News How We (US) Lost in Iraq and Afghanistan

[nikkkom]

OK, you can use the argument that was worse because of Iran-Iraq war, but Americans on this forum would be uneasy about it, after all they were selling weapons to Saddam and sharing with him satelite photos.

Which is a wrong reason to feel uneasy about.
Americans supported Saddam after he started the war, because Iran was even worse. Their dictatorship is not one man's affair, death of any single individual in Iran leadership is not going to end it. Since the war has already started, what was making more sense - to let Iran win?

The other problem here is that as a general rule in stable dictatorship your chance of being murdered (by thugs hired by gov or freelance thugs) is actually dramatically lower than in unstable democracy (by freelance thugs), not mentioning countries that effectively turned into a permanent war zones. (yes, you may use different metric, but I'm just pointing out that one metric here favours dictatorship) Additionally the less educated society the harder would be to achieve working democracy.

Working democracy can be achieved only by trying to achieve working democracy.

Just conserving a dictatorship can't avoid a (potentially bloody) mess when it eventually falls, and people try to live differently. It just postpones it.

In order to learn how to ride a bike you need to try it. Even if you fall repeatedly at first.

 

[Czcibor]

Which is a wrong reason to feel uneasy about.
Americans supported Saddam after he started the war, because Iran was even worse. Their dictatorship is not one man's affair, death of any single individual in Iran leadership is not going to end it. Since the war has already started, what was making more sense - to let Iran win?

OK, so he killed so many people in a war in which he was considered as lesser evil and armed accordingly.

Working democracy can be achieved only by trying to achieve working democracy.

Just conserving a dictatorship can't avoid a (potentially bloody) mess when it eventually falls, and people try to live differently. It just postpones it.

In order to learn how to ride a bike you need to try it. Even if you fall repeatedly at first.

That what you said contradicts somewhat historical cases:

Case 1: Poland. Before WW1 in occupying powers the most democratic thing was constitutional monarchy with parliament. Then in independent country we played with a democracy for a while. (a terribly unstable version) It ended up with a coup and soft line dictatorship. The system at the end by contemporary standards was comparably democratic to Putin Russia, but by standards of that era was very tolerant and humanitarian in comparison to nearby Soviet Union and Third Reich. Consequently there was a period of communism. The system that appeared after 1989, was already in theory fully democratic in 1991, while it needed a while more in practice.

(there was big jump in quality of democracy between Second Republic (1918-1939) and Third Republic (1989-). Such event don't fit your theory ("you need to try democracy to build democracy in long run").

Case 2: Asian Tigers - first become developed, then actually become serious about democracy.
Case 3: African countries - were not developed, when they became independent their system seriously devolved towards parody of democracy or just open military dictatorship/military rule.

My point that for democracy you need properly educated and mature societies. Otherwise there is not much point. And you can get the needed development level also under less enlighten system (monarchy / colonial subjugation / single party state / dictatorship), actually if you risk civil wars or high crime rate, then keeping a police state may be a part of the least harmful idea.

 

[nikkkom]

That what you said contradicts somewhat historical cases:

Case 1: Poland. Before WW1 in occupying powers the most democratic thing was constitutional monarchy with parliament. Then in independent country we played with a democracy for a while. (a terribly unstable version) It ended up with a coup and soft line dictatorship. The system at the end by contemporary standards was comparably democratic to Putin Russia, but by standards of that era was very tolerant and humanitarian in comparison to nearby Soviet Union and Third Reich. Consequently there was a period of communism. The system that appeared after 1989, was already in theory fully democratic in 1991, while it needed a while more in practice.

(there was big jump in quality of democracy between Second Republic (1918-1939) and Third Republic (1989-). Such event don't fit your theory ("you need to try democracy to build democracy in long run").

How does it "not fit my theory" when you said that first attempt at building democracy was not as successful as the second? That's _exactly_ my point.

There are more examples.

Consider Germany. First democracy (Weimar republic) fell apart, because people and politicians did not yet know what it is and how to use it. Both communists and nazis tried to seize power, and keep it forever, crushing opponents. Nazis did it first...

Case 2: Asian Tigers - first become developed, then actually become serious about democracy.

As I said: exactly my point. E.g. South Korea, while being nominally "democratic", at first was quite authoritarian in reality - they suppressed communists with quite brutal and in many cases illegal means. But gradually, it become better, and now they have well-functioning democracy.

Case 3: African countries - were not developed, when they became independent their system seriously devolved towards parody of democracy or just open military dictatorship/military rule.

Africa and Middle East countries are either don't have democracy yet, or they are at "Weimar republic" stage, with high risks of it falling apart. They did not "devolve" from actual, working democracy to a parody - they never had "actual, working democracy" yet.

