Was Iraq ever winnable?

[Haezed]

Assuming the war is lost, did the failure occur at inception or was it the execution? If we had gone in with sufficient troops, not disbanded the Iraqi military, etc., could this have turned out differently?

[JesuBungle]

I don't really see the Iraq war as a win or lose situation. Saddam was taken out of power, that was the real objective. But the conflict is never going to be completely over until some future president pulls the troops out and the country falls apart. I personally think Saddam should have just been assassinated.

[bascule]

"The only winning move is not to play" - 'Joshua' (a.k.a. WOPR) from WarGames

 

Seriously though, what constitutes winning? A stable, thriving, violence-free Democracy in Iraq?

[Skye]

The oil issues needed to be resolved more quickly. Both in terms of getting the oil flowing, and for the revenue to be flowing entirely into a federal government.

[GutZ]

I personally think Saddam should have just been assassinated.

 

I think they have like a international policy that doesn't allow that. I remember a debate about it like a year ago.

 

OT

 

Personally I think it was just rushed you know, considering the improvement of technology over the years I guess it wasn't being utilized to it fullest potential, where strength in numbers become more obsolete. I admit though I know nothing about how the miltary strategies and such, but it does seem to the same style of fighting as all previous wars.

[ParanoiA]

Assuming the war is lost, did the failure occur at inception or was it the execution? If we had gone in with sufficient troops, not disbanded the Iraqi military, etc., could this have turned out differently?

 

The war was already won. We're in "occupation" mode right now, trying to establish order and authority - which is what governments do.

 

There's no smooth way to do that. It will always be nasty business trying to install order - unless you have the people's support. The US doesn't have that. They have alot of people support, but not enough that the insurgents are baseless. They have a constituency, and of course a ton of funding and support from Iran.

 

This is the middle east. All regimes and governments in that region of the world have gone through this. Now you see why Saddam ruled with such a cruel hand. The people on this part of the globe are a fiesty bunch that would happily cut off their nose despite their face - and they're divided into groups that hate each other.

 

There's no reason to think this would be anything less than what it is right now. We're doing quite well, considering...

[Pangloss]

That's fine, ParanoiA, but I think the original question stands. I think the point here is that we understood from the beginning that this was going to be about more than just regime change. We were aware of the inherent religious contrasts that existed that Saddam kept in check, and we knew that if we simply toppled and traipsed away then what would likely result would be a radical Shi'a Islamic state, puppet to Iran.

 

Which is exactly where we're headed right now. I mean let's be blunt, that's what we're fighting to avoid at the moment. The OP's implicit question is whether we should have acknowledged that from the beginning, and not gone. IMO he's right.

[Sisyphus]

...and of course a ton of funding and support from Iran.

 

You really think so? Do you have a basis for saying that? I mean, an even bigger problem than insurgents is the Sunni and Shiite "militias" killing each other. Iran's not supporting both sides, are they? And the actual insurgents are primarily Sunni, right?

[john5746]

Assuming the war is lost, did the failure occur at inception or was it the execution? If we had gone in with sufficient troops, not disbanded the Iraqi military, etc., could this have turned out differently?

 

The war was won exceptionally well. The transition has been a disaster. I think everyone would agree that the transition could have been handled better. Maybe keeping the military intact would have been a good idea, but there would probably be no nice way to transition. In the United States we still have people who wish the South had won the civil war.

 

I think they rushed too quickly and didn't anticipate how they would handle the occupation, IMO.

[JHAQ]

I agree with jesubungle . Assassination would have been far preferable IF anything had to be done What appalls me is the total lack of historical perspective & awareness of history & the region by Bush ( who did not even know the distinction between Sunni & Shia Muslims ) . Countries like that NEED a strongman like Saddam to control them internally just as Tito did in Jugoslavia ( & look what happened there when he died ) . Saddams mistake was trying to venture outside the country . To me it is unwinable ; ossibly only compromisable in some way .

