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.
I'll stick to what I said in post #114.
Must go now, but thanks!
Your welcome. Nice talking to you.
Definitely!
"The war was won in three weeks. Magnificant victory for our troops. The last three and a half years we've been attempting to win the peace. The problem is not military, but political. We assumed that giving the Iraqis a chance at democracy, they'd take it, run with it, and stablize their own nation. That's where the policy has, to a certain extent, broken down.
While Bush’s effort to combat terrorism by planting democracy in the Islamic world was a noble strategy, and probably worth a go, the real problem with the policy is the now-evident fact that democracy and Islam are about as compatible as oil and water. History has recorded that democracy took root in the west because democracy, freedom, a recognition and respect for the basic rights of man, flourished in the Judeo-Christian ethos of the west. Democracy grew because it was planted in good soil. In Iraq, democracy, freedom, respect for life, respect for the rights of the individual, respect for women, freedom of thought, freedom of association, may ultimately be choked-out because the soil is bad. Such things as freedom, respect for life, respect for the individual, freedom of expression, self-determination, and so forth, are anathema to Islam. Islam is a false religion. Their god is Satan. They worship oppression and glory in death. How could democracy take root in such an environment? Sharansky and Bush may be right to a point – that in the heart of every human beats a desire for freedom and dignity. But the prerequisite here is that it must beat in a human heart, and what Islam breeds is inhumanity.
I don’t fault Bush for his optimism. The leftist naysayers will now gloat that they were right all along, but they were never right. Their strategy for confronting Islamic terror was to roll up into a fetal position and question why they hate us. Regardless of Bush's good intentions, it becomes clearer with each passing day that optimism is a western virtue, something completely lacking in the soul of the Muslim world. How does one “reform” a cancer? It appears we need a new strategy for combating Islamic terror. But I’m not sure we have it in us to do what probably needs to be done."
Well put. My 2 cents is this:
1) I agree with the article about gathering market research of how we handle country after our military victory. You state more or less the same with islam not being compatible with democracy. We could have saved ourselves lives, money and time by ruling the country under martial law until all warring factions had subsided.
2) From here our options are limited. Pull out and let Iranian influence run the country or finish the job. What does finish the job mean? It means we take the gloves off, use balck opps to kill people like Al Sadr, offer no surrender when we do attack the Mahdi army at large except UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Use black opps to send the Iranians a strong message we CAN TOUCH YOU, we just have used unecessary restraint.
Now do we have the political will to do this? Unfortunately I don't think so at this point. Hell, we have already decided Iran is going nuclear after they have stated they will build nukes and use them on Israel and we have done nothing. So as much as I would like to be positive, I only see Iraq getting worse so if we aren't going to excerise our options to TRULY solve the problem then let's at least get our boys home so they aren't banther fodder.
Public opinion remained in favor for the first year or so after the war until there was no let up in the deaths of our occupation forces.
The reason there was no let up was due to the constant drumbeat from the enemedia and the demonRAT politicians, along with more than a few repubs.
It was like they were detonating the IED's in Iraq with their rhetoric from the safety of their ivory towers. I have heard a few rumors that would support my suspicions, but have been unable to verify them.
The blood of our troops is on the hands of the enemedia and the politicians, IMNSHO! But that's just me. ;*)
There would have been no drumbeat if there had been no resistance movement or if it had been dealt with violently and crushed when it first appeared.
It's insidious, isn't it.
Your posts show a good grasp of reality. Some posters are feeling sorry for themeselves and scapegoat the media. They fail to see that people win or lose wars.
In WW II there were enough troops and materiel to completely defeat, occupy and control the enemy. Today a draft or using tax cuts for war bonds is not on the table. War is only for those who volunteer for it.
Can't hardly watch it anymore. It boils my blood. And to top it off, if you talk to these sheeple on the street, they have the nerve to tell you to take the blinders off. Idiots.
"So should we be spending the same proportion of national budget on Iraq that was spent on WWII? Should we drop 2 nuclear bombs like we did to end WWII?
I really don't like the comparison. It's like those who say Saddam was more effective at keeping down terrorism in Iraq (through torture and murder and human rights violations). "
I agree WWII is the wrong comparison on multiple levels. It really is reminiscient of Vietnam. We were winning that war on the ground (minus one surprising TET offensive by the NVA) but the left and the press turned the public against the war. The result was a million more Vietnamese dead with the left's name on them and a more dangerous world for almost two decades. Because of the left/media PC and restraint became the order of the day instead of WINNING no matter what means were necessary. Napalm necessary to annihalate the enemy? USE IT!!! We did the same damn thing in Iraq, allowing the interim government with no experience their failed PC strategy to 'make ammends' and political alliances with the enemy.
"The enemedia is getting the result they wanted all along. They've always been Saddamites, going back to the days when CNN refused to disclose torture and murder going on in Saddam's Iraq so that they could keep their Baghdad bureau open."
Yes, they got the result they wanted. When we do pull out, the result and casualties of the Iraqi people will skyrocket as it did in Vietnam. These will also have the left's name on them but I also blame the administration for allowing it to come this far when it was far easier to deal with the problem then and hell, we had all the historical research of avoiding such as mess in the first place!!!
That is precisely the new approach I was alluding to, the one that I doubt we have the will to follow. I completely agree with you. Richard Miniter has characterized the war on terror as "The Shadow War," and indeed we have fought battles in this war that the media, and certainly, the American people have no idea of. Perhaps we need to convert the war in Iraq, and against Iran and Syria, as a black op war, run it under the radar, if possible, out of the ability of the MSM to pester the effort to death.
BTW, a lot of people have rhetorically asked, "How do we define 'victory' in Iraq?" Your comment about turning over the nation to the influences of Iran is, to my way of thinking, the best characterization of "defeat in Iraq" as I can think of.
It is the treason, stupid.
Sadly, tens of thousand, maybe hundreds of thousands of these idiots will be the victims of the next big terrorist attack on the U.S. I despair for this country.
"I've never heard that before. Do you have a source? Thanks".
Maybe somewhat more than one year. I was there for the first year and it did not happen then. What was happening then was we were gradually being returned to the States for discharge or leave. There were no facilities for dependents.
If we were fighting the Iraqis I would call for a all out effort.
But we are not,we are fighting forces that are from other countries that are embedded in Iraq.
We are also caught up in a secitarian war betwen the Sunnis & Shia.
Not true. I was there. Maybe in the Russian zone but not ours. They were completely controlled.
Ohhhh but putting a democrat in the WH will end terrorism. Everyone knows that terrorism stems from the current administration./sarc ;)
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.