My point that for democracy you need properly educated and mature societies.

Where would "mature society" appear from? Thin air?

Can you ride bicycle well without ever trying?

 

[HossamCFD]

Hyperbole.
Saddam once gassed 5000 Kurds in one day, with 10000 more surviving victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Also the Anfal campaign, formally ruled by the Hague as a genocide against the Kurdish people, during which 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians were massacred. The Halabja chemical attack was part of this campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Saddam was a TRUELY terrible human being.

 

[jim hardy]

I'm just pointing out that one metric here favours dictatorship) Additionally the less educated society the harder would be to achieve working democracy.

My point that for democracy you need properly educated and mature societies. Otherwise there is not much point. And you can get the needed development level also under less enlighten system (monarchy / colonial subjugation / single party state / dictatorship), actually if you risk civil wars or high crime rate, then keeping a police state may be a part of the least harmful idea.

There's the bitter truth.

We overthrew several dictators in last decade and look what a mess erupted.
Now we have civil wars. Our own Civil War was ended by Sherman's violent swath across the south. His idea was to inflict so much pain on the people at large they'd stop supporting the war.
But i don't think that's something we should do to a people who haven't militarily attacked us. It's up to them to put their house in order.
my two cents

 

[nikkkom]

There's the bitter truth.

We overthrew several dictators in last decade and look what a mess erupted. Now we have civil wars.

The failure was that Bush was too stupid to realize that other places and cultures have very substantial differences from one he knows, and that it was vitally important to consult with specialists in Middle East, Arabs, And Iraqis in particular, before going to war with Saddam.

He did nothing of that. Almost anything that happened after Saddam was defeated was a surprise to his administration. Such as Sunnis and Shias turning on each other. It was predictable. With sufficient planning, maybe it was _avoidable_.

The war per se was won easily in military terms. It is actually something which needs to be studied in textbooks on military logistics and planning - winning a war on the other side of the globe from your country is _hard_.

 

[jim hardy]

Well, i lay it instead on whoever upset Lybia, Tunisia, Egypt, and almost Syria...

When i read Brzezinski's 'Grand Chessboard' , and Mackinder's "Heartland Theory" it became apparent to me the die was cast well before the 2000 elections.
Bellow's "Ravelstein" gives a glimpse into the world of men who play tiddlywinks with nations.

 

[russ_watters]

Saddam was far worse than ISIS. In Iran/Iraq war which he started, estimated one million people died.

People who entertain a thought "that dictator wasn't so bad after all" are overwhelmingly people who have no idea what it's like to live under a dictatorial government. The feeling of having no hope to change anything about your country. Not even being allowed to voice a dissenting point of view.

ISIS has twitter and advertises their barbarism. That's all they really have - they are the Ray Rice of terrorist/militant groups. What they are doing is not unique or even especially creative*, much less of a large enough scale or organized enough to measure up to either Saddam or Assad.

*Saddam is said to have dropped political prisoners into a plastic shredder. THAT takes a special kind of creative evil. That he was able to be so insanely brutal while maintaining control of such a large country is truly remarkable.

 

[Astronuc]

Since Daesh has only been active for about 9 years (since ~2006), given enough time, I think they would outdo Saddam who was President of Iraq from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003 (or about 24 years).

Hopefully, they will be deprived of that opportunity.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

*Saddam is said to have dropped political prisoners into a plastic shredder. THAT takes a special kind of creative evil. That he was able to be so insanely brutal while maintaining control of such a large country is truly remarkable.

Might be just a rumor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's_alleged_shredder

 

[russ_watters]

Oops, guess I fell for that one.

 

[Czcibor]

How does it "not fit my theory" when you said that first attempt at building democracy was not as successful as the second? That's _exactly_ my point.

There are more examples.

Consider Germany. First democracy (Weimar republic) fell apart, because people and politicians did not yet know what it is and how to use it. Both communists and nazis tried to seize power, and keep it forever, crushing opponents. Nazis did it first...

Well, I think that Nazi Germany is exactly a well picked argument against democracy and that both Germany and the world would be better off if Wilhelm II was still the kaiser.

I see one serious flaw in your reasoning - you assum

As I said: exactly my point. E.g. South Korea, while being nominally "democratic", at first was quite authoritarian in reality - they suppressed communists with quite brutal and in many cases illegal means. But gradually, it become better, and now they have well-functioning democracy.

But insctead of striving for democracy the priorities were economics/education and getting rid of communist in a way that's not democracy at all. Had they been more serious about typical features of democracy like human rights / freedom of speech actually they risked state collapse thus moving far away from becoming a democracy in long run

Where would "mature society" appear from? Thin air?

