A hard question for Republicans.

[RandomGuy]

The first four years of the Iraq war were arguably fought bravely by our troops.

BUT

The non-tactical side of the house, as far as policy and the goals/aims/administration of Iraq went was arguably bordering on the criminally negligent, if not well over that line.



Any decision to send troops into battle can and will lead to troops losing their lives. I understand that. But if you fall down on your sacred duty to do your utmost to make good decisions, and it is so obvious that you didn't. I have to ask this The Hard Question:

How many of our troops needlessly died because of the way the war was run at a policy and strategic level by the Bush administration?

I am going to get horribly flamed for this, but as a vet, I really have to wonder if our servicemembers were really led by people who couldn't find their ass with both hands. The more you dig into this the worse it looks at all levels. It isn't just political hacks with axes to grind pointing things out either.

I think the weight of evidence supports the assertion that this war was run incompetantly for four years. I can provide plenty of evidence to support this.

If you want to reject this assertion and therefore The Hard Question, you WILL have to prove that the war was run in a fairly competant manner. This also involves proving that the change in tactics/policy/strategy that led to the sucessful surge wasn't really needed. Because if the war was being run well, why change tactics?

What I expect die-hard Republicans to do:

Attack me personally.
Dismiss all the evidence I will present as somehow wrong out of hand. (this is highly illogical)
Generally not answer the Question.

Because if the answer to The Hard Question is ANY number greater than zero, you would be forced to admit that Bush failed in a sacred trust, and that would require a very high level of intellectual honesty.

[101A]

I agree that the Bush administration, up until the moment Rumsfeld was removed from the cabinet, ran the war poorly, and that servicemen DID die needlessly. People were telling them as much, not the least of whom being John McCain (as detailed in Woodward's newest book).

I also believe that EVERY war, in retrospect, could have been run better.

I further believe that the war protesters, and specifically congresspeople calling for immediate withdrawals of U.S. troops, calling us "defeated", the cause "hopeless", etc. caused our enemies in Iraq to have a false hope that they could defeat us, and to carry on their fight FAR beyond the time when they could ever hope to score a military victory (which was always impossible).

I do, however, put the blame where it ought to be: on the people who sponsored and directed the war; had they done their homework, and had a plan for the "peace" afterwards, many lives, much money and time, could have been spared.

Did you know Hitler had already divided the U.S. up into manageable areas - and already had governors trained in the geography and customs of those areas, ready to step in and take control once we were defeated? Now THAT'S planning for the peace.

[RandomGuy]

For your reading:

A bit of background on counter insurgency doctrine:

news story:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,120810,00.html

A rough draft of the Army/Marine counterinsurgency manual:
(242 page pdf, you have been warned)
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
This manual has been modified somewhat but you can read it and get very good grasp of what the final do ent looks like. I will see if I can find a copy of the final version to post here. Yes, I have read the whole thing. Not memorized it mind you, but read it.

If you read the above do ent, AND you look into how the war was run up until the surge, you can only conclude that the war was not being run according to the military's own doctrine, a doctrine that incoroporates all the lessons we learned from Vietnam and later low-level conflicts.

[1369]

I don't disagree at all RG. I think the same mistake that occured in Afghanistan happened again in Iraq. Breaking , we're real good at. Putting it back together? Not so much.

I distinctly remember Rumsfeld in a presser after the Taliban were uprooted saying he effectively had no plan/policy for rebuilding Afghanistan, that was up to the UN. In my opinion we missed a prime opportunity with that.

Read "No True Glory" by Bing West. It pretty much captures your thoughts against the backdrop of the battle of Fallujah.

[RandomGuy]

I also believe that EVERY war, in retrospect, could have been run better.

BUT

In this case, there were civilian and military analysts who were thinking about and planning for this war for fully 12 years before it happened, ever since the end of the first gulf war.

There were, if memory serves, at least two "off the shelf" blueprints for what to do after the invasion was over that detail almost precisely what was done AFTER the surge.

I will try to find these plans during the course of this discussion as well.

That the administration considered these plans and dismissed the, or worse, didn't even bother to read them says that they failed that sacred trust.

I feel it is the latter. I think the people around Bush, including Cheney, who KNEW better (remember Cheney was the secretary of Defense in the first gulf war), kept this kind of information from him, as they wanted him to think that the war would be won quickly, and we would all be home for Christmas.

[clambake]

more importantly, what happens when we stop paying them not to kill us?

[RandomGuy]

For your reading:

A bit of background on counter insurgency doctrine:

news story:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,120810,00.html

A rough draft of the Army/Marine counterinsurgency manual:
(242 page pdf, you have been warned)
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
This manual has been modified somewhat but you can read it and get very good grasp of what the final do ent looks like. I will see if I can find a copy of the final version to post here. Yes, I have read the whole thing. Not memorized it mind you, but read it.

If you read the above do ent, AND you look into how the war was run up until the surge, you can only conclude that the war was not being run according to the military's own doctrine, a doctrine that incoroporates all the lessons we learned from Vietnam and later low-level conflicts.

BTW the last name of one of the principle authors of this manual: Patraeus.

Yes, THAT Patraeus.

Again, if you knew you were going to face an insurgency, as any decent analyst would tell you was going to happen in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, why wait four years to put the guy who wrote the doctrine in charge?

The only answer to that question boils down to either ignorance, or willful disregard.

Ok, I have to get to work. See you for a bit at lunch.

[RandomGuy]

more importantly, what happens when we stop paying them not to kill us?

