Posted on 12/12/2006 9:32:13 AM PST by LAMBERT LATHAM
What went wrong in Iraq? We are about to start withdrawing our troops from the country and turn the fighting over to Nuri al-Maliki's government even though nobody but Bush, and a few of his die-hard worshipers, believe that the Iraqi military can control the country.
Although, Bush isn't calling it "Iraqization", it is, none the less, the equivalent of "Vietnamization" and will produce the same result.
But, how did we get to this point? How did, what should have been a relatively easy victory go so very wrong?
To answer that question one must look at the planning for the war and at the execution of the military conquest of Iraq. The planning for the war did not include any realistic planning for the occupation after the Iraqi government and military were defeated.
Bush and his neo-conservative advisors made no plans to deal with a resistance movement after Iraq fell. They didn't believe there would be any resistance once Saddam's government fell. Just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and wouldn't even entertain the idea that there might be a resistance.
"MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
The administration's refusal to even consider the possibility of a resistance in Iraq and failure to realistically plan for the occupation is the reason we have the current mess in Iraq. Bush made the same mistake Hitler made when he invaded France. Hitler didn't expect a resistance movement after defeating the government and setting up a new "independent" government. Nor did he want to destroy enough of the country to break the will of the people to resist. Bush expected to be greeted as a savior and didn't think there would be any resistance movement. Like Hitler, Bush didn't let the military destroy the cities, food supplies, utilities, their industries, etc. Both of them thought they could win without destroying the infrastructure of the enemy.
Hitler ordered his army to do as little damage as possible to the country and still conquer it. As a result, the French mounted a resistance movement that killed Germans and French collaborators during the whole time the Germans occupied the country as the "guests" of the Vichy Government.
Bush did the same thing in Iraq. He ordered the military to do as little damage as possible while taking Iraq. In both cases the "victor" didn't break the will of the conquered people to resist and paid a high price for that mistake in blood and treasure.
Contrast that with how we prosecuted WW II against the Germans and Japanese. We fire bombed German and Japan cities. Napalm was created in WW II to bomb German cities. We bombed their factories, utilities; water, sewer, electric plants and their roads and rail lines. We also bombed their dams flooding their farm lands destroying their food supply.
By the time we conquered their government the people had no will to resist. V.E. Day was May 8, 1945 and V.J Day was September 2, 1945. There was no resistance in either country. By January 1946 battle casualties had all but totally ended.
In 1946 we occupied Germany, Japan, North Africa and Italy and we had just 6 battle causalities world wide that whole year. Contrast that with our occupation of Iraq. We've had U.S. 2,756 dead in Iraq since Baghdad fell. That means 95.8% of our battle deaths occurred during the occupation rather than during the war.
Bush apologists like to compare the country's attitude about the Iraq war to the country's attitude about WW II, but never want to compare how we fought WW II with how Bush and the neo-cons fought the Iraq war. They want to pretend the war is still going on, but don't want to say we are fighting the Iraqi people.
Well, Saddam's Iraqi government is gone. We sure as hell aren't fighting the new Iraqi government we set up there. We are fighting an Iraqi resistance that shouldn't have been there, and wouldn't have been there had we fought this war like we fought WW II.
During the occupation of Germany and Japan the people depended on the army of occupation for their daily survival. The occupation forces had the food, water, clothing, oil and coal, controlled shelter for those whose homes were destroyed, and all money. People were worried about getting a drink of water and a meal rather than who was running the government. They no longer had the will, or the popular support, to mount a resistance movement.
Compounding his failure to destroy the people's will to resist, Bush started nation building before the country was pacified. That never works.
Iraq is a country of 28 million people and 80% of them don't want us there. Nation building under those circumstances is, to be charitable, not smart. It divides the military's efforts and provides targets for the resistance without providing us with sufficient indigenous support to eliminate the resistance.
Because Bush pretended there was no indigenous resistance movement and the violence was mostly the work of foreign trouble makers rushing into Iraq to fight against the U.S. military, the resistance is no longer just a resistance to foreign occupation. It is now a civil war with a large number of factions fighting for political power. Within just the Suni and Shiite groups there are some 80 or so sub-groups fighting for political dominance. Armed militias control more neighborhoods than the police and militia members make up large portions of many police units.
Maliki's government is a joke. It can't even control Baghdad, let alone run the whole country.
Now we have a mess that Pelosiand company are going to make worse. There is no good option at this point. The American people will not stand for the level of violence it would take to pacify Iraq now. Nor is it clear that any level of outside generated violence can really pacify the country at this point. The window of opportunity for that may well be closed.
But pulling out of Iraq will leave a power vacuum that Iran will rush in to fill. The consequences of that happening would make the current situation look desirable. That is the worst possible option.
At this point, the best we can do is maintain a force powerful enough to protect the oil production and shipping, protect the Kurds, and keep Iran from taking control of Iraq's oil. We need to kill, or arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, disband all militias, and protect the borders.
