News Should the US Rethink Large-Scale Military Interventions Abroad?

[mugaliens]

"“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

 

[nismaratwork]

"“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Works for me!... although my favorite is:

You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

I'll be ready for a war in asia when we finish the one in Korea. Seriously, we should look at North Africa and remember that this is the result of EU colonialization... we're no more immune to blowback, so let's minimize it.

 

[BobG]

Given military reductions since the end of the cold war, Gates' comments certainly do make sense. The entire direction of US foreign policy has been to have enough military power to respond to short term crises and rely on international efforts for post crisis stability and clean up. One President can't change that overnight and it was ludicrous of the Bush administration to believe they could change reality based on nothing more than desires, ideology, or God's will.

In survival terms, the Bush administration was guilty of bending the map. Bending the map, imagining the landmarks around you match your desired location on the map (that huge rock must have finally rolled away, that stream must have dried up, etc), is how even experienced people wind up getting lost in the wilderness.

Any cabinet officer, including the Secretary of Defense, owes it to a President and to the American people to be honest in their advice to the President. Disregarding the estimates of military generals (Gen Shinsecki's estimates on the troop strength necessary for Iraq) usually doesn't qualify as honest advice.

Interesting to look back on independent http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf .

Disregarding the impact to oil prices, the estimated costs (table 7, page 31, of estimated cost) were about $156 billion (everything goes well) to $755 billion (things go poorly) for the first decade of an effort that could be expected to take 20 years or more. Cost estimates, including this one, are notoriously low for all wars.

The http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html (supplied by then OMB director Mitch Daniels) was $50 billion to $60 billion; an estimate revised downward from the $100 billion to $200 billion estimate provided by chief economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey earlier that year (an estimate that was in line with the most optimistic independent estimates).

Actual cost (disregarding oil prices) has been about $802 billion for the first 9 years (table 1, page 7, of actual cost).

I'd note that the estimates for oil prices in the Nordhaus estimate were ridiculously low, but that oil prices were affected by much more than just the Iraq war.

 

[talk2glenn]

"“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Inane. I've always more or less liked Gates, but this is the kind of statement people make fun of later.

The United States does not choose the size and place of its wars. Before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced the end of big conventional wars. So did the Clinton admin after the end of the Cold War and the Bush admin after the success of '91.

All foolish. Assumes we have any say in the matter, which almost by definition is not the case when going to war.

 

[nismaratwork]

Inane. I've always more or less liked Gates, but this is the kind of statement people make fun of later.

The United States does not choose the size and place of its wars. Before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced the end of big conventional wars. So did the Clinton admin after the end of the Cold War and the Bush admin after the success of '91.

All foolish. Assumes we have any say in the matter, which almost by definition is not the case when going to war.

We always have a choice, including the paralysis of not making an active choice. I think you need to study military history in more depth than this recent post-cold war era.

 

[talk2glenn]

Errr... what? You've succeeded in being patronizing, but failed at saying anything useful.

As to "choice", if you can find me a single instance in the modern era (say, 1800 onwards) of a western country believing - as evidenced by the proclamations of its leaders and/or government - it chose to go to war rather than being forced to it after the exhaustion of "diplomacy by all other means", I'll concede the point. Save yourself the bother, though; you won't. My "study" of military history is sufficient to the purpose, thank you very much.

As to the "paralysis of not making a choice", if you're suggesting that the United States could respond to another 9/11 or another Gulf War or another Korean War by doing nothing, haha. Not in this universe. Even the British - an emaciated post-colonial power with barely a blue water navy and even less of an army - responded to an attack on a virtually unoccupied island with basically 0 contribution to GNP aggressively and with an invasion, and we are a far cry from Britain.

As long as the US remains an internationally interesting state player, nobody - Gates included - can declare an end to conventional war and expect to be historically vindicated. All of human history preceding suggests otherwise. Indeed, if anything the lesson is that a reduction in a stabilizing states' conventional military capacity makes war more likely, not less. See post-WW1 Europe, post-WW2 and decolonization, and post-Cold War and the end of the Soviet Era.

 

[nismaratwork]

Errr... what? You've succeeded in being patronizing, but failed at saying anything useful.

As to "choice", if you can find me a single instance in the modern era (say, 1800 onwards) of a western country believing - as evidenced by the proclamations of its leaders and/or government - it chose to go to war rather than being forced to it after the exhaustion of "diplomacy by all other means", I'll concede the point. Save yourself the bother, though; you won't. My "study" of military history is sufficient to the purpose, thank you very much.

So, you're familiar with our stance on WWI, and WWII, until our interests were directly threatened, or our homeland attacked. Another fine example would be Iraq, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you think your's is a tenable position. It's unfortunate that you feel patronized, but I can do nothing about how you choose to take what I've said.

As to the "paralysis of not making a choice", if you're suggesting that the United States could respond to another 9/11 or another Gulf War or another Korean War by doing nothing, haha. Not in this universe. Even the British - an emaciated post-colonial power with barely a blue water navy and even less of an army - responded to an attack on a virtually unoccupied island with basically 0 contribution to GNP aggressively and with an invasion, and we are a far cry from Britain.

Wow... what are you talking about? You think the only options that are violent are invasion? I don't believe your claim of historic knowledge; you're demonstrating a lack of just that. I'm not impressed by bluster and patriotic jingoism, I'm impressed by history. WWI, btw, was what I was thinking about, and Europe's appeasement of Hitler in WWII.

