Assessing America's 'imperial failure' in Iraq

[hater]

Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq
By John Simpson

BBC World Affairs Editor, Baghdad


US troops have been packing up as their combat operation in Iraq officially ends "This," a leading American supporter of President George W Bush wrote in a British newspaper back in February 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, "is our imperial moment".

He went on to argue that the British had no right to criticise America for doing what they themselves had done so enthusiastically a century before.

But America's imperial moment did not last long. And now, seven years later, the US is criticised for just about everything that happens here.

Opinion is evenly divided between those who are glad to see the Americans go, and those who criticise them for leaving too soon and potentially laying Iraq open to fresh sectarian violence.

Bittersweet memories for Iraqis
Shrunken superpower
It is a pattern that every occupying power becomes used to. America, it seems, cannot do anything right - not even getting out.

Most of the arguments in favour of invading back in 2003 have come to nothing.

Many Iraqis welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - 50% regarded the invasion as a liberation, according to a BBC poll taken in 2004, while 50% regarded it as an occupation - but nowadays it is hard to find anyone who sees America as Iraq's friend and mentor.

Nor has the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to a general domino effect towards democracy throughout the Middle East.

On the contrary, America's position in the Middle East has been visibly eroded.

Some of the things done by the American authorities in Iraq, based in the Green Zone in Baghdad, were sober, positive and practical.

Some have become a burden, for instance the constitution the Americans wished on Iraq, which makes it fiendishly hard to create a decent effective government.

Grotesque mismanagement

And because the Green Zone administration was thrown together in a huge hurry back in 2002-03, overseen by former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - a man with no interest in nation-building - some of what was done involved grotesque levels of corruption and mismanagement.


The toppling of Saddam Hussein failed to trigger any domino effect in the Middle East Mr Rumsfeld was sent a careful, conscientious 900-page report by the state department containing detailed plans for the post-invasion period. He reportedly dumped it, unopened, straight into his waste-paper basket.

Iraqis, and some Americans, pile a good deal of the blame for what happened during this period on to Mr Rumsfeld's ally Paul Bremer, the temperamental pro-consul who often seemed unaware of what was going on right under his nose.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, when asked by the Saudi foreign minister why the US insisted on going ahead with the invasion, answered: "Because it's do-able."

But the problem began even higher up.

A respected Iraqi dissident, who later became vice-president, has described how shocked he was to find, a few weeks before the invasion, that President Bush seemed wholly unaware that Muslims in Iraq were divided between Shia and Sunni Islam. :lmao

American generals seemed to despair of finding a solution to the growing insurgency.

Petraeus's luck

The US forces, contrary to all the basic rules of counter-insurgency, allowed the enemy to attack "Route Irish", the main road between Baghdad airport and the Green Zone, as and when it chose.

British soldiers, used to Northern Ireland, pointed out again and again that occasional nervous sorties in armoured vehicles were not the same as taking control of it.

Their American counterparts took no notice, and the situation grew worse.

It took an expert in counter-terrorism, Gen David Petraeus, to turn the situation around. Like most successful generals, he had luck on his side.

Gen Petraeus understood that insurgencies have a specific life-span, and he was fortunate enough to arrive in Baghdad at the time when the Iraqi insurgency was starting to wind down.

Sunni Muslims were increasingly sick of the violence that Sunni extremists were causing, and he encouraged the growth of Awakening Councils which enabled moderate Sunnis to rise up and deal with both Baathists and supporters of al-Qaeda.

The supply of people willing to become suicide bombers began to dwindle.

Gen Petraeus's tactics turned the tide. At the height of the violence something like 100 people were dying each day across the country from bombings and shootings.

Now the number killed in political violence has dropped to about 10 a day - unacceptable in a more peaceable society, but a great relief here.

Uncertain future

Yet many Iraqis fear that with the Americans no longer here in force, and the Iraqi army and police still lacking sufficient training, the violent extremists on both the Sunni and the Shia sides could start fighting again.

That is the usual fate of an occupying force.

Vast numbers of people have died, the overwhelming majority of them Iraqi.

Unthinkably large amounts of money have been spent here, and yet Iraq has slipped far down the world's rich list.

Has the United States benefited? It is hard to see how.

As the British learned in the Boer War, and Russia learned by invading Afghanistan, great military powers run big risks by putting their strength to the test against weak-seeming opponents.

America seems to have shrunk as a direct result of its imperial adventure in Iraq.

It will have to work very hard to persuade the rest of the world that it is strong again.

[nkdlunch]

http://jeremiasx.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/mission-accomplished.jpg

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The Iraq war is going to turn out to be worst American fuck up in history.

[clambake]

the worst fuck up was lying their way into it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

the worst fuck up was lying their way into it.

no, that was the administration's worst fuck up. I'm talking as far as repercussions for the US go.

[clambake]

no, that was the administration's worst fuck up. I'm talking as far as repercussions for the US go.

americans already expect the worst. that stigma has already worn off.