Can you ride bicycle well without ever trying?

Main source:
- mass education. At best not done now but already such tradition of more than one generation
- respect for law/rules (there are some clear rules based on secular law, and they are enforced)
- cultural transfer from more advanced countries
- responsibility for your own choice (try first democracy on local level when you would directly feel pain of your bad decisions, while you would not cause collapse of everything)

(You can provide that all under authoritarian regime. Under perfect condition you organize a burial of the dictator (like Ataturk), call him in the speech the father of nation, thank him for all achievements in education and industrial development during decades of his reign, and while body is decomposed you prepare a free election)

Do you consider as good idea to try to ride bicycle when you haven't learned to walk yet? Or maybe in such a case it would be mostly a source of unnecessary bruises.

 

[Vanadium 50]

both Germany and the world would be better off if Wilhelm II was still the kaiser.

A Kaiser 126 years old!

 

[nikkkom]

>> Where would "mature society" appear from? Thin air?

>> Can you ride bicycle well without ever trying?

Main source:
- mass education. At best not done now but already such tradition of more than one generation
- respect for law/rules (there are some clear rules based on secular law, and they are enforced)

Neither of this is beneficial to authoritarian elite. Say, today's Egypt.
They _prefer_ to have uneducated, poor, gullible population.
They also prefer to enforce a simple rule "whatever we say is the law. Any laws we don't like are ignored".

 

[mheslep]

Jonathan Foreman of Commentary Magazine has a http://jonathanforeman.info/coin-wars-on-daniel-bolgers-why-we-lostcommentary-magazine-april-2015/on Bolger's "Why We Lost". The review is critical of Bolger for failing to back his primary thesis. Foreman does cite some strong points, good writing, and at other times the resort to the petty.

...Regardless of who was in charge, Bolger believes the underlying situation [in Iraq] was impossible. “Replace Bremer with Henry Kissinger and Sanchez with Dwight Eisenhower, cancel the de-Baathification orders, and the stark facts on the ground still sat there oozing pus and bile,” he writes. “With Saddam gone, any voting would install a Shiite majority. The Sunni wouldn’t run Iraq again. That, at the bottom, caused the insurgency.” (Like many commentators on the war, Bolger often seems blasé about the oppression of Iraq’s Kurds and Shia under the Baathist regime and the dominance of the Sunni minority.)

Bolger makes sure to remind the reader of Petraeus’s relative lack of height, as if that might be the key to his character flaws.

In short Bolger insists that the military must pursue only “short, decisive conventional wars, for limited ends”. Those conditions might well make war clean for the US military and a big budget military industrial complex, though I don't see how outside of Hollywood films those conditions meet successfully with real threats to the US and allies.

 

[nickyrtr]

Did the US really lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Saddam and the Taliban were both removed from control of their respective states relatively quickly, and they still haven't got it back. That's an important difference from Vietnam.

 

[Hornbein]

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?

SHHHH! They might hear you and get "ideas!"

 

[Hornbein]

Go into a country, select ten thousand people at random, then torture them in the most obscene possible ways. Surely this will win the trust and allegiance of their friends, relatives, and countrymen.

 

[Astronuc]

Vice President Dick Cheney: Wrong Then, . . .

 

[Dotini]

This report hints that some type of deep game is being played in Syria, as it was in Iraq.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...0-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/isis.html and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.

 

[jim hardy]

Who knows what Saddam sent into Syria just before we attacked. Might be his old chemical warheads that are surfacing now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

And from America's most trusted news source (only half kidding)
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ymppi0/general-georges-sada
around 5 minutes 10 seconds

What to think ?

 

[Hornbein]

Who knows what Saddam sent into Syria just before we attacked. Might be his old chemical warheads that are surfacing now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

And from America's most trusted news source (only half kidding)
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ymppi0/general-georges-sada
around 5 minutes 10 seconds

What to think ?

I can tell you what my Mother thought when she heard that. "Now Bush says that Syria has WMD. Who's he trying to kid?"

 

[Student100]

Go into a country, select ten thousand people at random, then torture them in the most obscene possible ways. Surely this will win the trust and allegiance of their friends, relatives, and countrymen.

Not to far off.

The only way to win a counter insurgency is to kill as many people as possible, in the most horrific and terrifying ways. The populace doesn't need to like you (they never will as shown in all the failed counterinsurgencies of the US and British to date) but they do need to fear you. The hearts and minds strategy will never work with a culture that isn't already more or less like your own.

