Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News How We (US) Lost in Iraq and Afghanistan

  1. Nov 9, 2014 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A 3-Star General Explains 'Why We Lost' In Iraq, Afghanistan
    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/09/361746282/a-3-star-general-explains-why-we-lost-in-iraq-afghanistan

    Trained for regular conflicts, the military seems ill-prepared for counterinsurgency. Seems like the same situation in WWI when the old 19th century way of combat did not work when confronted with mechanized/industrialized combat with machine guns, mortars, armored cavalry (tanks), air craft, landmines, poisonous gas, . . .
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2014 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Every President since at least George H.W. Bush has said we shouldn't get involved in nation building, and every President since at least George H.W. Bush has ended up nation building. The US tries to use the military for this, because they aren't allowed to say "no", but fundamentally, this is not their job: their job is to break things. The US would be well served by creating another service, perhaps run out of State and not Defense, whose job is to build nations.

    How many times does one's house have to catch fire before one buys some fire insurance?
     
  4. Nov 9, 2014 #3
    IMHO, We lost Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq. Then the Defense Department assumed that armored Humvees wouldn't be needed once the invasion of Iraq was over.
     
  5. Nov 9, 2014 #4
    I might have to pick this book up. Sounds fascinating!
     
  6. Nov 10, 2014 #5

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member



    Since Washington's entangling alliances warning farewell, and probably best said by JQA:
    But abstinence "from interference" is not the same as pacifism. American had fought two major foreign power wars with the British by the time of JQA, and a couple more with the Barbary states.
     
  7. Nov 11, 2014 #6

    Dotini

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In my opinion It is a very bitter pill to swallow when it is said without contradiction we lost the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We paid a high price in lives, terrible injuries, and national debt, not to mention national pride, international respect, and self-respect.

    I recall the Vietnam War did not end very well, and neither did the Korean War before that.

    You know, I think it is probably a very bad idea to get continuously involved in wars and then to lose, or fail to win them.

    But on the other hand, would it be any better to fight only wars that we could win and profit from? If we were to attack and invade Canada, we could seize her oil, gold, rare earth minerals, timber, fisheries, fresh water and polar access. With all that, perhaps we could pay off the national debt and restore our reputation as a fearsome winner rather than a feckless loser? :rolleyes:

    But somehow I don't think that sounds right, either.

    A rational place to start in reassessing our whole approach to war-making might be to fix the mismatch between our laws and our actions - like clarifying the Constitutional responsibility for declaration of war. Congress has abdicated this role for decades, and the Presidents have scooped up too much power, IMO. When we consistently say one thing in the highest law of the land and do another in the field of action, it creates an unhealthy cognitive dissonance; our thinking and decisions become distorted and ugly, IMO. I recommend we either amend the Constitution to reflect what we are doing, or amend what we are doing to come into agreement with the Constitution.
     
  8. Nov 12, 2014 #7

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    "Wins and losses" have to be defined before they can be declared. What was on the table?
     
  9. Nov 12, 2014 #8
    With Iraq? Leaving Sadam in power, what was quite reasonable, instead of making up those claims concerning WMDs.

    With Afghanistan? USA credibility was at the stake and there was no good move. There were not many targets there that could have been destroyed in a retaliatory air campaign. The only idea that I've heard of that would not involve puting there troops and would have adequate chilling effect for other terrorist harborring regimes, presumably involved using... WMDs. (which would be politically too expensive)
     
  10. Nov 12, 2014 #9

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You've stated what you see as having been on the table from 2001-8. Can you understand that there may be other views? That some might see the highlighted items as being mutually inconsistent? U.S. interests and goals as presented in news media may have been vastly different from what was desirable, what was possible, from what was actually attempted, and from what was understood by the policy makers and people sent to protect those interests and effect those goals.
     
  11. Nov 12, 2014 #10

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member



    Do you actually mean reasonable, or the least bad of bad choices? If the 2003 Iraq war was never started, how long would you advise the US have kept up its no-fly zone, which had been ongoing since 1991 (12 years)? US patrol planes were under daily attack from the ground.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone#Iraq.2C_1991.E2.80.932003

    Or the embargo after the Gulf War?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
     
  12. Nov 13, 2014 #11
    Honestly speaking I thought that the status quo was stable. Just USA needed to express its point by using anti-radar missle from time to time. Plus powerful Iraq was quite good to counterbalance Iran.

    Embargo could have been kept, just like in case of Cuba. Or Sadam could have behaved well and have it lifted. Hard to say, both were possible and both were acceptable outcomes.

    Turning secular Iraq into zones controlled by ISIS and under heavy influence of Iran I see as bad idea. To what extend ISIS was foreseeable - hard for me to say, but I think that Iraq with Shia majority is quite natural friend for Iran, so that part was foreseeable.
     
  13. Nov 13, 2014 #12

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Stable means able to last as-is indefinitely. The ~2002 Iraq you portray is at odds with the history when labeled "stable".