[George Gervin's Afro]

the worst fuck up was lying their way into it.

let the past go..... why are you dwelling on george bush?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm not talking about public opinion either. Stigma has nothing to do with it. There are very real repercussions coming America's way, some of which you're feeling right now. Iraq isn't going to become the shinning beacon of democracy in the middle east that Bush's administration promised. I honestly can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to ever believe it would be.

Iraq is already a tumor but it'll become the cancer its promising to be, not just for America, but for all western culture. I don't have a clue how you're supposed to deal with that though.

[clambake]

I'm not talking about public opinion either. Stigma has nothing to do with it.
in the end, americans only give a shit about themselves.

There are very real repercussions coming America's way, some of which you're feeling right now.
if you lost a son or daughter, then i agree. if not, americans are shallow....and don't give a shit. this is the attitude that got them here.

Iraq isn't going to become the shinning beacon of democracy in the middle east that Bush's administration promised. I honestly can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to ever believe it would be.
no shit. i'm from ireland. i knew they were lying when they presented their case to the UN.

Iraq is already a tumor but it'll become the cancer its promising to be, not just for America, but for all western culture. I don't have a clue how you're supposed to deal with that though.
they'll walk around, with chest puffed, shouting about how great they are.

believe me, they don't give a shit.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I disagree, I think they give quite a bit of shit. Not much they can do about it though, can they? Other than holding the Bush administration responsible.

[clambake]

I disagree, I think they give quite a bit of shit. Not much they can do about it though, can they? Other than holding the Bush administration responsible.

haven't you heard? bush is living well, for 2 years now, in dallas.

its almost as if he never existed.

[DarrinS]

Angry white people making loud noises

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0406/Democrats_anti-war_rally_NY_Image2.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"Not much they can do about it though, can they"

citizens can't do shit about anything. The country doesn't belong to them anymore.

[nkdlunch]

"Not much they can do about it though, can they"

citizens can't do shit about anything. The country doesn't belong to them anymore.

it never did

[The Reckoning]

its close to being the worst fuckup, but theres no topping the Civil War and Vietnam...

[in2deep]

Civil war? civil war had to happen.

Vietnam or Iraq didn't

[hater]

The Iraq war is going to turn out to be worst American fuck up in history.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/5030904_8914386_mywrite/vietnam.jpg

mmm no

[Stringer_Bell]

Angry white people making loud noises

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0406/Democrats_anti-war_rally_NY_Image2.jpg

White people get angry about a lot of stuff, but I don't think those white people were angry due to some conspiracy theory suggesting Bush was born in Kenya or a secret Muslim. If I recall correctly, it was because he invaded 2 countries during his first term as President AFTER his administration displayed total incompetance when it came to preventing the 9/11 attacks on which he and his administration founded those 2 wars on. Ya, I know, hard to believe that this country was stupid enough to actually believe anything Bush said - but a lot of people have died for nothing.

[The Reckoning]

Civil war? civil war had to happen.

not really, and even if it did, not to the extent of which it did. imo - time, competant leadership and diplomacy could have achieved everything that the civil war did and more.

[hater]

not really, and even if it did, not to the extent of which it did. imo - time, competant leadership and diplomacy could have achieved everything that the civil war did and more.

you mean the way it's working in the middle east?

when both sides have $ to lose, that don't work

[The Reckoning]

i was talking about the civil war.

the only way to deal in the middle east is to not get involved, throw some cash at it and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

[AFBlue]

The Iraq war is going to turn out to be worst American fuck up in history.

Hyperbole...it's not even the worst f* up to date.

Vietnam saw several thousand more casualties, similar political impact (degraded rep as world leader), and worst of all...they came home with no resolution whatsoever. At least in the case of Iraq, we can say that we ousted an oppressive leader/regime and attempted to promote a democratic government in its place.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure it's hyperbole. I really can't think of an action of this scale the US purposely undertook that was more wrong. Given that there isn't really a government in Iraq seven years after the invasion, I can't say there is a resolution there.

[AFBlue]

I'm not sure it's hyperbole. I really can't think of an action of this scale the US purposely undertook that was more wrong. Given that there isn't really a government in Iraq seven years after the invasion, I can't say there is a resolution there.

We were going to win the war against communists by going to Vietnam? And nothing had changed by the time we left, after sacrificing 10 times as many American soldiers.

About Iraq's lack of a government able to protect its people...you're preaching to the choir, which is why I don't think we should've left. But at least this government offers the possibility for freedoms that its people would not have otherwise enjoyed if Sadam were still in power.

And the original statement WAS hyperbole because he said it's going to turn out to be the worst f* up in American history...but there's a lot of history left to be made. And if/when America crumbles, I'm pretty sure whatever led to that occuring will be seen as the worst f* up...not some decision to go into Iraq.

[clambake]

it was gonna happen anyway, when we stop paying them not to kill us.