As long as the US remains an internationally interesting state player, nobody - Gates included - can declare an end to conventional war and expect to be historically vindicated.

True, but he didn't say that; only that sending a "big army" into specific regions with a rich history of kicking our (West's) butt back out again is unwise. Somalia springs to mind...
...anyway, if you want to change this into your own personal argument and response, that's fine, but do realize that everyone is able to read the totality of the thread.

All of human history preceding suggests otherwise. Indeed, if anything the lesson is that a reduction in a stabilizing states' conventional military capacity makes war more likely, not less. See post-WW1 Europe, post-WW2 and decolonization, and post-Cold War and the end of the Soviet Era.

Uh huh... see previous.

 

[lisab]

"“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

I've had the sense that Americans are simply sick and tired of sending troops anywhere to settle conflicts -- even if there are American interests involved. I should add, this isn't based on anyone thing in particular. Rather, it's based on my reading opinion pieces, editorials, talking to friends, etc. This feels like a new American Zeitgeist...we don't want to get involved.

I was listening to a Libyan being interviewed on NPR the other day. He said, "We need help - we need the US to help us." I thought, I'm so sorry, buddy, but that's not going to happen...you have our sympathy, but there is *no* public support to send our troops anywhere, as far as I can tell. We're tapped out.

 

[nismaratwork]

I've had the sense that Americans are simply sick and tired of sending troops anywhere to settle conflicts -- even if there are American interests involved. I should add, this isn't based on anyone thing in particular. Rather, it's based on my reading opinion pieces, editorials, talking to friends, etc. This feels like a new American Zeitgeist...we don't want to get involved.

I was listening to a Libyan being interviewed on NPR the other day. He said, "We need help - we need the US to help us." I thought, I'm so sorry, buddy, but that's not going to happen...you have our sympathy, but there is *no* public support to send our troops anywhere, as far as I can tell. We're tapped out.

True... and now we get to see just how ineffective and venal the EU is... just like US. *pun*

 

[Containment]

Well now that "we've" made it clear that we won't try to stop them I guess it would be a good time for Russia or China to do their thing... What a stupid thing for a military leader to say imo. I guess it's slightly better then saying we are going to invade if only by a little.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well now that "we've" made it clear that we won't try to stop them I guess it would be a good time for Russia or China to do their thing... What a stupid thing for a military leader to say imo. I guess it's slightly better then saying we are going to invade if only by a little.

1.) China doesn't have the naval assets.
2.) You think other nations aren't aware of our position?
3.) What the hell kind of war are you looking to see happen, because if you think the world stands by while Russia, China, OR the USA appears to annex Libya, you're mistaken.

This is up to the EU parties who've kept this monster in power, and tore Africa apart to begin with... I'm looking at Italy... again.

edit: Much as Saddam was our monster to kill... although invasion was foolish.

 

[Containment]

Do you know what china has for naval assets?

Isn't it one thing to have a weak position and another to broadcast it? Not that I even think we have a weak position in all honesty and that probably only makes it worse.

I'm not hoping to see any war happen and I think just the opposite that saying stuff like we are weak and won't defend is more likely to give them ideas... Obviously we wouldn't just stand by and so I guess what the guy said won't have much effect in the long run. However I still think it's stupid to say that we aren't going to engage if needed.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you know what china has for naval assets?

Yes, and so can you... it's hardly a secret... more like an advertisement. A couple of new carriers on the way, what!

Isn't it one thing to have a weak position and another to broadcast it? Not that I even think we have a weak position in all honesty and that probably only makes it worse.

I think no massive forces in proven death-traps isn't weakness, it's wisdom.

I'm not hoping to see any war happen and I think just the opposite that saying stuff like we are weak and won't defend is more likely to give them ideas... Obviously we wouldn't just stand by and so I guess what the guy said won't have much effect in the long run. However I still think it's stupid to say that we aren't going to engage if needed.

I understand your position, but respectfully disagree.

 

[Containment]

Ok I'm having problems understanding what you disagree with exactly? My point is that I think it's stupid to make the statement to your possible enemy's that you won't defend your self. So what about that do you not agree with?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ok I'm having problems understanding what you disagree with exactly? My point is that I think it's stupid to make the statement to your possible enemy's that you won't defend your self. So what about that do you not agree with?

We're not saying that we won't defend ourselves, and we're not saying that we wouldn't annihilate an enemy. The statement was specific to large armies deployed in specific regions as poor strategic and tactical doctrine.

 

[Containment]

Oh well I really don't think it's a big deal he's going to be leaving soon anyhow and who knows what the guy after him will say about the issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh well I really don't think it's a big deal he's going to be leaving soon anyhow and who knows what the guy after him will say about the issue.

You mean Gates?... Frankly I think it's a pity that the voices of reason are margenalized... Colin Powell, Gates, etc...

 

[Astronuc]

I think Gates makes sense -

http://restrepothemovie.com/

http://www.bobedwardsradio.com/blog/2011/2/26/restrepo.html

Journalists Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington spent about a year in Afghanistan with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. They wrote articles for Vanity Fair about what they saw and produced a documentary called Restrepo. Both the film and the remote outpost the troops were defending were named for PFC Juan Restrepo, the platoon medic who was killed early in their tour of duty. Junger and Hetherington made ten separate trips of about a month each to the Korengal Valley, one of the most deadly pieces of terrain in Afghanistan.

 

[CAC1001]

True, but he didn't say that; only that sending a "big army" into specific regions with a rich history of kicking our (West's) butt back out again is unwise. Somalia springs to mind...