Mass firebombing campaigns, mass and random executions for every troop killed by insurgency, scary weapons that don't really need to be more lethal than conventional weapons but evoke fear, etc. In other words, you need to commit multiple war crimes until the alternative to your rule is worse than just submitting. The western civilizations won't do this (thankfully I guess), so they should just admit upfront they can't win against an insurgency. Their campaigns should then reflect direct goals instead (kill this person, destroy this infrastructure, etc) without the nation building.

Afghanistan was winnable, they had a peoples who were already involved in open arm conflict against the government. Assisting them in nation building was the right move. Iraq was never winnable, and stupid. If we believed they had weapons of mass destruction we should have targeted those facilities. If we needed to capture the government to do that, we should have left Saddam in power. Saddam was an effective buffer against Iran, and hadn't made any moves against our allies in years.

Did the US really lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Saddam and the Taliban were both removed from control of their respective states relatively quickly, and they still haven't got it back. That's an important difference from Vietnam.

Of course the US lost Iraq, they enemy effectively targeted our moral until we pulled out. There's only two ways to win a war, target their ability to make war, or their desire. The US was targeting the ability, against a enemy that had no real war making industry, which makes no sense. The insurgency in Iraq targeted our moral until we pulled out, which makes sense for an enemy who doesn't have nearly the war making capability of the US. We lost, and left the region far more unstable then when Saddam was in power. The current Iraqi nation is in tatters, the armed forces and the government are both ineffective. ISIS and the Taliban control parts of the country.

Afghanistan is still ongoing, both the formal Afghany armed forces war against the Taliban, and the US secretive war against the same/ISIS. It hasn't been lost quite yet.

 

[mheslep]

Of course the US lost Iraq,...

Please defined "lost", or lost to whom? After great loss of life and expense during the invasion and insurgency, Iraq held multiple free elections; as of 2009-10 the country post-surge had been under the control elected leadership for four years and the civilian violent fatalities was apparently heading below http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Centers/saban/iraq-index/index20091120.PDF (Brookings page 4), or 0.9 per month per 100,000 among Iraq's population of ~33 million. By contrast, the homicide rate in, say, Chicago, is 1.75 per month per 100,000.

 

[Student100]

Please defined "lost", or lost to whom? After great loss of life and expense during the invasion and insurgency, Iraq held multiple free elections; as of 2009-10 the country post-surge had been under the control elected leadership for four years and the civilian violent fatalities was apparently heading below http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Centers/saban/iraq-index/index20091120.PDF (Brookings page 4), or 0.9 per month per 100,000 among Iraq's population of ~33 million. By contrast, the homicide rate in, say, Chicago, is 1.75 per month per 100,000.

Your statistics a bit dated, and pre-pull out.

There is currently a power struggle going on within the government between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurd. Not to mention Iranian agents operating freely in the country, large parts of the country controlled by ISIS, tens of thousands of causalities and many more injured in the 2014-2015 Iraq war, ISIS making and using chemical agents in country, refugees still flooding to neighboring countries, etc.

Unless our objective was to actually destabilize Iraq, I think it's safe to say we lost.

 

[mheslep]

... large parts of the country controlled by ISIS, tens of thousands of causalities and many more injured in the 2014-2015 Iraq war, .

So the U.S. won earlier, 2009, but now, after the U.S. is gone, the U.S. lost?

 

[Student100]

So the U.S. won earlier, 2009, but now, after the U.S. is gone, the U.S. lost?

The US didn't "win" in 2009. Circumstances became more favorable to the counter insurgency, partly the surge, partly the Anbar awaking, partly the focus on high value targets, that's all. To win the counter insurgency, after draw down and the pull out Iraq should have been stable, with limited sectarian violence, an efficient non-corrupt government, and security. It never had any of those things. So the US didn't meet their objectives, or they lost.

 

[mheslep]

... To win the counter insurgency,

These are your milestones for success in Iraq; they differ from those stated by the US and allies.

after draw down and the pull out Iraq should have been stable, with limited sectarian violence,

Starting in 2008 as the data shows above Iraq did have limited violence for several years.

an efficient non-corrupt government,

This is desirable for any country but is hardly a mandatory outcome for military action. S. Korea suffered under corrupt governments for years after the armistice, though this hardly makes a failure out of the military intervention that freed S. Korea from the likes of Kim Jong-un.

Below are the goals from the Bush administration, 2005, with the WMD failure long gone at that point. There is no complete "pull out" among them.

In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:
(a) An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutral
(b) An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
(c) An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

By 2011 Iraq had a good measure of imperfect success in the short and medium term goals.

 

[Student100]

These are your milestones for success in Iraq; they differ from those stated by the US and allies.