Of course, this will take a larger force than we have in the country now which will demand increasing the size of our regular army. But we can also make better use of our military by pulling them off nation building tasks and using those troops to fight the resistance. There is no reason our military should be building schools, building power plants, and teaching farmers how to increase crop yields while the country is in violent chaos. But we will still need more troops in country for the short term.
In the best case scenario an Egyptian style dictator will come to power and will stabilize the country. It will be in this dictator's self-interest to keep Iran out of the country so hopefully this new dictator will be nominally pro-Western on the order of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In the worst case, Iran will turn Iraq into a puppet and gain control of Iraq's oil.
Only three things are certain today. We can't just pull out. We can't keep doing what we've been doing. We wouldn't be in this position today if Bush fought the war the way FDR and Churchill fought WW II.
God help us. We need a leader who understands what needs to be done and who has the spine to do it. Unfortunately, neither anyone in the administration, nor our any of our Congressional leaders, is up to the task. ESR
John Bender is a freelance writer living in Dallas, Texas. He may be reached at jbender@columnist.com.
Frightened them into what? The U.S. Army and Marine Corps sitting on the back of a defeated Iraqi army would have been a fair compromise. Once it was apparent that we could deliver stability, no one would have questioned it, especially given how thoroughly we defeated them in 2003.
Do you not think the Shia remember what happened to them when we left them in '91? I have been told by soldiers, Iraqis and those that still have family in Iraq, that had the Iraqi army been left intact, they would not have trusted us to protect them. It would have been seen as a victory to the Saddamists to press on and eventually get Saddam back in power.
I think that Iraqis are natural drama queens when they're concerned about something, but if you make good on what you say, and address their problem, they get over their concerns quickly. If we took control of the Iraqi army, demobilized it while creating a national army, and kept the peace, Iraq would look a lot different today.
Everyone has an opinion. None of them mean much after the fact.
If that's how you feel, then it's somewhat ironic you're posting on a thread called "Iraq: What Went Wrong"
Aside from 12 out of 25 not even being a majority, what's being overwhelmed is resistance to the insurgency. If the Iraqis are more interested in blowing each other up than living in the same country. there's not a lot we can, nor should be expected to, do.
Not to mention all the armchair generals on FR sitting in their cubes in office parks somewhere. Hindsight is 20/20.
Thanks Mac! No one ever distinguishes between them on these threads. At least this makes a bit of sense.
If the "freedom fighters" start screaming "Yankee, COME BACK!" we'll know the Iraqis are doing just fine.
Agreed but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
And whose fault is it for not prosecuting these traitors? It really is "Bush's fault". Failure to properly prosecute the war against our enemies, both foreign & domestic.
He just doesn't have the stones of someone like Lincoln (or Truman). Now there's someone who had to deal with the most agonizing decisions regarding liberty, rule of law & the largest battlefield casualties seen up till that point.
Bush took the easy way out, thinking it's better to be loved than feared. That's what you get when you ignore the wisdom & advice from both Sun Tzu & Machiavelli.
Iraq: What Went Wrong
MEDIA! Imbeds. Maybe should read inbreds.
But there should be no resistance. There was no resistance in Germany because they were totally dependent on the army of occupation for food, water, coal, etc. We didn't start rebuilding until the country was pacified and under our total control. The biggest problem the army of occupation had was fraternization with the local women and a black market in food candy, cigarettes, etc.
One other thing - we had terrible intelligence both before and during the war. More than two years ago, we were told that there were only 5,000 insurgents altogether, and I was thinking we'd have things under control within six months. Since then, we've probably killed or arrested twice that many, and there's no end in sight. Now we read that Sadr's militia alone has 50,000 members. Planning is based on intelligence, and the intelligence sucked.
Here is what I believe we should do and how to deal with the enemedia:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725530/posts?page=74#74
80% of Iraqis want US to stop patrolling cities
Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian
A 2 1/2 y/o poll??? Done by the Guardian???
By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post
Those polled were broadly divided on who should appoint the interim government that is supposed to take over limited power at the end of next month.
Another old poll. (spit)
Not ironic.....didn't want you guys being the only voice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/001091.html
Fifty-seven per cent want US and UK forces to leave immediately
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15618841.htm
A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to polling results obtained by the Washington Post.
Another new poll, scheduled to be released today (Sep. 27, 2006) by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends to keep permanent military bases in the country.
It is quite a hefty overwhelming majority when you consider that around half the population is under 18 years old. Unless of course they allow infants to vote in Iraq. IIRC, the voter turnout of those eligible to vote was 75% or better.
Well, you have to believe that our intelligence agencies really said there was only 5000 insurgents in country. It's more than possible that number was just the administration's spin. At the time a friend of mine who is a retired Lt. Col., said that number didn't sound right to him. He also said a resistance movement of 5000 couldn't sustain itself without local support in a country of 23 million. his observation made sence to me so I never believed that number.
DRUDGE: Published: November 21, 2006 10:20 AM ET
NEW YORK Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S. forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.
At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.
By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.