist attack on the US before 911? What attack preceeded 911? How many years was it before?

First trade center attack was in 93?

So going 5 years without a terrorist attack on the US isn't really surprising.How long did they plan 911 , years right?