[ParanoiA]

That's fine, ParanoiA, but I think the original question stands. I think the point here is that we understood from the beginning that this was going to be about more than just regime change. We were aware of the inherent religious contrasts that existed that Saddam kept in check, and we knew that if we simply toppled and traipsed away then what would likely result would be a radical Shi'a Islamic state, puppet to Iran.

 

Which is exactly where we're headed right now. I mean let's be blunt, that's what we're fighting to avoid at the moment. The OP's implicit question is whether we should have acknowledged that from the beginning, and not gone. IMO he's right.

 

Well, sure we completely suck at enforcing order there. But I think that's because we approach it from a western mentallity - trying to be fair and only kill combatants and so forth. If we did it like most of the regimes in that region, we'd just slaughter everything that moves and install fear large scale.

 

I guess I just don't see the point in the OP. It doesn't really matter if we're failing the occupation or not - Saddam still had to go. Since we're being blunt, to the US, it's better the people of Iraq suffer terrorism day after day than the US. Especially considering the WMD's that he had 6 months to hide and/or smuggle out of the country.

 

As far as honesty is concerned, let's not kid ourselves into believing none of it had to do with oil either. Do people deserve to die so we can have oil? Do people deserve to die so we can type on these really neato computers and debate about it?

 

I would have rather seen us withdraw completely from that region after sept 11 - except for the hunt for Bin Laden. I would have prefered to give them the proverbial middle finger and withdraw all support, citizens and infrastructure - everything. I would have rather spent billions on the anti-ballistic missle program and ramp up military spending and physically secure all borders to the country. I would have rather done all that, and then use the UN to pursue Saddam. And I wouldn't have mentioned a thing about WMD's.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with jesubungle . Assassination would have been far preferable IF anything had to be done What appalls me is the total lack of historical perspective & awareness of history & the region by Bush ( who did not even know the distinction between Sunni & Shia Muslims ) . Countries like that NEED a strongman like Saddam to control them internally just as Tito did in Jugoslavia ( & look what happened there when he died ) . Saddams mistake was trying to venture outside the country . To me it is unwinable ; ossibly only compromisable in some way .

 

And what appauls me is the total lack of historical perspective and awareness of history and the region by everybody else. Who in their right mind thought that people wouldn't die daily by insurgents during an occupation?

 

Assassination? You're joking right? You don't think that whole country wouldn't come unglued after beheading its leader with no apparent force behind it? You think it's bad now...

 

I think there were mistakes in that regard - but I think most of them are misunderstood by us - us as in this forum.

 

It's one thing to talk politics in here - but military strategy? Come on. None of us know a damn thing about what we're talking about. These strategies aren't thought up by Bush and Cheyney over tea. These strategies are carefully laid out by intelligent military personnel, some young, some old, all impressive tacticions and leaders - not the idiots we elect for office. They just take the credit or the blame.

 

I don't believe there is a person in this forum, as well as myself, who knows anything about handling this kind of conflict anywhere in the world - let alone Iraq.

[Pangloss]

I guess I just don't see the point in the OP. It doesn't really matter if we're failing the occupation or not - Saddam still had to go. Since we're being blunt, to the US, it's better the people of Iraq suffer terrorism day after day than the US. Especially considering the WMD's that he had 6 months to hide and/or smuggle out of the country.

 

I don't accept the premise of your argument, though I can certainly see how it prevents you from understanding the point of the original post.

[ParanoiA]

It doesn't prevent me from understanding it, it prevents me from accepting its relevance.

 

Besides, I answered the OP. There is no way to occupy Iraq successfully to the juvenile expectations of our civilians.

[Phi for All]

Imo, we can't know if the goals of this war were achieved because we are not privy to all those goals. There were obviously many factors which led to the invasion of Iraq as opposed to the invasion of Sudan or Iran or North Korea. Perhaps a great deal of those factors were political ones which may have had a benefit the general population would not have agreed with in theory.