Really? Tell me how they're different? I was in Iraq, I think I can somewhat guess at what our goals were. US was in full COIN at this point, in build mode. The objectives I stated were the US objectives as presented to everyone.

Below are the goals from the Bush administration, 2005, with the WMD failure long gone at that point. There is no complete "pull out" among them.

In the longer term:
(a) An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutral
(b) An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
(c) An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

So it's okay to ignore the long term objectives because we had a good year?

By 2011 Iraq had a good measure of imperfect success in the short and medium term goals.

Really? Unemployment at 50%~, lack of security, not enough infrastructure to provide water, food and electricity to it's population is a good measure of success?

I don't understand why you're grasping at straws here to try and show the US "won." Every military commander with any sense will tell you we didn't accomplish what we wanted to accomplish. The fact the insurgency proved to be somewhat under control prior to pull out doesn't mean we can wash our hands of the situation unfolding now. We, the US, caused it. We weren't able to build a safe, stable Iraq.

 

[lisab]

Below are the goals from the Bush administration, 2005, with the WMD failure long gone at that point.

OK, so let's look at those goals...first off, it's someone's blog. Under (1)(a), there is a hotlink to "Victory in Iraq Defined" but the link just goes tohttps://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/#part1 , which says nothing about Victory in Iraq.

Under (1)(b), there is a link to "Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review", which goes to this page, which says nothing about Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review.

And I'm not going any further, that blog is BS. mheslep, if you want to discuss this issue please use legit sources - preferably original sources, not blogs.

Besides, large parts of Iraq are besieged by ISIS - this is hardly what the Bush administration was aiming for as victory when they made the unwise decision to "liberate" Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

Really? Tell me how they're different? I was in Iraq, I think I can somewhat guess at what our goals were...

Really? Unemployment at 50%~, lack of security, not enough infrastructure to provide water, food and electricity to it's population is a good measure of success?

I don't understand why you're grasping at straws here to try and show the US "won." Every military commander with any sense will tell you we didn't accomplish what we wanted to accomplish.

Since when has an unemployment rate target ever been a goal of a war? Which branch of the military is tasked with job creation? What was our post-WWII unemployment rate target For Germany in 1941?

Look, I get that it would have been nice if the result of the Iraq War II had been a peaceful, stable Iraq, but that's outside the scope of what "war" is. However, you want to say that the nation-building exercise that was undertaken after the war was won failed, I'm fine with that.

 

[mheslep]

Iraq war 2005 goals, as originally posted on the White House web site, now archived
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#execsum

 

[mheslep]

...We weren't able to build a safe, stable Iraq.

The December 2011 speech

...all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.

 

[Student100]

Since when has an unemployment rate target ever been a goal of a war? Which branch of the military is tasked with job creation? What was our post-WWII unemployment rate target For Germany in 1941?

Look, I get that it would have been nice if the result of the Iraq War II had been a peaceful, stable Iraq, but that's outside the scope of what "war" is. However, you want to say that the nation-building exercise that was undertaken after the war was won failed, I'm fine with that.

It wasn't outside the scope of the war, that's part of the problem. In the example of unemployment, we were funneling large amounts of money into local business to stimulate the economy. The DoD was writing contracts to rebuild infrastructure, which would get sub contracted out to locals.

Part of the militarizes strategy during the war was to nation build, I don't think we can discount that as a military objective, even though it seems illogical.

all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.

Obviously the speech was wrong...?

 

[mheslep]

Obviously the speech was wrong...?

Then for some reason you read the speech to say something else, like "Iraq now has full employment, a complete infrastructure, and is stable for all time". At the time the speech was given, the multiple peaceful elections, obliteration of AQI, and low violence rate were strong evidence, over several years, that the quoted Obama phrase was correct at the time it was given. Clearly, Iraq has changed for the worse since then and the important question is why, a question that is not addressed by repeating "The U.S. lost".

 

[Student100]

Then for some reason you read the speech to say something else, like "Iraq now has full employment, a complete infrastructure, and is stable for all time". At the time the speech was given, the multiple peaceful elections, obliteration of AQI, and low violence rate were strong evidence, over several years, that the quoted Obama phrase was correct at the time it was given. Clearly, Iraq has changed for the worse since then and the important question is why, a question that is not addressed by repeating "The U.S. lost".

The answer to why is because it didn't have any of the things you just mentioned.

 

[mheslep]

The answer to why is because it didn't have any of the things you just mentioned.

It wasn't the unchecked growth of ISIS and Malaki's purge of Sunni in the military, allowed by a complete withdrawal of the U.S. military? Theses are things that changed since that speech, unlike the Iraqi infrastructure and employment which had serious problems then, has them now, like many other developing countries.