    The US enforced no-fly was over northern Kurdish Iraq and everything south of Baghdad, about a hundred thousand square miles, and was patrolled with regular SAM launches at US aircraft. Anti-SAM attacks were taken but did not stop the SAMs. Taking responsibility for a no-fly of Iraqi aircraft also place the US in the position of assuming responsibility for preventing Iranian or Turkish aircraft from entering Iraq. There were mistakes including the shoot down of a friendly helicopter killing dozens. While the UN was indulging in the corruption of the oil-for-food scandal, the UN's Boutros Boutros-Ghali labeled the no-fly zone illegal.

    Just like in Cuba, there would have been no embargo aside from the US; even the limited set of countries that originally joined it were falling away, with officials of some countries found to be in the pay of Saddam's oil money.

    Then there's the history of Saddam himself. Though he had little WMD in 2003, we know in the past he constituted and used large amounts of chemical WMD against Iraqis and Iranians. We know in the past he had a viable nuclear program, probably 9-18 months away from a weapon. We know he deliberately set about to destroy ethnic groups such as the Marsh Arabs. We know he invaded multiple countries with intent to annex.

    I can entertain that leaving Saddam in place might be bad option A versus invasion bad option B, but stable? No.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  14. Nov 13, 2014 #13

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Perfect summation: most of the situations boil down to selection from a list of bad options.
     
  15. Nov 21, 2014 #14
    Perhaps the US should have realized that Iraq simply can't hold itself together and should have created a separate state for Kurds, Shias and Sunnis ?
     
  16. Nov 21, 2014 #15

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    That's one bad option from among the multitude of horrible options available. "Balkanization" is generally regarded as undesirable, but Yugoslavia hasn't been too much in the news lately --- so, maybe it could have been made to work --- pro-rating revenues from unevenly distributed natural resources would probably have been a "bear."
     
  17. Nov 21, 2014 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yet Iraq seemed to be holding itself together, if imperfectly, until it was invaded by a foreign army. Recall some examples of countries splitting themselves up, to include Pakistan and India, with the initial split causing 1 million casualties, followed by the '65 war, followed by the '71 war, followed by..., followed by...; Gaza and Israel, S and N Korea.
     
  18. Nov 21, 2014 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  19. Nov 21, 2014 #18

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    "— in part because of our moral commitment to the Iraqi people — .... ...sorting out who is or is not a terrorist in civilian areas ...."

    "Moral commitments" are like mental commitments --- first steps on the road to a rubber room; if you aren't serving your own interests in a conflict, you have no business getting involved, because you have no idea what's at stake.

    Hague and Geneva Conventions do NOT require sorting terrorists from civilians, only that civilians not be specifically targeted as civilians; they do provide for prosecutions of combatants, or authorities controlling combatants, employing civilians as human shields/hostages. Makes for very ugly situations --- No Gun Ri, Street Without Joy, and others.

    Wars are ugly business --- Hague and Geneva keep the ghastly aspects to a minimum (Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima) while censuring the truly intolerable (concentration camps, forced labor, genocide). The politically correct model adopted without conscious thought or due process in SW Asia that technology could provide a surgical precision that would guarantee that only the bad guys got hurt and cause no collateral damage is a pipe dream, particularly vis a vis the moral rationalizations/propaganda of "nation building." Collateral damage is the motivating force for a population to commit to nation building rather than regarding "The Lone Ranger" as a global Orkin Man or other exterminator of pests and vermin who leaves silver bullets behind as largesse.

    Lose? Or, pretty good start and just quit long before things were properly finished?
     
  20. Nov 22, 2014 #19
    This idea has serious advantages, like creating 3 states that are supposed to be manageable. (Turkey would not be delighted by independent Kurdistan) However, there is also one serious backslash - actually there are quite plenty of ethnic groups all over the world that would like such an idea implement and start a civil war because of such inspiration.


    I generally agreed with your post, but I think that you may oversimplify here. There is reputation at stake, which actually has quite high value. Is it a good idea to be a US friend? Well, a rational player would just check your track record. Or a just bombed person might look for revenge instead of cooperating.


    Damn, we're discussing about US foreign policy and we stay very calm and rational, trying to find an idea that would have been less bad. No high words about bringing democracy vs. condemning imperialism and western guilt. What's wrong with us? :D
     
  21. Nov 22, 2014 #20

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    "Oversimplify?" I doubt that Greg has memory enough on PF to catalogue all the military/diplomatic/leadership mistakes of the past century.

    "Reputation?" Starting with Wilson, the U.S. has accumulated an "enviable" (:nb)!!!???) track record as usually well-intentioned, arrogant, clumsy, oafish, oblivious amateurs who can be depended upon to prevail militarily but never quite understand what it takes to finish things properly.

    What is(are) our "Shakespearean fatal character flaw(s)?" Where to begin: Inability of leadership to focus and follow through on any endeavor that exceeds the lifetime of the "nth" congress; the electorate's inability to disconnect wars from analogies to athletic contests with fixed playing times and rules; the general tendency to start believing our own propaganda rather than facing reality.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How We (US) Lost in Iraq and Afghanistan
  1. US-Iraq security pact (Replies: 12)

Loading...