Somalia I'd say was a result of ***not*** having the "big army" present. President Clinton had appointed Les Aspin to be Secretary of Defense, who would not allow the Army to take the Abrams tanks and C-130 gunships into Somalia. This resulted in the Army not having the firepower and protection it needed, resulting in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu. The Somalis also built makeshift barricades to block off the roads so that the soldiers couldn't drive down them; tanks could have driven through the barricades easily.

 

[nismaratwork]

Somalia I'd say was a result of ***not*** having the "big army" present. President Clinton had appointed Les Aspin to be Secretary of Defense, who would not allow the Army to take the Abrams tanks and C-130 gunships into Somalia. This resulted in the Army not having the firepower and protection it needed, resulting in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu. The Somalis also built makeshift barricades to block off the roads so that the soldiers couldn't drive down them; tanks could have driven through the barricades easily.

Yeah, we could have annexed it, but why? It's folly to interfere in a civil war, and now you have Lieberman and McCain calling for weapons to be shipped?! You'd almost think they've forgotten "BLOWBACK". Have we EVER armed a people who didn't then use those arms in a truly unforunate way?

 

[CAC1001]

1.) China doesn't have the naval assets.
2.) You think other nations aren't aware of our position?
3.) What the hell kind of war are you looking to see happen, because if you think the world stands by while Russia, China, OR the USA appears to annex Libya, you're mistaken.

I think the world (aside from the USA) would stand by if Russia or China started engaging in any such actions. What are they going to do? Europe has no military capability to do anything. The only nation outside of the USA with any capability to project power is the UK, and they are too small by themselves.

THAT SAID, I agree, China doesn't have the naval capability to do anything involving power projection right now. And Russia, militarily, is pretty powerless too.

 

[CAC1001]

Yeah, we could have annexed it, but why? It's folly to interfere in a civil war, and now you have Lieberman and McCain calling for weapons to be shipped?! You'd almost think they've forgotten "BLOWBACK". Have we EVER armed a people who didn't then use those arms in a truly unforunate way?

I'm not saying we should have annexed anything. You mentioned about areas of the world that have a history of kicking the West's butt, and mentioned Somalia as a specific example. I just wanted to make my point that I think Somalia is an exception to that, that Somalia was not a result of conventional military firepower not working, that it was the result of a lack of conventional military firepower that contributed to that incident.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think the world (aside from the USA) would stand by if Russia or China started engaging in any such actions. What are they going to do? Europe has no military capability to do anything. The only nation outside of the USA with any capability to project power is the UK, and they are too small by themselves.

THAT SAID, I agree, China doesn't have the naval capability to do anything involving power projection right now. And Russia, militarily, is pretty powerless too.

I agree about China, and a couple of weeks ago I'd be on the same page with you on Russia... but WhoWee makes some good points there.

You may be right about nations standing by, but it only takes two major military powers fighting for oil in Africa to start a solid world-war. Remember... nobody wanted WWI, but it "couldn't be avoided". That would be a worst case scenario here of course... I think Russia learned from Afghanistan, and they have their hands full on the home front.

I guess I don't really know enough about the Russian situation to make an educated guess, but China... not a chance; they'd be circling Taiwan before Tripoli.

 

[CAC1001]

“As the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations,” Mr. Gates warned.

Maybe, but I'd say reducing them too much could be dangerous as well. The military as is, is small in comparison to its Cold War days. I don't think its wise to declare such wars will never occur again or that such weapons systems are not going to be needed again. An infamous example of that was when they decided that the fighter planes no longer needed machine guns, because planes in modern warfare supposedly didn't do dogfighting anymore. Big mistake that turned out to be.

During the 1990s, there was a lot of talk about how the Army would become less heavy, and less armored, to make it more mobile and that the idea was technology and speed could make up for the lack of armor (this was the idea behind the Army's Future Combat Systems program). Then Iraq gets invaded and it turns out this whole mindset was wrongheaded as the Army was too lightly armored. Everything, the Humvees, cargo trucks, etc...needed armor (the idea is for the replacement vehicles is to have the armor built into them). In some areas the only vehicles with enough armor to drive through were tanks.

Now one could say, "Well, we never should've invaded Iraq in the first place..." yeah but in the future, no one knows where the Army might have to go. Heavy armor isn't always needed just to counter other heavy armor.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe, but I'd say reducing them too much could be dangerous as well. The military as is, is small in comparison to its Cold War days. I don't think its wise to declare such wars will never occur again or that such weapons systems are not going to be needed again. An infamous example of that was when they decided that the fighter planes no longer needed machine guns, because planes in modern warfare supposedly didn't do dogfighting anymore. Big mistake that turned out to be.

During the 1990s, there was a lot of talk about how the Army would become less heavy, and less armored, to make it more mobile and that the idea was technology and speed could make up for the lack of armor (this was the idea behind the Army's Future Combat Systems program). Then Iraq gets invaded and it turns out this whole mindset was wrongheaded as the Army was too lightly armored. Everything, the Humvees, cargo trucks, etc...needed armor (the idea is for the replacement vehicles is to have the armor built into them). In some areas the only vehicles with enough armor to drive through were tanks.

Now one could say, "Well, we never should've invaded Iraq in the first place..." yeah but in the future, no one knows where the Army might have to go. Heavy armor isn't always needed just to counter other heavy armor.

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan. I'd say that he's right, but you're correct as long as political leaders insist on sending troops into be police instead of soldiers.

