How could Iraq have been handled successfully?

[Pangloss]

Presumption (circa 2003) for the sake of argument: The US is going to invade Iraq, and you are charged with the responsibility of making that happen. There is no debate, you simply get to carry out the broad order of "invade this nation, topple its government, and construct a new democracy in its place".

 

Question: How do you do it?

 

Specifically, what steps do you take? What actions do you perform differently from how the US/UK actually did things? How, in a nutshell, do you prevent the onset of the situation we have today?

 

 

Warning: Off-topic posts in this thread will be DELETED. You can talk about causes of the current situation, but posts about justification for the invasion, jokes about not going in the first place, etc, will not be tolerated.

[YT2095]

Surgical Assasination(s) of the key players.

 

then sit back for a while and see how things pan out.

 

one of 2 things will happen:

 

1) the country falls into total Chaos and THEN you step in as the "Helpers".

2) a New .Gov is formed that you Can negotiate with/manipulate.

[Bluenoise]

Surgical Assasination(s) of the key players.

 

then sit back for a while and see how things pan out.

 

one of 2 things will happen:

 

1) the country falls into total Chaos and THEN you step in as the "Helpers".

2) a New .Gov is formed that you Can negotiate with/manipulate.

 

This is exactley what I've been saying as well.

[aguy2]

Surgical Assasination(s) of the key players.

 

one of 2 things will happen:

 

1) The 'surgical assainations' fail and/or get caught, bringing those that authorized them into the World Court and their nation condemned to political and economic isolation.

2) The 'surgical assainations' are wildly successful and become a wildly popular new 'norm' for political expression. Everybody starts exterminating everybody elses political leadership and get so good at it that governments everywhere find themselves disfunctionally leaderless.

aguy2

 

ps. 'Cashiering' their military science practitioners, after these professionals obviously offered up the very rare gift of the 'token resistance' of a National Army to an invading armed force. This rare gift was not a thing to be so disrespectfully treated.

[CPL.Luke]

increased troop presence.

 

we should have gone in with the force levels that the generals (all of which are retired now) wanted, somewhere on the order of 300-500 thousand, essentially enough troops to secure baghdad properly and to have acted in the role of a police force in bghdad until a proper force was trained.

 

part of the problem is that we allowed chaos to reign in the country for too long after we invaded, so that to the Iraqi's the american invasion came to e recognized as an imperialistic country invading for oil with no regard to rebuilding the infrastructure etc. With a proper troop level we could have disarmed the majority of citizens (instead of allowing every family to keep at one ak-47) and stopped the looting.

 

however my personal preference for handling Iraq would be to bomb any known chemical/biological weapons sites and declare victory, with the sattelite imagery thats available to mission planners we should have been able to know exactly where the weapons were (if they had infact existed) and destroyed them.

 

Air campaigns are really the western worlds form of guerrila warfare, I don't believe that there is a single nation on this earth that could do anything more than the equivalent of throwing rocks at tanks when it comes to a nato air campaign. Whats more is that in the modern era the american airforce could have leveled every single military base in Iraq within a week, costing saddam hundreds of millions/ billions of dollars. Creating the same situation for us that guerrila fighters enjoy, one where it costs them next to nothing to attack their enemy, but it costs their enemy enormous amounts of money to go after them.

[Skye]

I'd follow the same strategy as in Afghanistan. Very few ground troops supporting local militia with lots of air support.

[aguy2]

increased troop presence.

 

we should have gone in with the force levels that the generals (all of which are retired now) wanted, somewhere on the order of 300-500 thousand, essentially enough troops to secure baghdad properly and to have acted in the role of a police force in bghdad until a proper force was trained.

 

part of the problem is that we allowed chaos to reign in the country for too long after we invaded, so that to the Iraqi's the american invasion came to e recognized as an imperialistic country invading for oil with no regard to rebuilding the infrastructure etc.

 

 

Air campaigns are really the western worlds form of guerrila warfare, I don't believe that there is a single nation on this earth that could do anything more than the equivalent of throwing rocks at tanks when it comes to a nato air campaign.

 

Both of these seem to be good points. A Nato sanctioned air campaign could very well led to the Sunni/Baathists doing a regime change.

aguy2

[Pangloss]

I'm not at all convinced that half a million troops would have done anything more than produce twice as many allied casualties. I mean woopdeedoo, they can hold TWO areas secure instead of one. Meanwhile eight other areas are in uprising.

[CPL.Luke]

well if you consider that we only have 160,000 troops there now, they could hold almost 4 times as much area secure.

[Sisyphus]

Maybe even the road to Baghdad International Airport!

[aguy2]

I'm not at all convinced that half a million troops would have done anything more than produce twice as many allied casualties. I mean woopdeedoo, they can hold TWO areas secure instead of one. Meanwhile eight other areas are in uprising.

 

400k+ troops would only have been more effective if coupled with effective policies like ridding their national army's professional ranks of Saddam's family, clan, and other 'political hacks'.

aguy2

[Pangloss]

I thought one of the criticisms was that too many of the existing forces were disbanded.

[Pangloss]

Both of these seem to be good points. A Nato sanctioned air campaign could very well led to the Sunni/Baathists doing a regime change.

aguy2

 

Would that be considered a "success"?

 

I suspect the answer to my question is "yes" if it entails the Saddam's Baathist replacement inviting UN inspectors back in and giving them a free reign, agreeing to all other international demands and generally leading the country back into international accord.

 

Which of course would leave the Kurds and Shi'a stuck, but the international community was fine with that before so presumably they'd be fine with it again.

[ParanoiA]

What a gas...

 

Since none of us know what the hell we're talking about, yet we're going to play like we are insightful and worthy to comment on military strategy, I might as well throw my two cents in.