... or if the Iraqi government starts putting all of their leaders on arrest lists, as is happening now.

The Iraqi govnerment led by shias is consolidating their power, and seeking to limit the political power of the sunnis by arresting them en masse.

Exactly the kind of thing the sunnis feared would happen, seems to be happening.

This forces us to not only pay, but PROTECT the former insurgents from their own government. A government that we support.

Kinda puts us in a difficult position, doesn't it?

What happens if the sunnis decide to quit taking our money and take their chances by fighting the government that is trying to arrest them?

[RandomGuy]

I agree that the Bush administration, up until the moment Rumsfeld was removed from the cabinet, ran the war poorly, and that servicemen DID die needlessly. People were telling them as much, not the least of whom being John McCain (as detailed in Woodward's newest book).

Ooh good one. Seriously, that was smooth. It was also an honest answer.

I don't know if my opinion means much to you, but you scored a huge amount of respect from me for this answer on a couple of levels.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will get to the rest of it later, when I have time.

[DarrinS]

I think the Iraq war was horribly mismanaged in the first couple of years (Rummy). People like McCain, who was an advocate for increasing troop levels before anyone ever heard of "the surge", have helped steer Iraq in a new an better direction.

[TheMadHatter]

What are the objectives in Iraq? What is success in Iraq?

The bottomline is we aren't WINNING in Iraq. We can't WIN in Iraq. As soon as we leave that place will be a mess.

[DarrinS]

What are the objectives in Iraq? What is success in Iraq?

The bottomline is we aren't WINNING in Iraq. We can't WIN in Iraq. As soon as we leave that place will be a mess.

I don't think the original question was aimed at you. Your answer will always be failure.

[clambake]

how does paying people not to kill you equal success?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's not a hard question. Rumsfeld was a ing idiot.

If Gates were in charge to begin with, our troops would probably already be home.

[RandomGuy]

I think the Iraq war was horribly mismanaged in the first couple of years (Rummy). People like McCain, who was an advocate for increasing troop levels before anyone ever heard of "the surge", have helped steer Iraq in a new an better direction.

That it was the "surge" alone that seemed to have turned the tide is a general misconception.

Bush, after 3 years of failure, ordered a very secretive strategy review.

The surge in troops alone actually had very small effect on the course of the war.

What DID change was the way the war was fought. We got out of our big forts, moved out into much smaller outposts, and got a LOT closer to the people we were supposed to be helping, among other things. This is one of the primary things we learned from Vietnam.

There is more to it, of course, but anybody who talks about the "surge" being successful or not, without realizing that the extra troops were only a small part of it, is missing the point.

I was fully against the surge if it meant keeping the same failed tactics and strategy, as it was painfully clear that we were failing miserably, and more troops wouldn't have made a spit's worth of difference if they weren't employed more intelligently.

As it was, the surge was part of an overall revamping of strategy, and as soon as it became apparent that we were finally following our own doctrine (it really is VERY good, take the time to read it), I defended it from a few fellow liberals. Icky to have to defend the administration's position on something, but it was the best course of action, i.e. "least bad" alternative.

The final chapter is yet to be written, and there is still a very good possibility that Iraq will not succeed as a democratic nation.

I am hoping they do, but at some point, we will have tried our best, and should cut our losses and leave. Not that al Qaeda will have won, on the contrary, they have shown themselves to be the butchers that they are to a lot of muslims, but that we must let Iraq stand on its own.

[RandomGuy]

It's not a hard question. Rumsfeld was a ing idiot.

If Gates were in charge to begin with, our troops would probably already be home.

If Gore had been in charge, we wouldn't have gotten side-tracked into this unnecessary conflict to begin with, and would have been able to concentrate on Afghanistan, like any decent strategist would have realized.

Are you then going to hold Bush responsible?

Or is he guiltless in these deaths?

[101A]

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Gore had been in charge, we wouldn't have gotten side-tracked into this unnecessary conflict to begin with, and would have been able to concentrate on Afghanistan, like any decent strategist would have realized.

Are you then going to hold Bush responsible?

Or is he guiltless in these deaths?

If only Bush had known that the CIA, NSA, Mossad, MI:6, etc., were wrong about WMD, then yeah, I might hold him responsible.

I hope he's not guiltless, I sure wouldn't be if I were in his position.

My biggest problem with Bush's handling of Iraq is that it didn't take long after Saddam's forces fell before it became apparent Rumsfeld was a ing moron and didn't know how to handle the situation. Bush stuck it out with him for far too long when it was clear Rumsfeld should have gotten the boot and a fresh perspective brought in.

[Findog]

If only Bush had known that the CIA, NSA, Mossad, MI:6, etc., were wrong about WMD, then yeah, I might hold him responsible.

I hope he's not guiltless, I sure wouldn't be if I were in his position.

My biggest problem with Bush's handling of Iraq is that it didn't take long after Saddam's forces fell before it became apparent Rumsfeld was a ing moron and didn't know how to handle the situation. Bush stuck it out with him for far too long when it was clear Rumsfeld should have gotten the boot and a fresh perspective brought in.

Here we have a clear example of why trying to throw the GOP out of power after an 8-year Epic Fail is always going to be an uphill slog.

[boutons_]

"If only Bush had known"

dubya didn't depend on "bad intel, oops, sorry". T

The neo-c*nts wanted that oil well back into the 90s, PNAC and , McSame included.

Like Georgia and the Caspian basin, Iraq is/was/will always be about oil for the Repugs and neo-c*nts.