Rolling Thunder... now that's the way to conduct a war... Shock & Awe?... not impressed. If you're going to war, it should be total, or don't go to war. In an all out conflict, we don't NEED to hold ground. We've tried that, it failed in Vietnam, It's not a great situation in Korea, failed in south and central america, and Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan (twice now). We're still eating the blowback from ALL of that... but what has been REALLY effective?

Hellfire missiles from drones... we need more, and we need to realize that war is about rapid conquest or destruction. Again, a quote I often use:


"In war there can be no substitute for victory, war's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." (Gen MacArthur re: Korea)

 

[CAC1001]

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan. I'd say that he's right, but you're correct as long as political leaders insist on sending troops into be police instead of soldiers.

How did the U.S. fail in Iraq? While I wouldn't call Iraq a rollicking success, I wouldn't call it a failure either.

Rolling Thunder... now that's the way to conduct a war... Shock & Awe?... not impressed. If you're going to war, it should be total, or don't go to war. In an all out conflict, we don't NEED to hold ground. We've tried that, it failed in Vietnam, It's not a great situation in Korea, failed in south and central america, and Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan (twice now). We're still eating the blowback from ALL of that... but what has been REALLY effective?

Hellfire missiles from drones... we need more, and we need to realize that war is about rapid conquest or destruction. Again, a quote I often use:

"In war there can be no substitute for victory, war's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." (Gen MacArthur re: Korea)

Well if the objective is to kill everyone maybe, but this kind of warfare wasn't working in Iraq, and probably wouldn't work in Afghanistan. We'd turn all the people there against us and they'd side with the terrorists.

 

[CAC1001]

The NYT only provided part of the speech, and a bit out of context it seems like; here is the full speech: http://www.defense.gov/utility/printitem.aspx?print=http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1539

 

[talk2glenn]

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, and we're failing in Afghanistan.

I'm curious how you'd define success? Iraq has a stable government, a functional self defense force, and no credible, substantial threat to its sovereignty. American combat troops have departed the country, and legacy assets have withdrawn to the countryside in preparation for a complete exit by December 31st.

The reality is we succeeded in Iraq because we stopped pretending a traditional, heavy land Army wasn't a necesarry condition of victory in modern war. It took awhile, but we got there, and the Army today is heavier than it has been since the '80s.

By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. Army will – or should – turn into a Victorian nation-building constabulary – designed to chase guerrillas, build schools, or sip tea.

One hopes, but this has been civilian policy towards the Army since the end of the Cold War - to our great detriment early on in Iraq.

But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size, and cost of its heavy formations to those in the leadership of the Pentagon, and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ultimately make policy and set budgets.

Disagree entirely. We have the Marines and Special Operations. Let the Army exist to do what the Army does: large mechanized open field operations for taking and holding ground. We lose sight of that purpose at our own peril - no sooner does some admittedly brilliant but historically foolish SecDef declare an end to "old war" than does the United States find itself involved in just such a conflict. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Mr. Rumsfeld, and now you too, Mr. Gates.

The odds of a clash of large land armies always seems unlikely until it happens. Just ask Georgia (the republic, not the state). Which returns me to my original point: the United States does not choose the size and place of its wars.

The NYT only provided part of the speech, and a bit out of context it seems like

Thanks for the link.

 

[nismaratwork]

How did the U.S. fail in Iraq? While I wouldn't call Iraq a rollicking success, I wouldn't call it a failure either.



Well if the objective is to kill everyone maybe, but this kind of warfare wasn't working in Iraq, and probably wouldn't work in Afghanistan. We'd turn all the people there against us and they'd side with the terrorists.

The objective of war is to win, and you win by demoliishing your enemy. Note the difference between modern "adventures", and true wars. War conducted cleanly is a bad joke, not a war.

As for Iraq, we failed to find WMD, we've failed to recover a large amount of money, we've failed to unite the country, and we're seeing continued violence. We lost a lot of good people, and many more are gravely injured... for what? I call that abject failure. What did we get for the cost we paid?

In war, one side ALWAYS pays a higher price, and if we're going to be mellow about things, then we soothe the world and our conscience at the cost of our soldiers and the mission. IF you aren't willing and able to "kill everyone"... don't go to war. Assasinate, subvert, proxy, diplomacy... not war.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

"“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41788477/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times"

About dang time. Thanks for being among the first to have the guts to spit it out.

Thanks mugaliens for sharing, it makes sense.

It seems like some are 'speculating' on WW3...?? To that I can only quote the old man:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein​

I’m probably too ignorant on U.S. defense policy to make any 'clever' comments... but from a European perspective, here’s my personal little "advices":

• Always make sure you attack the RIGHT country.
  
  
• Always make sure you have the CORRECT information BEFORE starting a new war.
  
  
• Always make sure you have a rigorous plan for when/if you win.
  
  
• Always make sure you have a rigorous plan for when/if you lose.
  
  
• Always make sure you have as many UN allies as possible, BEFORE starting a new war.
  
  
• Never start a new war without complete support from ALL countries in the western world.
  
  
• Even if you win a war – you will lose nevertheless if it 'produces' http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg" . <-- Warning!
  
  
• NEVER go to war if there’s ANY other option.

 

[CAC1001]

The objective of war is to win, and you win by demoliishing your enemy. Note the difference between modern "adventures", and true wars. War conducted cleanly is a bad joke, not a war.