[4>0rings]

The Iraq war is going to turn out to be worst American fuck up in history.Slavery, Vietnam, indian genocide, and civil war say hi.

[ChumpDumper]

We were going to win the war against communists by going to Vietnam? And nothing had changed by the time we left, after sacrificing 10 times as many American soldiers.Eh, I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the communist monolith seemed scarier back then than the Muslim monolith.


About Iraq's lack of a government able to protect its people...you're preaching to the choir, which is why I don't think we should've left. But at least this government offers the possibility for freedoms that its people would not have otherwise enjoyed if Sadam were still in power.What good is freedom if you are dead? Or just trade for another dictator in a few years? Why was it our place to decide what is best for them in the first place? We haven't done that in other places.


And the original statement WAS hyperbole because he said it's going to turn out to be the worst f* up in American history...but there's a lot of history left to be made. And if/when America crumbles, I'm pretty sure whatever led to that occuring will be seen as the worst f* up...not some decision to go into Iraq.It could certainly be seen as a real turning point in the United States' role in the world; especially in the context of squandering the worldwide goodwill and cooperation the US enjoyed for less than two years after 9/11. Time will tell.

[AFBlue]

Eh, I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the communist monolith seemed scarier back then than the Muslim monolith.

When you say "Muslim monolith" I assume you mean the extremists that would carry out terrorist actions. That aside, to me it's 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Communism had the Soviet Union as its face and Islamic Extremism has Al-Queda as its face...both well organized, well funded and capable of destruction. While I don't think our current brand of terrorist is capable of starting WWIII, I also think that the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply...hence, there's greater fear that some event will occur.



What good is freedom if you are dead? Or just trade for another dictator in a few years? Why was it our place to decide what is best for them in the first place? We haven't done that in other places.

Say what? Since the USSR folded and America became the pre-eminent super power, we have acted as the "world police" many times over. Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq.

And :lol at the "what good is freedom if you are dead?" comment. As if there wasn't death/murder under the previous regime.


It could certainly be seen as a real turning point in the United States' role in the world; especially in the context of squandering the worldwide goodwill and cooperation the US enjoyed for less than two years after 9/11. Time will tell.

The US role in the world will remain as long as we have the money and the guns. Personally, I think it's far more likely that we lose the money first and that our "demise" is related to some financial policies than a foreign policy decision to invade Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

When you say "Muslim monolith" I assume you mean the extremists that would carry out terrorist actions.No, I mean the perceived monolith that people like DarrinS propagate.
That aside, to me it's 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Communism had the Soviet Union as its face and Islamic Extremism has Al-Queda as its face...both well organized, well funded and capable of destruction. While I don't think our current brand of terrorist is capable of starting WWIII, I also think that the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply...hence, there's greater fear that some event will occur.Sorry, the communists had many more resources and weapons to threaten the US and the world. It's not even close.


Say what? Since the USSR folded and America became the pre-eminent super power, we have acted as the "world police" many times over. Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq.There were actual conflicts happening in those areas.


And :lol at the "what good is freedom if you are dead?" comment. As if there wasn't death/murder under the previous regime.Less than after our "liberation." Plus they had electricity.


The US role in the world will remain as long as we have the money and the guns. Personally, I think it's far more likely that we lose the money first and that our "demise" is related to some financial policies than a foreign policy decision to invade Iraq.Sure, our role as a huge military power will remain, but the American exceptionalism in foreign policy is dead as far as other countries are concerned.

[AFBlue]

Sorry, the communists had many more resources and weapons to threaten the US and the world. It's not even close.

Like I said, al-Queda is not likely to start WWIII, but these individuals have no fear of reprisal (i.e. MAD) so it makes them much more dangerous and unpredictable.


There were actual conflicts happening in those areas.

So you're saying the gassing of the Kurds or evidence of mass graves that were found weren't elements of genocide?


Less than after our "liberation." Plus they had electricity.

I'd like to see evidence of this. Of course, it will be hard to gather because so much of what went on under the Saddam regime was not public knowledge.


Sure, our role as a huge military power will remain, but the American exceptionalism in foreign policy is dead as far as other countries are concerned.

Dead for now...and either way, my point is that whatever leads to the downfall of this nation will ultimately be the "biggest f* up in its history"...and I sincerely doubt the decision to invade Iraq will lead to the downfall of this nation.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, al-Queda is not likely to start WWIII, but these individuals have no fear of reprisal (i.e. MAD) so it makes them much more dangerous and unpredictable.They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.


So you're saying the gassing of the Kurds or evidence of mass graves that were found weren't elements of genocide?I'm saying the US isn't responsible for those deaths. Anything after 2003, yes.


I'd like to see evidence of this. Of course, it will be hard to gather because so much of what went on under the Saddam regime was not public knowledge.So the deaths you don't know about outweigh the deaths you do know about. Nice.


Dead for now...and either way, my point is that whatever leads to the downfall of this nation will ultimately be the "biggest f* up in its history"...and I sincerely doubt the decision to invade Iraq will lead to the downfall of this nation.Vietnam sure didn't.