[JHAQ]

I agree with jesubungle . Assassination would have been far preferable IF anything had to be done What appalls me is the total lack of historical perspective & awareness of history & the region by Bush ( who did not even know the distinction between Sunni & Shia Muslims ) . Countries like that NEED a strongman like Saddam to control them internally just as Tito did in Jugoslavia ( & look what happened there when he died ) . Saddams mistake was trying to venture outside the country . To me it is unwinable ; ossibly only compromisable in some way .

[ecoli]

I don't agree with the statement that the war has already been won. Yes, Sadaam was taken out, but unfortunately the 'rebels' are still strong. I feel like they have a great advantage now that they are fighting in their own 'terrorist' style. We don't have the capabilities in Iraq to fight this kind of war. Maybe this was their intention all along?

[ParanoiA]

Pangloss - What happend to the post where someone said "It is you that does not understand"?

 

You've been kinda cranky here lately. I was also a little surprised to see you close the Peak Oil thread. Of course, he did seem a little fanatical.

[Phi for All]

Pangloss - What happend to the post where someone said "It is you that does not understand"?

 

You've been kinda cranky here lately. I was also a little surprised to see you close the Peak Oil thread. Of course, he did seem a little fanatical.

Not that Pangloss' actions need to be justified, but Rebiu's post was soft-deleted because he changed what he'd originally posted and typed nonsense letters.

 

The Peak Oil thread was closed due to it being five pages of redundant fanatical rant, followed by some abuses of the Private Message system. People, if you want someone to respond in a thread, post it in the thread and leave it at that. No need to hound the person in a PM. That's just all kinds of wrong.

[ParanoiA]

Not that Pangloss' actions need to be justified, but Rebiu's post was soft-deleted because he changed what he'd originally posted and typed nonsense letters.

 

 

Ok, that makes sense. I remember seeing "asdfsd" or something like that and I assumed it was some kind of chat lingo slang. Sorry to stray from the topic.

[GutZ]

I don't agree with the statement that the war has already been won. Yes, Sadaam was taken out, but unfortunately the 'rebels' are still strong. I feel like they have a great advantage now that they are fighting in their own 'terrorist' style. We don't have the capabilities in Iraq to fight this kind of war. Maybe this was their intention all along?

 

Even if someone considers the fact taking out Saddam was victory, there is the point that it took X amount of dollars to do it...

[Pangloss]

I shudder every time I think of the money we're spending on Iraq. It just absolutely boggles the mind. I don't buy statements like "without Iraq we'd have balanced the budget" -- those statements belie an understanding of how big the budget is (not that anyone here was making that claim). But by golly, that is just a whopping amount of cash.

[Skye]

Yeah, it's alot of cash. The question is whether the war was inevitable, personally I think this was why Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., pushed for the war to happen. It was better to be able to position US forces before an invasion than to have to react to Saddam dying, a coup, or whatever. Then the US would be wading knee deep into a civil war from the get go, picking a side and hello, Vietnam/Korea all over again. It might have been cheaper and easier this way. Despite the regular equivocating, the situation in Iraq is alot better than either of those past wars.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, it's alot of cash. The question is whether the war was inevitable, personally I think this was why Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., pushed for the war to happen. It was better to be able to position US forces before an invasion than to have to react to Saddam dying, a coup, or whatever. Then the US would be wading knee deep into a civil war from the get go, picking a side and hello, Vietnam/Korea all over again. It might have been cheaper and easier this way. Despite the regular equivocating, the situation in Iraq is alot better than either of those past wars.

 

Interesting take. And this is exactly the kind of strategizing that most of us american citizens do not understand. This is kind of what I was eluding to earlier, in that international military politics and the seriousness of the consequences requires a tactical, pragmatic approach rather than an idealist forum junky's approach.

 

I guess that takes the fun out of it, but it's really annoying to see posts by folks who judge military strategy as if they were a general themselves.

[Pangloss]

It was better to be able to position US forces before an invasion than to have to react to Saddam dying, a coup, or whatever. Then the US would be wading knee deep into a civil war from the get go, picking a side and hello, Vietnam/Korea all over again.

 

I'm not sure I understand how we would have been drawn into an internal conflict in Iraq upon Saddam's death. Why would that be the case?