Killing everyone won't demolish the enemy if he comes into the country you're in from outside of it, as the terrorists were doing with Iraq and are doing now with Afghanistan. That is what General Patreaus recognized, that conventional military force wouldn't succeed in Iraq. He implemented the strategy of making friends with the Iraqi people to turn them against the terrorists. Trying to kill everyone would only have turned the Iraqi people against us and also likely not worked, plus it would have gone completely against one of the reasons for invasion of Iraq, which was to topple a brutal dictator and free the people, not be a mass slaughterer.

As for Iraq, we failed to find WMD, we've failed to recover a large amount of money, we've failed to unite the country, and we're seeing continued violence. We lost a lot of good people, and many more are gravely injured... for what? I call that abject failure. What did we get for the cost we paid?

Two good things we got out of it was toppling a very oppressive dictator and liberating the people, and establishing a liberal democracy which will hopefully become stable and prosperous.

Now I'm not saying that unto itself justified the invasion of Iraq at all. But I mean while WMDs were not found, I don't think the soldiers all died in vain as some think either.

IF you aren't willing and able to "kill everyone"... don't go to war. Assasinate, subvert, proxy, diplomacy... not war.

The Nazis tried to "kill everyone" upon invading the Soviet Union, it resulted in the Soviet peoples, who had initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Stalin's henchmen, siding with Stalin to fight off the Nazis.

In Iraq, we implemented a strategy of making friends with the Iraqi peoples to turn them against the terrorists which helped the surge succeed.

A huge mistake with Iraq was the Bush administration thinking the war would be quick.

 

[CAC1001]

I’m probably too ignorant on U.S. defense policy to make any 'clever' comments... but from a European perspective, here’s my personal little "advices":

• Always make sure you attack the RIGHT country.

• 
  
  Well they thought they were.
  
  

  [*]Always make sure you have the CORRECT information BEFORE starting a new war.

  
  They thought they did.
  
  

  [*]Never start a new war without complete support from ALL countries in the western world.

  
  This one isn't workable, as then you'd never be able to engage in any conflict. Some European nations make a lot of money selling stuff to those Middle Eastern nations, the last thing they'd want is them toppled.

 

[nismaratwork]

Killing everyone won't demolish the enemy if he comes into the country you're in from outside of it, as the terrorists were doing with Iraq and are doing now with Afghanistan. That is what General Patreaus recognized, that conventional military force wouldn't succeed in Iraq. He implemented the strategy of making friends with the Iraqi people to turn them against the terrorists. Trying to kill everyone would only have turned the Iraqi people against us and also likely not worked, plus it would have gone completely against one of the reasons for invasion of Iraq, which was to topple a brutal dictator and free the people, not be a mass slaughterer.

It was a search for non-existent WMD... we could have killed Saddam if we'd been willing to kill a few hundred (or thousands) innocent people. That may sound harsh, but it's beats the hundreds of thousands dead now, don't you think? Iraq isn't a war, it's a failed colonial adventure.

Two good things we got out of it was toppling a very oppressive dictator and liberating the people, and establishing a liberal democracy which will hopefully become stable and prosperous.

We NEEDED that dictator, which is why we armed him so well. Iraq was a secular buffer between Iran and Israel... it is no longer. If you see prosperity in Iraq's future, you're going to have to find more than hope to back THAT up.

Now I'm not saying that unto itself justified the invasion of Iraq at all. But I mean while WMDs were not found, I don't think the soldiers all died in vain as some think either.

Soldiers died following their legal orders; they are not the issue, they are victims in this.

The Nazis tried to "kill everyone" upon invading the Soviet Union, it resulted in the Soviet peoples, who had initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Stalin's henchmen, siding with Stalin to fight off the Nazis.

Stalin then proceeded to killl... was it 21 million Russians? I think so. Anyway, the Nazi genocidal effort was not war either, it was systematic murder. Firebombing Dresden, Tokyo, and nuclear bombs in two cities... that is war.

In Iraq, we implemented a strategy of making friends with the Iraqi peoples to turn them against the terrorists which helped the surge succeed.

A huge mistake with Iraq was the Bush administration thinking the war would be quick.

We tired to make friends with people we'd strangled with sanctions; people we left for dead and worse after the first Gulf War. War isn't about making friends; if it is, you're not fighting a war, you're dicking around.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well they thought they were.



They thought they did.

That is not clear at all, and while I'm sure we could debate that ad infinitum, the lack of clarity stinks of "Gulf of Tonkin" episodes. There is a lot of evidence, and testimony including Rumsfeld, and Powell... and now with this psy-ops on our own politicians?! If you really want to assert this as fact, you need to back it up in ways that I don't think anyone can.

This one isn't workable, as then you'd never be able to engage in any conflict. Some European nations make a lot of money selling stuff to those Middle Eastern nations, the last thing they'd want is them toppled.

Agreed, but given our litany of failures from Korea, Vietnam, and others... I'd say we have to only act in extrema; i.e. when a Hitler starts annexing countries, and the Europeans try appeasement. There doesn't need to be consensus, but there needs to be balance.

 

[CAC1001]

It was a search for non-existent WMD... we could have killed Saddam if we'd been willing to kill a few hundred (or thousands) innocent people. That may sound harsh, but it's beats the hundreds of thousands dead now, don't you think? Iraq isn't a war, it's a failed colonial adventure.

I think that's oversimplifying it. If we had killed Hussein with a few thousand dead alongside, we'd still have had the same problem, with terrorists trying to take control and fighting. And the objective was never to colonize Iraq. If that was the goal, we'd have set up a permanent puppet government and given access to the Iraqi oil solely to American companies.

We NEEDED that dictator, which is why we armed him so well. Iraq was a secular buffer between Iran and Israel... it is no longer. If you see prosperity in Iraq's future, you're going to have to find more than hope to back THAT up.