 

[Student100]

It wasn't the unchecked growth of ISIS and Malaki's purge of Sunni in the military, allowed by a complete withdrawal of the U.S. military? Theses are things that changed since that speech, unlike the Iraqi infrastructure and employment which had serious problems then, has them now, like many other developing countries.

No, it's mostly just that the speech was a lie, a political nicecty. Iraq was anything but stable in 2011. I don't know how massive unemployment is not a red flag for the stability of country. Or that just because they had a few rigged elections and the 8th most corrupt government in the world means everythings stable and good to go now because they were "democrratically elected". Don't mess it up now Iraqis, things are going great!

Sectarian rifts existed even in 2011, and 2010... and 2009... I think everyone knew, including Obama that the country wasn't in fact stable and that withdrawal would create a power vacuum. I don't see any reason, if he truly believed what he said, to attempt to negoiate a new SOF agreement to try and keep troops in country otherwise.

Which he did do, he wanted troops to remain in country, but Iraq wouldn't agree to the needed protections for US troops. That's not something you do if you really believe in a stable and self reliant Iraq.

 

[mheslep]

I don't see any reason, if he truly believed what he said, to attempt to negoiate a new SOF agreement to try and keep troops in country otherwise.

Iraq was stable *with* some U.S. troops in place, that is, stable enough that the size of factional violence did not impair the government, elections or disable the Iraqi military. Obama changed the conditions. Pointing to some factional violence regardless of size and claiming instability would classify all countries unstable or close to it. See the riots in France, the UK in recent years.

 

[lisab]

Iraq was stable *with* some U.S. troops in place, that is, stable enough that the size of factional violence did not impair the government, elections or disable the Iraqi military. Obama changed the conditions. Pointing to some factional violence regardless of size and claiming instability would classify all countries unstable or close to it. See the riots in France, the UK in recent years.

mheslep, I read the book that this thread is about. Some of it I agreed with, some I did not - but I did read it.

Did you read the book? It's long, but it does give a foundation to work from. There is ample evidence, in the book and pretty much everywhere you look, that we not only lost the war but we screwed up the ME pretty badly. Your stance in this thread seems to be: we had the war won when Bush left office, and what happened in the years months after that had nothing at all to do with our actions there (in other words, Thanks Obama!). Am I understanding you correctly? If so, the book doesn't exactly agree with you.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, I read the book that this thread is about. Some of it I agreed with, some I did not - but I did read it.

And? Can you share some of the relative arguments?

]Did you read the book?

No, as I stated months ago I read this critical review (among others) mentioning some sophomoric treatment of Petraeus and thought my time better spent elsewhere. I have read Bolger's Harpers article and much else on the Iraq War and Islamic terrorism.

It's long, but it does give a foundation to work from. There is ample evidence, in the book and pretty much everywhere you look,

In this book perhaps, but not everywhere I look. What about the post-surge period of relative low violence?

...that we not only lost the war but we screwed up the ME pretty badly. Your stance in this thread seems to be: we had the war won when Bush left office, and what happened in the years months after that had nothing at all to do with our actions there (in other words, Thanks Obama!).

Bolger's word about Obama's withdrawal from Iraq: he "faltered".

Am I understanding you correctly?

No. I don't declare "the US won" in Iraq, especially not in isolation given the allied help, nor do I accept unsupported declarations that the US lost. I think win/loss claims over-simplify a complex outcome and are unjustified in any kind of historical context of wining/losing wars, at least not without a lot of backup. So I query what's meant behind the claim "lost", and look for an answer dealing with the whole picture in Iraq: the reckless entry into the war, the large loss of life before and after, the early military success and many subsequent failures, the cost, the removal of the Baathist dictatorship prone to use chemical weapons and run nuclear weapons programs, the war generated migration of Al-qaeda to Iraq, the annihilation of Al-qaeda in Iraq, the successful Iraqi elections, the post-surge years of relatively low violence, the post-withdrawal collapse of the Iraqi army. Spurious responses (high unemployment, insufficient electricity) and appeals to authority (the book disagrees with me) are unsatisfactory.

 

[Student100]

No. I don't declare "the US won" in Iraq, especially not in isolation given the allied help, nor do I accept unsupported declarations that the US lost. I think win/loss claims over-simplify a complex outcome and are unjustified in any kind of historical context of wining/losing wars, at least not without a lot of backup. So I query what's meant behind the claim "lost", and look for an answer dealing with the whole picture in Iraq: the reckless entry into the war, the large loss of life before and after, the early military success and many subsequent failures, the cost, the removal of the Baathist dictatorship prone to use chemical weapons and run nuclear weapons programs, the war generated migration of Al-qaeda to Iraq, the annihilation of Al-qaeda in Iraq, the successful Iraqi elections, the post-surge years of relatively low violence, the post-withdrawal collapse of the Iraqi army. Spurious responses (high unemployment, insufficient electricity) and appeals to authority (the book disagrees with me) are unsatisfactory.