[AFBlue]

They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11. And their size actually makes them more difficult to uncover...makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks and carry out their plots.


I'm saying the US isn't responsible for those deaths. Anything after 2003, yes.

Your original comment asked when we started to decide for others what was best for them. My statement was that it had been going on since we became the pre-eminent superpower. Not sure how we arrived at your response above.


So the deaths you don't know about outweigh the deaths you do know about. Nice.

I didn't say anything about which deaths "outweigh" the others. I just challenged you to provide proof that more death/murders are carried out now than were under Saddam's oppressive regime. I honestly don't think you can.


Vietnam sure didn't.

What's great is that I never said Vietnam did. I said that Iraq wasn't even the worst to date and cited Vietnam. I don't know what will be looked at as the worst f* up by America in its history when all is said and done...but I sincerely doubt it's Iraq.

[Winehole23]

I sincerely doubt you're right. (I do hope you turn out to be right.)

[clambake]

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11.
it was predicted.

[ChumpDumper]

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11. And their size actually makes them more difficult to uncover...makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks and carry out their plots.9/11 was predicted by several parties. Others failed to listen.


Your original comment asked when we started to decide for others what was best for them. My statement was that it had been going on since we became the pre-eminent superpower. Not sure how we arrived at your response above.We decided that a democracy was best for them and directly and indirectly killed several thousand of them as a result of our decision.


I didn't say anything about which deaths "outweigh" the others. I just challenged you to provide proof that more death/murders are carried out now than were under Saddam's oppressive regime. I honestly don't think you can.And you can't prove otherwise. All that can be proved is the thousands dead because of our invasion. That cannot be disputed.


What's great is that I never said Vietnam did. I said that Iraq wasn't even the worst to date and cited Vietnam. I don't know what will be looked at as the worst f* up by America in its history when all is said and done...but I sincerely doubt it's Iraq.You are free to disagree. Time will tell.

[AFBlue]

9/11 was predicted by several parties. Others failed to listen.

And the USS Cole? Kobar Towers? The train bombings in Spain? I cited the 9/11 terrorist attack because it's the most well known, but these other attacks were carried out by al-Queda operatives and were not predicted or prevented.

Yes, they are unpredictable and small enough to slip through the cracks.


We decided that a democracy was best for them and directly and indirectly killed several thousand of them as a result of our decision.

We decided that Saddam was a threat to our national security and that a new government would be better for everyone, not just Iraqis.

[clambake]

ha

[boutons_deux]

$547 Million Can’t Paper Over Failure of Afghanistan War

The Pentagon’s public relations machine is working overtime these days trying to sell a theme of “progress” in Afghanistan to push back against calls to end the war. The message machine behind this push is gargantuan, costing $547 million and employing more than 27,000 people.

“This year, the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations — almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department. …[T]he Pentagon’s rapidly expanding media empire…is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies.

“$547 million goes into public affairs, which reaches American audiences. And about $489 million more goes into what is known as psychological operations, which targets foreign audiences.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/02/547-million-cant-paper-over-failure-of-afghanistan-war/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet#

==========

$500M of taxpayer dollars to lie to Americans

[Winehole23]

Defense is big government too, y'all.

[ChumpDumper]

And the USS Cole? Kobar Towers? The train bombings in Spain? I cited the 9/11 terrorist attack because it's the most well known, but these other attacks were carried out by al-Queda operatives and were not predicted or prevented.

Yes, they are unpredictable and small enough to slip through the cracks.9/11 was predicted in part because of the previous attacks. Fortunately for us, they don't deal much in small potatoes. It was largely our unwillingness to take the prediction seriously. Now we do.


We decided that Saddam was a threat to our national security and that a new government would be better for everyone, not just Iraqis.Were we right? And is it really our place to decide? Why not overthrow North Korea right now? Iran?

Make no mistake: we overthrew Saddam because it was easy. We just thought it would take care of -- and pay for -- itself afterward.

Colossal fuck up.

Historical fuck up.

[TinTin]

They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.


When you say they are a smaller group to boot, are you inferring that it is defeat them than the soviets?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saying the threat is smaller.

Always has been.

If the initial Afghanistan campaign hadn't relied so heavily on locals, it indeed might have been much easier to effectively eliminate AQ in 2001.

[Winehole23]

The invasion of Iraq and the broader war on terror implicitly raised Al Qaeda and terrorism to a level of (world-historical) importance they did not deserve.

[Winehole23]

And do not deserve now.

[TinTin]

I should have asked the question outright

When you said a much smaller group to boot, what did you mean

[ChumpDumper]

I should have asked the question outright

When you said a much smaller group to boot, what did you meanI meant there are only a few hundred members of Al Qaeda at best, compared to the millions of Communist members of armed forces back in the day -- hell, even today.

[AFBlue]

Colossal fuck up.

Historical fuck up.

