Iraq: What Went Wrong

Enter Stage Right ^ | 11 December 2006 | John Bender

[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.

[savedbygrace]

What went wrong?

Simple. Saddam Hussein figured out early on he couldn't defeat the U. S. military straight on, so he developed the plan that called for most of his troops to run away as we pushed close to Baghdad and form the core on the 'insurgency'.

That's the moment we lost the 'rebuilding' stage of the war. The precise moment.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

The neo-cons started comparing the two claiming that the occupation didn't have the support WW II had.

[DustyMoment]

There is nothing thaty puts me off more than some armchair general sitting in the quiet of his press room or a Congressional office pontificating on the errors that occurred in a war.

How many battles have any of those self-aggrandizing know-nothings ever planned or conducted? How many kids have they seen go through boot camp and combat training only to be carried off the battlefield on a litter?

Warfare is extremely simple, cut and dry, black and white to those jerks. The trouble is that war never goes completely according to plan. Their 20/20 revisionist hindsight isn't useful and is just more MSM crapola!!

[Just A Nobody]

Is that the same majority that wants the US out of their country?

See post #19 and #60. Until someone answers the question of this imaginary 80%, I have nothing more to say.

[meandog]

I think our biggest mistake was disbanding the Iraqi Army. We could have kept the army largely intact, while purging the hardcore Baathists. We lost too much time trying to train a military force from the ground up. If we went into this knowing we were going to disband Iraq's army, then we should have gone in with twice the amount of troops. Iraq is just too big to control with the amount of force we went in with, leaving their army intact would have gone a long way in securing Al Anbar province, and Baghdad. We still would have had to re-train to some extent, but not from square one.

Exactly! By tradition, the Iraqi army was a legacy of British training and doctrine. We could have had the officer and enlisted cadre (80 percent of which had absolutely no use for Saadam) swear an oath to their country and recant the one to their dictator--we as much did this in post-WWII Germany. THEN, we could have rooted out the Baathists...the trade-off for this would have been loyalty, respect, and appreciation for America while a cost-efficent training regimen was inacted to build up a Middle Eastern democratic ALLY which was not humiliated and demoralized.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

So do you think it was smart to not plan for a resistance movement?

[Chi-townChief]

These guys just love trying to turn this into Vietnam.

[jpsb]

From another thread

" Either fight to win or don't even brother showing up. It is criminal to send troops into combat then leadership does not have the will to brutally smash, with military power all enemy opposition/support. When I see massive 52 raids or massive 8 inch guns barrages, then I will know General McClellan has been fired and General Grant is now in command.

Unfortunately a face saving surrender seems far more likely.

Bush lost the first battle of the coming great war (War of Civilizations). Too bad the first battle was easily winnable with 500,000 troops. We (the west) are now in a very perilous position. Once the USA retreats Europe will be open to attack. What is left of Christan Africa will be conquered and here in the USA we continue to be over run by illegals.

Well there is a tiny bit of good news in all this. Once we leave Europe will be the front line in this most recent war with Islam. So I expect Europe to wake up and realize that their heads or on the chopping block not ours. If they do, then there is hope a great leader will come forth call the nation to war, a real war and US/Europe might be able to defeat a united Islam, an Islam with nukes.

It will be bloody beyond compare, biblical, entire cities destroyed, hundreds of million killed. Winning the Iraq war might have prevented or delayed the coming war with Islam now nothing but the surrender of the west can stop it. I don't see the USA surrendering to Islam here in the USA so the war will happen.

Bush was a fool to go into Iraq without being 100% certain he could achieve the nations goals. Going in hoping things would turn out fine and no plan if they didn't is inexcusable, criminal, impeachable. Bush has let lose the dogs of war and now no one knows where they will run.

It is now transparent that Bush when into Iraq on family business, not the nations business. He settled an old family account and now millions will die for it.

[DustyMoment]

"The Dems don't even know who the enemy is."

They think its the Republicans.

No, they think it is Bush.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

Here's one source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1249700,00.html

[Chi-townChief]

By '49, we had already lost the countries we went to war for. As many have said, the war was won and the peace was lost.

[Mac94]

You're thinking of the wrong "Army." Iraq, under Saddam, had three or so different "Armies," and two of them were the ones that terrorized the population.

The regular Army was a conscript army. The largest but poorest equiped and trained, it the army most say never should have been abandoned. It was made up of regular Iraqi's and it's loyalty to Saddam was in question. These guys, in 1991, did the bulk of the surrendering.