And just how is unemployment and lack of infrastructure spurious? Just how are they false?

Do they not matter in terms of the stability of a country or it's government?

How did the Iraq war accomplish any us strategic objective?

Did we completely eradicate the use of chemical weapons in Iraq? No, ISIS now uses and manufactures chemical weapons in Iraq. Again, what are you defining as successful elections? The fact that a ballot took place, never mind the corruption? How did the removal of the Iraq government further US interests in the middle east? Was handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter really in the best interest of the US government? Did we stabilize the region by emboldening the Pakistani Taliban, Syrian fighters and the splinters of Al-Qaeda that became ISIS, or by creating the whole Arab Spring movement. Did we create a pro-US western society in Iraq? Create trade and increase imports? Just what did we do in Iraq that helped the US or it's allies?

 

[HossamCFD]

Off topic remark

Did we stabilize the region by emboldening the Pakistani Taliban, Syrian fighters and the splinters of Al-Qaeda that became ISIS, or by creating the whole Arab Spring movement

My bold.
You didn't create the Arab spring movement. Thousands of Arab youths did, many of whom died or were put in jail as a result of it. I know you didn't say it to claim credit for it, but rather as some sort of self criticism, and we can agree or disagree as to whether the Arab spring is something to be praised or blamed, but I have to say that claiming that the west/US (I imagine that's what you meant by "we") created it can seem slightly patronising.Slightly more on topic
It seems that most of the disagreement is about the definition of winning vs losing a war, which is of course an important discussion, but perhaps a more interesting question would be: if we could turn back the clock, and knowing everything we know now, what would you do differently? Would you support the invasion in 2003?

 

[lisab]

Off topic remark

My bold.
You didn't create the Arab spring movement. Thousands of Arab youths did, many of whom died or were put in jail as a result of it. I know you didn't say it to claim credit for it, but rather as some sort of self criticism, and we can agree or disagree as to whether the Arab spring is something to be praised or blamed, but I have to say that claiming that the west/US (I imagine that's what you meant by "we") created it can seem slightly patronising.Slightly more on topic
It seems that most of the disagreement is about the definition of winning vs losing a war, which is of course an important discussion, but perhaps a more interesting question would be: if we could turn back the clock, and knowing everything we know now, what would you do differently? Would you support the invasion in 2003?

I didn't support the 2003 invasion when it happened, and I was quite vocal about it. I got a lot of flak for my stance from my coworkers...but that means nothing of course.

You're right about the Arab Spring. The chutzpah came directly from the populace, at great risk to themselves -- sometimes the ultimate risk.

But I'm sure you understand the view many Americans take on this: we fought a difficult war of independence to begin the journey to define ourselves. Then about 100 years later, we fought a brutal civil war to define our path as a nation.

These wars cost hundreds of thousands of American lives (at a time when our population was much smaller then it is today). This cost -- what we call "blood and treasure" -- I think we now see it as a necessary cost of self-determination. And yes we had some help - thank you a billion times, France !

Our history created a foundational belief in many Americans that your future must be earned, and it will not be cheap. When we fought the British for our independence, I'm sure no one would have wagered that these scrawny colonies could win against such a powerful force. It seemed a lost cause. But look how it came out.

I want the US to be to emerging democracies what France was to America. But ultimately, the battle has to be won by *them*. I believe many Americans look at Iraq and think, "We wanted their freedom more than they did. That was our mistake." So...we're really hesitant to make this same mistake twice.

This is all just my opinion.

 

[HossamCFD]

I didn't support the 2003 invasion when it happened, and I was quite vocal about it. I got a lot of flak for my stance from my coworkers...but that means nothing of course.

I too was naturally vocal against it. I would've supported a minor operation to get rid of Saddam, as he committed a genocide against the Kurds and war crimes and aggression against Iran and Kuwait, though the high time for such an operation was 91 not 2003. I certainly didn't support the invasion of the whole country, as the main reasons put forward were fallacious to me (mainly WMD, support for Al Qaeda, and liberation of Iraq since as you pointed out liberation has to at least start from within).

Having said that I would be hesitant to blame the current mess on the 2003 invasion. The anti US sentiment of course surged because of the invasion, but Jihadism existed long before that. Also had Saddam survived as Iraq's dictator until the Arab Spring started, it's unlikely that the situation would've ended up much better. Anyway, that's quite speculative.