Not bigger than Vietnam.

[AFBlue]

Defense is big government too, y'all.

It's my fundamental belief that government exists to protect the rights of its people...by means of force if necessary. I wouldn't mind a tax increase if it meant my dollars were going to securing those freedoms.

[ChumpDumper]

Not bigger than Vietnam.We're only halfway through this one. Give it time.

[AFBlue]

We're only halfway through this one. Give it time.

Actually I think the more time we spend there, the less long-term negative impact it has. As long as we continue to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during the invasion and train Iraqi security forces/police how to protect their own people, I think we'll continue to repair our relationship with the Iraqi people and the international community as a whole.

[Winehole23]

Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?

Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.

[Winehole23]

It's my fundamental belief that government exists to protect the rights of its people...by means of force if necessary. I wouldn't mind a tax increase if it meant my dollars were going to securing those freedoms.You didn't mention any freedoms. You only mentioned protection.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I think the more time we spend there, the less long-term negative impact it has. As long as we continue to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during the invasion and train Iraqi security forces/police how to protect their own people, I think we'll continue to repair our relationship with the Iraqi people and the international community as a whole.Good luck with that. I think ethnic and sectarian strife are the worst problems there and problems the US has done and can do nothing to help. Their continued presence is just a band-aid holding the country together, not wholly unlike the way Saddam's presence did.

[clambake]

when we leave, they'll get down to business. it doesn't matter.

[AFBlue]

Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?

Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.

We never even gained permanent territory in the North...the campaign was a failure in its entirety. At least with Iraq, we succeeded in ridding ourselves of a perceived threat. Yes we still have troops in Iraq, but being exposed to dangers of the region is much less impact than leaving a country battered and exposed to those threats that we indirectly opened it up to.

[Winehole23]

when we leave, they'll get down to business. it doesn't matter.*They* might not wait for us to leave if we linger too long.

[AFBlue]

You didn't mention any freedoms. You only mentioned protection.

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.

[clambake]

*They* might not wait for us to leave if we linger too long.

oh, i agree completely.

pure comedy thinking the current "regime" will survive.

[clambake]

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.

so, now iraq is us?

[boutons_deux]

"ridding ourselves of a perceived threat"

no, it was a bogus threat, a lie by the Repug/neo-c*nts.

and even if it were a threat (Saddam can strike USA with US troops next door in SA and pinning him down with flyovers and non-stop aerial surveillance?), 4000+ dead military, 10s of 1000s maimed for life, and $3T wasted, the cost is not worth it, without even mentioning the destruction of Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

oh, i agree completely.

pure comedy thinking the current "regime" will survive.What regime?

Was the election actually resolved?

[Winehole23]

We never even gained permanent territory in the North...the campaign was a failure in its entirety. At least with Iraq, we succeeded in ridding ourselves of a perceived threat. Damning with faint praise?


Yes we still have troops in Iraq, but being exposed to dangers of the region is much less impact than leaving a country battered and exposed to those threats that we indirectly opened it up to.I would say directly, but this is a quibble. I think leaving ourselves exposed to their social/political instability is a mistake. At some point, they'll have to settle it for themselves with or without our help.

I think we already fucked up Iraq enough. GTFO honorably, ASAP. We paid in blood and treasure, for fiasco and bullshit.

[AFBlue]

Good luck with that. I think ethnic and sectarian strife are the worst problems there and problems the US has done and can do nothing to help. Their continued presence is just a band-aid holding the country together, not wholly unlike the way Saddam's presence did.

The methods the two employ are entirely different. The purpose of democracy is to give a voice to factions and ethnic groups so that they don't have to use violence. Saddam used force offensively to quash certain factions, ethnic groups.

[ChumpDumper]

The methods the two employ are entirely different. The purpose of democracy is to give a voice to factions and ethnic groups so that they don't have to use violence. Saddam used force offensively to quash certain factions, ethnic groups.The US hasn't used force offensively to quash certain factions and ethnic groups?

That's rich.

[AFBlue]

so, now iraq is us?

I wasn't responding on Iraq. I was responding on the priority to use government funding on defense.

But on Iraq, the reason we went in was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs we thought he had...not to liberate a people. So no, Iraq isn't us.

[Winehole23]

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.Sure.

Isn't it possible defense bureaucracies succumb like all others to the tendency to grow without respect to the ultimate mission?

[clambake]

I wasn't responding on Iraq. I was responding on the priority to use government funding on defense.

But on Iraq, the reason we went in was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs we thought he had...not to liberate a people. So no, Iraq isn't us.

young man, you've been to too many pep rallys.

[AFBlue]

The US hasn't used force offensively to quash certain factions and ethnic groups?

That's rich.

Offensively = without provocation

[Winehole23]

(Who was trying to take away our freedoms?)

[AFBlue]

I think we already fucked up Iraq enough. GTFO honorably, ASAP. We paid in blood and treasure, for fiasco and bullshit.