Then there was the Republican Guard, the second largest "Army," that was the guardian of the regime. They were paid better, better trained, and better equiped and were loyal to Saddam. These guys were the protectors of the regime and brutally suppressed opposition to Saddam's leadership. These guys did fight in 1991 and they were the ones that crushed the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in March and April of 1991. One one argues that these guys needed to be kept around.

Then there was the special police and internal security forces. These groups make up a third Army and they were very ruthless. They kept even the loyalists in line.

[Just A Nobody]

Leaving the Iraqi army intact, would have frightened the other 80-90% of the population far more than it inflamed the 10-20% of the Sunnis.

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.

Everyone has an opinion. None of them mean much after the fact.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

82percent of Iraqis oppose U.S. occupation

By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of
the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a
new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

In the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence
in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they
disapprove of the United States and allied militaries in Iraq.

Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available,
"generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a
senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The
occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since
late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other
Iraqi cities in late March and early last month, before the surge in
anti-coalition violence and the detainee-abuse scandal.

The findings appeared consistent with a poll taken about the same time
by USA Today, CNN and Gallup, which found that 57 percent of Iraqis
wanted foreign troops to leave immediately.

The new poll, which has not been released publicly, is a concern among
occupation authority officials and in Washington, D.C., because the data
provide evidence that the U.S. effort is not winning over Iraqi public
opinion.

"How to ... win the hearts and minds of the people (in Iraq) is one of
the things that we really have to work at," Army Lt. Gen. Keith
Alexander, head of Army intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services
Committee this week. "I mean, that is the key to solving not only that
problem but the rest of the problems in the Middle East."

Hamilton, who said he oversees public-opinion issues for Bremer,
declined to provide the number of Iraqis surveyed or other
methodological details but said in an e-mail that "polls here are
generally reliable" and that the new findings were consistent with those
of other polls.

The new data reflect the fact that "the occupation, and the occupation
forces, are getting increasingly unpopular," said Jeffrey White, a
former Middle East affairs analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"A lot of people, including me, have been getting very pessimistic."

Reflecting that trend, the proportion of Baghdad residents who reported
worries about safety has increased steadily: 70 percent named security
as the "most urgent issue," up from 50 percent in January, 60 percent in
February and 65 percent in March.

Overall, 63 percent of those polled said security was the most urgent
issue facing Iraq. In addition to Baghdad, the poll was conducted in the
northern city of Mosul and the southern cities of Basra, Nasiriyah and
Karbala. Some questions were asked in the troubled western Ramadi.

There were a few bright spots. Iraqi police received a 79 percent
positive rating, the best of seven institutions about which questions
were asked. The reformed Iraqi army was not far behind, with a 61
percent positive rating.

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. The largest group, 27 percent, said the Iraqi people should
appoint the new leaders, while 23 percent said judges should. Only
one-tenth of 1 percent said that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing
Council should name the government, which is supposed to run Iraq until
elections are held next year. None said the occupation authority should.

Indicating a general skepticism of foreign involvement in their
political future, 83 percent of those polled said that only Iraqis
should be involved in supervising the 2005 elections.

[Steel Wolf]

When 12 million Iraqis went to the polls to vote, that is an overwhelming majority when the entire population is only 25 million.....doncha think?

Sure, it's a lot of people, many of them voting for their own local tyrants. How well did the secular parties do? How well did the Islamists do?

People voting straight ethnic or religious lines isn't particularly healthy for a democracy. In the case of Iraq, it wasn't a rally for democratic compromise. It was a fight to see who could put their strongman on top. The high voter turnout was because people were afraid of what the other guy was going to do to them. In America, that's a fear of higher taxes. In Iraq, that's government death squads. 'Vote like your life depends on it', indeed. Americans often project American values on people who don't have them, and in many cases don't want them.

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks. I had no idea who started it.

[DustyMoment]

So do you think it was smart to not plan for a resistance movement?

Would you have planned for an invasion of terrorists the like that we have seen in Iraq?

[vin-one]

what went wrong, how about the Dems, and the MSM, that is the only problem over there.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

The reistance started before the"invasion" of terrorists and is mostlly Iraqi. I would have planned for that.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

I didn't know it was Dems and MSM who were blowing up people and killing GIs. Your source for that is?