He was an incredibly brutal and oppressive dictator though. He wasn't a more benign dictator like Mubarak. That said, again I am not saying wanting to establish a liberal democracy in Iraq was reason enough on its own to invade, I just mean it is a nice thing to get in the end.

As for prosperity, I don't know, time will tell.

Stalin then proceeded to killl... was it 21 million Russians? I think so. Anyway, the Nazi genocidal effort was not war either, it was systematic murder. Firebombing Dresden, Tokyo, and nuclear bombs in two cities... that is war.

It might have been genocidal, but they were also at war with the Soviet Union. It was a "killy everybody" mentality they had, and I was just pointing out that that doesn't always work in war.

Even in the bombings of Germany, it didn't necessarilly work. Today some view it that we could have forgone bombing the major German cities because it just turned the German people against us more and also did not work to stop the German war production (in fact, German war production increased despite the bombings). What stopped the German military was when we attacked the oil refineries, which they could not operate once bombed.

We tired to make friends with people we'd strangled with sanctions; people we left for dead and worse after the first Gulf War. War isn't about making friends; if it is, you're not fighting a war, you're dicking around.

War is about many things IMO.

That is not clear at all, and while I'm sure we could debate that ad infinitum, the lack of clarity stinks of "Gulf of Tonkin" episodes. There is a lot of evidence, and testimony including Rumsfeld, and Powell... and now with this psy-ops on our own politicians?! If you really want to assert this as fact, you need to back it up in ways that I don't think anyone can.

I think you can argue that the Bush administration was not thorough enough in its intelligence-gathering, or was overzealous, but the administration all thought Hussein had WMDs. This had been thought of as far back as the 1990s under Bill Clinton as well. One of the arguments given by Democrats on why not to invade Iraq was that Hussein would likely use said WMDs on U.S. soldiers.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that's oversimplifying it. If we had killed Hussein with a few thousand dead alongside, we'd still have had the same problem, with terrorists trying to take control and fighting. And the objective was never to colonize Iraq. If that was the goal, we'd have set up a permanent puppet government and given access to the Iraqi oil solely to American companies.

Right, we tried, and failed at that. See Haliburton's pullout.

He was an incredibly brutal and oppressive dictator though. He wasn't a more benign dictator like Mubarak. That said, again I am not saying wanting to establish a liberal democracy in Iraq was reason enough on its own to invade, I just mean it is a nice thing to get in the end.

Mubarak was not benign. In addition, there are tons of brutal and oppressive dictators... why him?

As for prosperity, I don't know, time will tell.

So does history.

It might have been genocidal, but they were also at war with the Soviet Union. It was a "killy everybody" mentality they had, and I was just pointing out that that doesn't always work in war.

**** might, it was. I'd add, it very nearly DID work, and it certainly worked for the allied powers. I think you need to become more familiar with the history of warfare.

Even in the bombings of Germany, it didn't necessarilly work. Today some view it that we could have forgone bombing the major German cities because it just turned the German people against us more and also did not work to stop the German war production (in fact, German war production increased despite the bombings). What stopped the German military was when we attacked the oil refineries, which they could not operate once bombed.

Again, history may judge, but the results speak for themselves.

War is about many things IMO.

Yes, but there are only a few ways to conduct a war if you want to win. If your "win" is a police action or adventure, it's not a war.

I think you can argue that the Bush administration was not thorough enough in its intelligence-gathering, or was overzealous, but the administration all thought Hussein had WMDs. This had been thought of as far back as the 1990s under Bill Clinton as well. One of the arguments given by Democrats on why not to invade Iraq was that Hussein would likely use said WMDs on U.S. soldiers.

I'd argue for deception, but we'll have to wait for history on that.

 

[CAC1001]

Right, we tried, and failed at that. See Haliburton's pullout.

The goal from the get-go was to turn Iraq into a democracy.

Mubarak was not benign. In addition, there are tons of brutal and oppressive dictators... why him?

Mubarak wasn't any Hussein though, or Ghadaffi. And I said that just because Hussein was a dictator was not at all justification enough to have invaded Iraq, for the reasons you cited (there are plenty of other dictators).

So does history.

History shows quite a few nations to have become successful democracies with prosperous economies, many others have failed at the attempt. Chile is an example of a success.

**** might, it was. I'd add, it very nearly DID work, and it certainly worked for the allied powers. I think you need to become more familiar with the history of warfare.

From my understanding of it, part of the reason the Nazis lost to the Soviets was Hitler's infringing on the operations and messing things up, if that is the case, you're right, but then one could reason that the Nazis could have beaten the Soviets a lot easier by making friends with the Soviet peoples.

Again, history may judge, but the results speak for themselves.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[nismaratwork]

The goal from the get-go was to turn Iraq into a democracy.

Really? That wasn't the case that was made to the international community, or rather, not the primary case. It's also not a legal reason to invade even a dictator's country.

Mubarak wasn't any Hussein though, or Ghadaffi. And I said that just because Hussein was a dictator was not at all justification enough to have invaded Iraq, for the reasons you cited (there are plenty of other dictators).

No, he was sane, but you said "benign" which is very different. Let's keep those goal posts firmly planted, OK?

History shows quite a few nations to have become successful democracies with prosperous economies, many others have failed at the attempt. Chile is an example of a success.

It's an intersting case, but hardly the norm, and it wasn't the result of a war.