I want the US to be to emerging democracies what France was to America. But ultimately, the battle has to be won by *them*. I believe many Americans look at Iraq and think, "We wanted their freedom more than they did. That was our mistake." So...we're really hesitant to make this same mistake twice.

This is all just my opinion.

I completely agree. You can't fight to liberate another people. That's why I always try and defend the ownership of the Arab spring. Even though it seems like a complete failure now, it was the first attempt at a genuine change. A change that I personally never foresaw. The Egyptian part of the Arab spring started on January 25th 2011, inspired by Tunisia. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Alexandria with a friend on January 24th and discussing the planned protests the next day. I literally told him nothing will happen on the same scale as Tunisia. Egypt needs at least 40 years or so to do something similar. At most there will 200 people surrounded by a thousand policemen and get beaten up after half an hour. I was never happier to be proven wrong!

I too want the US and the west to be to emerging democracies what France was to America. That's why I was disappointed at the initial reluctance of the American administration to vocally support the protests when they started and was very happy when that stance changed a week or so later.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I completely understand the widespread western narrative of blaming the current situation on the interference in the ME, I really don't think that is the case. Self criticism and self blame are of course commendable sentiments but I don't think they portray the reality of the situation. The conflict is IMO primarily homegrown and the solution has to come from within.

 

[Student100]

Off topic remark

My bold.
You didn't create the Arab spring movement. Thousands of Arab youths did, many of whom died or were put in jail as a result of it. I know you didn't say it to claim credit for it, but rather as some sort of self criticism, and we can agree or disagree as to whether the Arab spring is something to be praised or blamed, but I have to say that claiming that the west/US (I imagine that's what you meant by "we") created it can seem slightly patronising.

I admit it's a bit of a stretch to attempt to connect the dots between the Iraq war and the Arab spring, and it's mostly just my gut feelings after reading things such as:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/opinion/iraq-war-arab-spring-husain/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=0

I understand your point, and mostly agree with it, and realize that while any psychological effect of the US's wars in the middle east and training/funding provided may have helped organize the movement, it was ultimately the populace of those countries that enacted/payed for it.

Ultimately as far as strategic value to the US I just don't see how the wars were a win in any sense of the word.

 

[Czcibor]

Off topic remark

My bold.
You didn't create the Arab spring movement. Thousands of Arab youths did, many of whom died or were put in jail as a result of it. I know you didn't say it to claim credit for it, but rather as some sort of self criticism, and we can agree or disagree as to whether the Arab spring is something to be praised or blamed, but I have to say that claiming that the west/US (I imagine that's what you meant by "we") created it can seem slightly patronising.

Simple rule, that I see quite often - people in countries that are not world top powers are just subject to be shaped by outside powers. They lack any internal dynamic of society, grudges against inept or corrupted politicians, own ideas or desires. ;)

(That's why I'm quite happy that my country managed to be promoted in Russian eyes from such "chessboard" image to a "hostile and malicious player that tries to play a few sizes above its weight category".)

Slightly more on topic
It seems that most of the disagreement is about the definition of winning vs losing a war, which is of course an important discussion, but perhaps a more interesting question would be: if we could turn back the clock, and knowing everything we know now, what would you do differently? Would you support the invasion in 2003?

I used to support it. I thought that W Bush knows what he is doing and has plenty of evidence for WMD that if he tell publicly, would merely mean his spies executed.
It turned out to be a disaster on both geopolitical and humanitarian scoreboard.

 

[Davephaelon]

The reason we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, is exactly same reason we lost in Vietnam. Unless we keep boots on the ground in perpetuity, the local opposition, supported by outside interests, will simply take over again. We had a refreshing break from these endless wars during the Reagan and Carter administrations. Hopefully, the next administration will have the wisdom of those two administrations, and keep us out of these interventions.

 

[mheslep]

The reason we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, is exactly same reason we lost in Vietnam. Unless we keep boots on the ground in perpetuity, the local opposition, supported by outside interests, will simply take over again. We had a refreshing break from these endless wars during the Reagan and Carter administrations. Hopefully, the next administration will have the wisdom of those two administrations, and keep us out of these interventions.

How do we then avoid 9/11 and 7/7 style attacks and refugees in the millions flooding into Europe?

 

[Davephaelon]

Basic physics tells us that for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction. Human nature is the same, though the action and reaction are not always in the same proportion. Thanks to a blunder by one of our diplomats serving in Iraq, April Glaspie, Saddam Hussein thought he had the green light from Washington to invade Kuwait. That blunder started the whole mess. Had Arnold Schwartzenegger, in Terminator mode, been the diplomat instead of Glaspie, the dictator would not have dared invade Kuwait.