Right, so let's leave now like we did in Afghanistan. :tu

[Winehole23]

How long do we have to stay?

[clambake]

you can't admit that bush got tired of his afghanistan toy?

[Winehole23]

10 more years?

[Winehole23]

20 years?

[Winehole23]

50 years?

[clambake]

How long do we have to stay?

long enough for france to return the "dien ben phu" favor.

[ChumpDumper]

Offensively = without provocationI'd say summarily throwing all members of one political party out of work and barring them from ever participating in government again was pretty provocative, to say nothing of the armed forces.

[AFBlue]

How long do we have to stay?

I'd say permanently. Good strategic position for potential future campaigns.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd say permanently. Good strategic position for potential future campaigns.So you're hoping for imperial success.

[clambake]

is this guy trolling?

[AFBlue]

I'd say summarily throwing all members of one political party out of work and barring them from ever participating in government again was pretty provocative, to say nothing of the armed forces.

IIRC, Saddam's old party is allowed to hold office in the new government.

[clambake]

IIRC, Saddam's old party is allowed to hold office in the new government.

:lol

[AFBlue]

So you're hoping for imperial success.

Our presence in Japan 55 years later is imperialism? I don't see how we're constructing or controlling their government at this point.

I simply said that it would be good for us to maintain a military presence there from a strategic position. This is the state department's mission now.

[Winehole23]

I'd say permanently. Good strategic position for potential future campaigns.Do tell.

[ChumpDumper]

IIRC, Saddam's old party is allowed to hold office in the new government.If that's true, it's a fantastic idea. We shouldn't have let our viceroy outlaw them in the first place, provoking them into a seven year insurgency.

[Winehole23]

Our presence in Japan 55 years later is imperialism? I don't see how we're constructing or controlling their government at this point.Maybe we should leave, then.

[AFBlue]

Sure.

Isn't it possible defense bureaucracies succumb like all others to the tendency to grow without respect to the ultimate mission?

Sure.

[AFBlue]

Maybe we should leave, then. They've had a bellyful of us.

Good strategic position for possible future campaigns.

[clambake]

anyone that they even think might have had ties to saddam are disqualified.

[boutons_deux]

All Baathists were barred from govt office and the military after the invasion. This really hurt because a lot of them were professionals who weren't particularly Baathists politically like the Saddam and his top level ministers.

Not only did the Repugs lie themselves into Iraq, they botched every aspect.

They even botched the "surge" which greatly increased US and Iraqi deaths, which were already way down before the surge due to the ethnic cleansing/Balkanization of Bagdad.

[Winehole23]

Sec'y Gates proposed cuts to procurement. I'm guessing you'd be against that.

Are you?

[ChumpDumper]

Our presence in Japan 55 years later is imperialism? I don't see how we're constructing or controlling their government at this point.:lol

Are you serious?

We wrote their constitution and forbade them from having a real military of their own.


I simply said that it would be good for us to maintain a military presence there from a strategic position. This is the state department's mission now.The State Department's mission is to maintain a strategic military presence forever? Why is the plan to have all the military out in a year?

[AFBlue]

Do tell.

Well Chump mentioned Iran earlier...

[Winehole23]

Good strategic position for possible future campaigns.Like a game of Risk.

[AFBlue]

Sec'y Gates proposed cuts to procurement. I'm guessing you'd be against that.

Are you?

No, I saw the proposed cuts...agree with them for the most part. Not crazy about the proposed 1.4-1.9% increase in military base pay, but you may be able to guess why...

[ChumpDumper]

Well Chump mentioned Iran earlier...Why would majority Shiite Iraq want the US to launch a military campaign from their country against Shiite Iran?

[Winehole23]

Well Chump mentioned Iran earlier...Whaddya think, would an attack on Iran endanger our troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[clambake]

Well Chump mentioned Iran earlier...

chump, did you say iran............when we're clearly discussing japan, vietnam, iraq, and possibly granada?

[Winehole23]

No, I saw the proposed cuts...agree with them for the most part.My bad.


Not crazy about the proposed 1.4-1.9% increase in military base pay, but you may be able to guess why...Fair enough. :tu

[AFBlue]

:lol

Are you serious?

We wrote their constitution and forbade them from having a real military of their own.

Notice I said "now". As in, we forbade members of Saddam's party who may have had allegiance to him initially, but eventually we left it to the government to decide who they let in and out of their organization.


The State Department's mission is to maintain a strategic military presence forever? Why is the plan to have all the military out in a year?

The state departments mission is to focus on continuing to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq and strengthening its ability to defend itself from internal and external threats.

[ChumpDumper]

chump, did you say iran............when we're clearly discussing japan, vietnam, iraq, and possibly granada?I asked AFB why we didn't attack the other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- one of which has nukes and the other being closer to having them than Saddam ever was.

The answer was Iraq was "easy."

[clambake]

Notice I said "now". As in, we forbade members of Saddam's party who may have had allegiance to him initially, but eventually we left it to the government to decide who they let in and out of their organization.

have things changed since may 2010?