From my understanding of it, part of the reason the Nazis lost to the Soviets was Hitler's infringing on the operations and messing things up, if that is the case, you're right, but then one could reason that the Nazis could have beaten the Soviets a lot easier by making friends with the Soviet peoples.

They shoud have left the Soviets alone... making friends would not have been likely given Stalin. I suspect it would have just delayed the inevitable. They also could have won if they had a concept of the weather and terrain, but that's also not the point.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, I'm saying that I BELIEVE there was deception, but I recognize that I am not an impartial judge, and that history makes the calls. That is not a fallacy, it's admitting humanity. In addition, there is evidence of deception, and an attempt to quash dissent (Plame, Powell...). In a better world, Bush W. would have been removed before sending us into the "graveyard of empires", and Iraq... IMO.

 

[CAC1001]

Really? That wasn't the case that was made to the international community, or rather, not the primary case. It's also not a legal reason to invade even a dictator's country.

It wasn't the primary cases, but it was one of the goals upon overturning Hussein for the WMDs.

No, he was sane, but you said "benign" which is very different. Let's keep those goal posts firmly planted, OK?

Mubarak didn't slaughter his own people or oppress them in the way Hussein did or Ghadaffi.

It's an intersting case, but hardly the norm, and it wasn't the result of a war.

Japan, South Korea, and West Germany (now Germany) were successes that were the result of war though.

They shoud have left the Soviets alone... making friends would not have been likely given Stalin. I suspect it would have just delayed the inevitable. They also could have won if they had a concept of the weather and terrain, but that's also not the point.

Making friends with the Soviet peoples would have made it a lot easier to fight against Stalin as the people would not have been fighting against them.

No, I'm saying that I BELIEVE there was deception, but I recognize that I am not an impartial judge, and that history makes the calls. That is not a fallacy, it's admitting humanity. In addition, there is evidence of deception, and an attempt to quash dissent (Plame, Powell...). In a better world, Bush W. would have been removed before sending us into the "graveyard of empires", and Iraq... IMO.

You are misunderstanding me. You said:

Again, history may judge, but the results speak for themselves.

in response to my saying the bombings of the big German cities didn't stop the German war machine.

To this, I said, post hoc ergo propter hoc, in other words, just because we bombed the cities and then Germany lost doesn't mean it was the bombing of the German cities that made them lose the war.

 

[Gokul43201]

How did the U.S. fail in Iraq? While I wouldn't call Iraq a rollicking success, I wouldn't call it a failure either.

What do you call it when a task billed at $100B ends up costing an order of magnitude more than that? Remember, the Bush admin fired economist Lawrence Lindsey, when he said that the war might cost as much as $200B, rather than the $100B estimate that was publicized by Rummy, Cheney, et al. Where are we now, somewhere near the $1T mark? More, if you include indirect costs, like healthcare for vets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey

On September 15, 2002, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Lindsey estimated the high limit on the cost of the Bush administration's plan in 2002 of invasion and regime change in Iraq to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100–$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50–$60 billion. This lower figure was endorsed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who called Lindsey's estimate "baloney".

 

[CAC1001]

What do you call it when a task billed at $100B ends up costing an order of magnitude more than that? Remember, the Bush admin fired economist Lawrence Lindsey, when he said that the war might cost as much as $200B, rather than the $100B estimate that was publicized by Rummy, Cheney, et al. Where are we now, somewhere near the $1T mark? More, if you include indirect costs, like healthcare for vets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_B._Lindsey

Just because something costs a lot more than expected doesn't mean it is a failure. Medicare has ended up costing a lot more than expected too, but I wouldn't say it is a failure of a program, just that it has ended up costing far more than was estimated. Just because the war has ended up costing far more than was anticipated doesn't make it a "failure," it means it was a lot more expensive than was initially thought.

 

[nismaratwork]

CAC... you've gone beyond logic, moved so many goalposts I'm losing track (Mubarak is benign -> he's no Hussein... no kidding, few are), and frankly seem only interested in the echo of your views. If you think Iraq was an honest war with a successful outcome, we must live in different universes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just because something costs a lot more than expected doesn't mean it is a failure. Medicare has ended up costing a lot more than expected too, but I wouldn't say it is a failure of a program, just that it has ended up costing far more than was estimated. Just because the war has ended up costing far more than was anticipated doesn't make it a "failure," it means it was a lot more expensive than was initially thought.

The administration fired someone who said the war might cost up to $200B. They didn't think the citizenry would consider the results (deposing Saddam, instilling democracy in the ME, securing the WMDs, reducing the terrorist thread to the US, and inflicting payback for September 11) worth $200B. If all of that is not worth $200B, I don't see how the argument can be made that some of that is worth $1T. And if it can't, then I don't see how one can call it a success.

It's not a question of expectations, or poor calculations, but one of justification. If the $200B estimate was going to be hard to justify, how do you justify a ten-fold bigger cost, with no additional benefits?

 

[CAC1001]

and frankly seem only interested in the echo of your views.

You would be mistaken.

If you think Iraq was an honest war with a successful outcome, we must live in different universes.

I never said it had a successful outcome, I just do not see it as a failure either. I really think it is too soon to tell at the moment.

 

[CAC1001]

The administration fired someone who said the war might cost up to $200B. They didn't think the citizenry would consider the results (deposing Saddam, instilling democracy in the ME, securing the WMDs, reducing the terrorist thread to the US, and inflicting payback for September 11) worth $200B. If all of that is not worth $200B, I don't see how some of that is worth $1T. And if it isn't then I don't see how you can call it a success.