[clambake]

I asked AFB why we didn't attack the other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- one of which has nukes and the other being closer to having them than Saddam ever was.

The answer was Iraq was "easy."

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Notice I said "now".Have they changed their constitution?
As in, we forbade members of Saddam's party who may have had allegiance to him initially, but eventually we left it to the government to decide who they let in and out of their organization.Why forbid them all in the first place, provoking an insurgency?


The state departments mission is to focus on continuing to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq and strengthening its ability to defend itself from internal and external threats.And getting all the military out in 2011.

That means not forever.

[AFBlue]

Why would majority Shiite Iraq want the US to launch a military campaign from their country against Shiite Iran?

It wouldn't be an assault on the people of Iran but its leadership.

[AFBlue]

I asked AFB why we didn't attack the other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- one of which has nukes and the other being closer to having them than Saddam ever was.

The answer was Iraq was "easy."

Right...Iran would've been easy too. Actually, I think an invasion of Iran is more a question of when than if.

[AFBlue]

Have they changed their constitution?

I'm sure they have. Regardless...are you saying that Japan is worse off for the things we implemented shortly after the war ended?

I hope that Iraq follows the same path of stability and economic growth from the democracy that was implemented as Japan has.

[AFBlue]

And getting all the military out in 2011. That means not forever.

There are still 50,000 troops on the ground, and I doubt they're going anywhere anytime soon.

[AFBlue]

It's been fun fellas...I'll check back in a bit!

[clambake]

iraq=japan. whoa

[ChumpDumper]

It wouldn't be an assault on the people of Iran but its leadership.Yes, that's exactly how the people of Iran will see it. they will greet us as liberators! And you didn't answer the question.


Right...Iran would've been easy too.:lmao

That is especially funny coming from a military man.


I'm sure they have.Not the stuff we wrote.


There are still 50,000 troops on the ground, and I doubt they're going anywhere anytime soon.Take it up with your military leaders who are working to leave next year.

[Blackjack]

On the one hand, I can see why you target Iraq in relation to the terrorist threat and growing ideology: there's no Al-Qaedia and no military solution to a mindset.

So removing a regime like Saddam's as a means to bring democracy -- freedom -- to the Middle East (hoping to plant the seeds for which will bring about the opportunity and hope of neighboring countries and factions) isn't all that crazy a conclusion to come to.

But like Chump said, who are we to decide that's what needs to be done? And if you are going to decide to do that, why would you half-ass it as badly as they did upon entry?

There has to be something after "Shock and Awe" besides "watch-loot-and-let-people-go-without-the-most-basic-of-things-(destroyed infrastructure affecting electricity, water, etc.)-while-suffering-collateral-damage-in-way-of-human-life while you figure out what the hell to do. I mean, if you're really going to go that route and you know you're going to have to win the hearts and minds over of the Iraqi, and by extension, Mideastern people, wouldn't you realize that you'd have a very small window in which to accomplish that goal -- that if you're going to knock someone over the head it's probably best to have their place look better off (or in the process of looking to be) when they come to and regain their wits?

It was just an idiotic and reckless attempt at doing the impossible: impose your wish or will by way of uninvited force.

The U.S. should be running a sound financial ship -- never allowing their fate to be in the hands of others -- and looking to lead the world by example. Live and let live, mind your own biz and utilizing military force only when it's absolutely mandatory to defend.

[Winehole23]

It wouldn't be an assault on the people of Iran but its leadership.Excuse me. You seem to have begged the question why we should attack Iran at all. What's your case for a future campaign there?

[Winehole23]

So removing a regime like Saddam's as a means to bring democracy -- freedom -- to the Middle East (hoping to plant the seeds for which will bring about the opportunity and hope of neighboring countries and factions) isn't all that crazy a conclusion to come to.Sorry, my unicorn meter just broke.

[Blake]

Excuse me. You seem to have begged the question why we should attack Iran at all. What's your case for a future campaign there?

It's easy?

[Winehole23]

If you just assume, fuck yeah it's easy. Worked out great for us in Iraq.

[Blackjack]

Sorry, my unicorn meter just broke.

That's rather unfortunate. Those things are expensive, from what I'm told, that is.

The conclusion ain't all that crazy -- as in, you've thought about how to confront an ideology and not a location -- but to then weigh all of what that would entail and follow through with actions on said conclusion is. Maybe I should have said: that being one of the options weighed isn't all that crazy.

Yeah ... definitely should have. :lol

[Winehole23]

Our war supports the ideology we are at war with as long as we occupy Muslim countries.

[Winehole23]

It's easy?Do you think so?

[Winehole23]

Our war supports the ideology we are at war with as long as we occupy Muslim countries.And admittedly for a whole lot longer. Memories die hard.

[Blake]

I asked AFB why we didn't attack the other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- one of which has nukes and the other being closer to having them than Saddam ever was.

The answer was Iraq was "easy."