I don't judge the success of it based solely on the financial cost, but as said, I do not declare it a success, I just don't see it as a failure. I think whether it was a success or not will take more time to determine.

 

[nismaratwork]

You would be mistaken.

Prove it... once.

I never said it had a successful outcome, I just do not see it as a failure either. I really think it is too soon to tell at the moment.

War is a win, or a lose... see previous quote from a rather respected general.

 

[ThomasT]

As to "choice", if you can find me a single instance in the modern era (say, 1800 onwards) of a western country believing - as evidenced by the proclamations of its leaders and/or government - it chose to go to war rather than being forced to it after the exhaustion of "diplomacy by all other means", I'll concede the point.

We've been repeatedly and sometimes painfully reminded that it's a mistake to take the proclamations of politicians as evidence of the truth.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq no matter what and the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion have been well enough demonstated.

Countering weapons of mass destruction was not the reason. Dismantling a despotic regime in order to spread freedom and democracy was not the reason. (The US government has and will, it seems, continue to support oppressive regimes whenever it's deemed 'in the national interest' to do so.)

The reality is that we failed in Iraq, we're failing in Afghanistan.

I'm curious how you'd define success? Iraq has a stable government, a functional self defense force ...

Didn't Iraq have these before the invasion?

... and no credible, substantial threat to its sovereignty.

You mean aside from the US?

Is the US going to maintain any permanent military base(s) in Iraq? I don't know. But iff that's the case, then maybe the propaganda and the invasion and the subsequent effort might be considered necessary and the cost justifiable.

Still, hundreds of thousands of killed and injured Iraqis. Millions of displaced Iraqis and ruined lives. Thousands of killed and injured Americans. A devastated Iraq infrastructure.

That's a lot of collateral damage.

Whether or not Gates' statement makes sense depends on who's evaluating it. Some players benefitted from the Iraq 'war' and will benefit from future deployments of big American land armies. Others (most people, I would guess) won't.

In any case, I think that American Secretaries of State and Presidents should have their heads examined regularly.

 

[nismaratwork]

We've been repeatedly and sometimes painfully reminded that it's a mistake to take the proclamations of politicians as evidence of the truth.

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq no matter what and the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion have been well enough demonstated.

Countering weapons of mass destruction was not the reason. Dismantling a despotic regime in order to spread freedom and democracy was not the reason. (The US government has and will, it seems, continue to support oppressive regimes whenever it's deemed 'in the national interest' to do so.)


Didn't Iraq have these before the invasion?
You mean aside from the US?

Is the US going to maintain any permanent military base(s) in Iraq? I don't know. But iff that's the case, then maybe the propaganda and the invasion and the subsequent effort might be considered necessary and the cost justifiable.

Still, hundreds of thousands of killed and injured Iraqis. Millions of displaced Iraqis and ruined lives. Thousands of killed and injured Americans. A devastated Iraq infrastructure.

That's a lot of collateral damage.

Whether or not Gates' statement makes sense depends on who's evaluating it. Some players benefitted from the Iraq 'war' and will benefit from future deployments of big American land armies. Others (most people, I would guess) won't.

In any case, I think that American Secretaries of State and Presidents should have their heads examined regularly.

VERY well said, and factually correct. A fine turn of affairs that I can only assume will be appreciated by most, and ignored by some.

I give it: [PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0034.gif[ATTACH=full]197053[/ATTACH]

 

[CAC1001]

Prove it... once.

Prove that I'm not only interested "in the echo of my own views?" Now you've lost me. You seem to have a problem with a person disagreeing with your POV. A person disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are only interested in their own way of seeing something.

War is a win, or a lose... see previous quote from a rather respected general.

It can take time to determine whether certain wars have been won or lost.

 

[CAC1001]

The invasion of Iraq was a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. The Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq no matter what and the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion have been well enough demonstated.

I would disagree a propaganda campaign was demonstrated, what was demonstrated was that a lot of the information presented on why Iraq was a threat turned out not to be true. There's a difference.

Countering weapons of mass destruction was not the reason. Dismantling a despotic regime in order to spread freedom and democracy was not the reason. (The US government has and will, it seems, continue to support oppressive regimes whenever it's deemed 'in the national interest' to do so.)

The U.S. government has supported oppressive regimes when it was the lesser of the available evils. If you have the choice between a liberal democracy (and when I say "liberal" democracy, I don't mean the modern American definition of liberal that means a leftwing mindset, I mean the term liberal as in respecting human rights, freedoms, etc...) being established or an oppressive regime, you go for the liberal democracy.

What too many people don't realize is that democracy itself is not a panacea. Democracy is a necessary component for freedom, but in and of itself, will not result in freedom. Democracy in its pure form is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. What you can end up with in these Middle Eastern nations is a democracy that votes into power an incredibly oppressive (to women and anyone who disagrees with it), incredibly anti-Western government.

Germany voting in Adolf Hitler and then voting to give him dictatorial powers is one of the most infamous examples of this (albeit in Europe).

Establishing a liberal democratic government is a tough thing to do, and oftentimes as a result, you end up having to support a dictator who is friendly to you. This may mean overturning a democratically-elected government in the process, but only if said democratically-elected government would be worse than the dictator.

Mubarak was an example of such a regime. The fear was his being thrown out of power could result in the Egyptians putting into power a very oppressive, extremist government. He was a dictator, but he was not the kind of dictator Hussein was or Ghadaffi is/was.

You mean aside from the US?

How is the U.S. a substantial threat to Iraq's sovereignty?