Right...Iran would've been easy too. Actually, I think an invasion of Iran is more a question of when than if.


Excuse me. You seem to have begged the question why we should attack Iran at all. What's your case for a future campaign there?


It's easy?


Do you think so?

Me? I dunno and I'd rather not find out.

It was apparently just a poor attempt on my part to play "what would AFB's answer be"

[AFBlue]

Yes, that's exactly how the people of Iran will see it. they will greet us as liberators! And you didn't answer the question.

Fair enough. The fact that the two countries are comprised of a majority that share the same religious beliefs does not mean that they are allies. My guess is that Iraq would be pressured to do so by America and the internation community.


Take it up with your military leaders who are working to leave next year.

Having personal knowledge of a national guard unit that is being activated to deploy for the entirety of 2011, I'll believe it when I see it.

[AFBlue]

Excuse me. You seem to have begged the question why we should attack Iran at all. What's your case for a future campaign there?

Radical leader, who coincidentally has no issue espousing his agenda to wipe Israel off the map, making repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons despite repeated pressure and sanctions from the majority of the international community.

I'd attribute escalation to a campaign to continued pursuit of those weapons.

[AFBlue]

If you just assume, fuck yeah it's easy. Worked out great for us in Iraq.

Actually the initial invasion into Iraq was relatively easy. If we'd had a strategy for post-invasion, it would've gone much better. I can see how we would take some learned lessons into a campaign in Iran.

[AFBlue]

Me? I dunno and I'd rather not find out.

It was apparently just a poor attempt on my part to play "what would AFB's answer be"

Fail.

[ChumpDumper]

Fair enough. The fact that the two countries are comprised of a majority that share the same religious beliefs does not mean that they are allies.http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/MalikiAhmedinejad.jpg


My guess is that Iraq would be pressured to do so by America and the internation community.Why would there need to be pressure? They love freedom and America now, right?


Having personal knowledge of a national guard unit that is being activated to deploy for the entirety of 2011, I'll believe it when I see it.When you have personal knowledge that we plan to be there forever, let me know.

[AFBlue]

http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/MalikiAhmedinejad.jpg

Meaningless as it relates to our discussion...funny, but meaningless.


Why would there need to be pressure? They love freedom and America now, right?

I didn't deny that the two nations were comprised of majority Shia Muslims. Even if leadership from the two countries aren't aligned, I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself sees the potential for political backlash against Iraqi politicians.


When you have personal knowledge that we plan to be there forever, let me know.

I didn't say we planned to be there forever. WH23 asked me how long is long enough...I said permanently. That's my opinion, not a stated fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Meaningless as it relates to our discussion...funny, but meaningless.Quite meaningful. You have yet to give a good reason why Iraq would acquiesce to being used as a base for attack on Iran except that it would be bullied into it.


I didn't deny that the two nations were comprised of majority Shia Muslims. Even if leadership from the two countries aren't aligned, I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself sees the potential for political backlash against Iraqi politicians.I see immense backlash against Iraqi politicians if they let the US invade Iran from their country. That backlash would come from Iraqis.


I didn't say we planned to be there forever. WH23 asked me how long is long enough...I said permanently. That's my opinion, not a stated fact.Let me know when it is a stated fact.

[Blake]

Radical leader, who coincidentally has no issue espousing his agenda to wipe Israel off the map, making repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons despite repeated pressure and sanctions from the majority of the international community.

I'd attribute escalation to a campaign to continued pursuit of those weapons.

do you personally think that those reasons are justified for an Iranian campaign?

[Wild Cobra]

I think the best thing to do is give Israel unconditional support to what they do. They have the quality of intelligence that we lost long ago. If they believe Iran is an imminent threat, they will take care of business.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the best thing to do is give Israel unconditional support to what they do.Unconditional? Why does Israel have such a hold on you?
They have the quality of intelligence that we lost long ago.How do you know?
If they believe Iran is an imminent threat, they will take care of business.An imminent threat to whom?

[Nbadan]

Actually the initial invasion into Iraq was relatively easy. If we'd had a strategy for post-invasion, it would've gone much better. I can see how we would take some learned lessons into a campaign in Iran.

:WTF

...it would have been much better if we went in with 500K troops and tanks initially...no, it would have been much better if got the hell out of there and let the Iraqi people self-determine their own government instead of setting up a banana republic..

[boutons_deux]

America's Empire and Endless Wars Are Destroying the World, and Ruining Our Great Country

Andrew Bacevich speaks with a fairly unique mix of experience, authority, passion and wisdom in questioning our nation’s priorities: specifically our willingness to place so much of our national identity, wealth, attention, moral practice, and finally the life and blood of many thousands of our citizens and millions of those of other countries in the hands of our military. A professor of history and international relations at Boston University, Bacevich served twenty-three years in the U.S. Army, retiring with the rank of colonel. He lost his son in Iraq. A graduate of the U. S. Military Academy,

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148094