 

Iraq should have been handled with a neutron bomb. Any aggression or insurgency to be answered with more neutron bombs. Sounds cruel, but I would rather make one blunt point than pointless routine killing for months and years on end. Get it over with. Yeah I know...stupid.

 

After reading the comments on this thread, it's obvious to me there is no way to handle Iraq successfully. I can't believe anyone would criticize GWB after reading this thread. There isn't a single idea offered that possesses a lick of more sense than anything GWB did.

[Sisyphus]

Iraq should have been handled with a neutron bomb. Any aggression or insurgency to be answered with more neutron bombs. Sounds cruel, but I would rather make one blunt point than pointless routine killing for months and years on end. Get it over with. Yeah I know...stupid.

 

Yeah, at which point the entire Middle East, and probably other countries as well, declare war on us. And the crazy suicidal Jihadists bring it on themselves gleefully, as vindication of everything they've been saying.

 

After reading the comments on this thread, it's obvious to me there is no way to handle Iraq successfully. I can't believe anyone would criticize GWB after reading this thread. There isn't a single idea offered that possesses a lick of more sense than anything GWB did.

 

Oh, bull. If I was going to invade Iraq I would at least plan for the occupation ahead of time. Coalition forces concentrated entirely on destroying the Iraqi army, I guess under the assumption that they'd be embraced with open arms, and everything would somehow work out. If it had occured to anyone (or if those in charge had actually listened to anyone who it had occured to) that there would be looting, lingering resistance, terrorism, and "inter-sectarian violence" (as we like to call it), then we would have planned well ahead of time to seize armories, power plants, cultural institutions, etc. as soon as possible.

 

But no. Instead, the administration was determined only to listen to the silly black and white story told by the likes of Chalabi, wherein every Iraqi just wants to be free of Saddam, and would immediately hold hands and dance around together as soon as he was gone. And so the occupation plan seemed to consist mostly of staging photographs of toppling statues and the like.

 

Further, Rummy's obsession with minimal but highly trained and vastly technologically superior forces is great for killilng people, but downright horrible at preventing people (that is, civilians) from getting killed. The mentality is one of the puppet-master, drunk with power, sending "strike teams" on isolated missions, and not noticing the aftermath when they're gone. Insurgents are not completely safe anywhere, but they're also not prevented from going anywhere. It is, in fact, remarkably similar to Vietnam. Instead, what they should have done, if not at first then at least at ANY point over the years we've been there, change to a strategy of hold and expand. Get enough troops into Baghdad, say, to actually control it, and KEEP them there. As is, the road to the Baghdad airport, what ought to be the most heavily protected road in the country, is STILL regularly attacked.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, bull. If I was going to invade Iraq I would at least plan for the occupation ahead of time

 

Plan all you want, it won't change a thing. How is planning going to help you? What exactly does that mean? They're still going to car bomb you to death. They're still going to get aid from every Islamic terror organization in the region. They're still going to pick your soldiers off. We've had 4 years of this crap and haven't found a way to stop it. That's time enough to plan, re-plan, scrap that plan, plan something else..replan..scrap that plan...blah blah blah. You're kidding yourself, drunk with hatred.

[Sisyphus]

I told you what it meant. They defeated the Iraqi military easily and splendidly, and then sat there and said "now what." As far as I can tell, they assumed everything would just kind of take care of itself, because that's what they were being told by the only people they would listen to, the people telling them what they wanted to hear. Basically, they threw the country into anarchy, and THEN looked around and tried to decide what to do about it. But by that time, armories were empty and their contents in the hands of terrorists, infrastructure was blown up, and everybody was pissed at the Americans.

 

We got some damn inspiring photo ops out of it, though.

[Pangloss]

Now we're finally getting to the heart of the thread!

 

Sisyphus you may well be right, but let me ask you this: What specific plans would you have made?

 

The statement that "no planning was done" may be an exaggeration. I'm not at all convinced that it is. I suppose it's fair to say some technical/paper planning was done, but it's a very good and very real question as to whether a comprehensive and intelligent plan existed at the end of the initial fighting phase of the war.

 

But I think we also have to dig deeper than that. Assuming for the the moment that the answer to that question is "no such planning was done", then the question arises: What could such planning have accomplished, were it done, and done perfectly?

 

I think that this is a legitimate, non-partisan, and important question. In fact it may be the most important question of the entire war.

[Sisyphus]

I suppose, if one recognized that the occupation, not the war itself, would be by far the greater difficulty, the invasion itself could have focused less on wiping out the existent power structure as quickly as possible in a mad rush across the desert (with total lack of law and order in its wake), but instead a more careful, immediate occupation, where important areas and sites would only be captured if they actually be guarded in a reasonable way. In other words, treat it as an actual regime change, instead of merely a "regime destruction, then we decide what to with them later."

[ParanoiA]

But I think we also have to dig deeper than that. Assuming for the the moment that the answer to that question is "no such planning was done", then the question arises: What could such planning have accomplished, were it done, and done perfectly?

 

And this, I contend, is a no win scenario for us. In fact, I've been dancing around this in several posts on other threads as well. We are americans. We will be rejected and fought to no end. I don't believe there is a way to be the "ethical" hero that tries to spare the innocent while surgically killing the insurgency, and NOT create the mess we're dealing with now. I'm listening and reading, but I've not heard an idea yet that would solve this problem. And yes, even if a democrat was president...

 

And this "no planning" commentary is short sighted. Does anyone in here really believe, that the chain of tens if not hundreds of leaders, military advisers, generals and personnel involved in prosecuting war for America didn't think of it? Please. Don't be so naive. That's ridiculous. I can't stand democrats, but not even I am so blind in political distaste to suggest such elementary thought.

 

They may have collectively miscalculated or underestimated some things, although I still believe there is no way to accurately calculate such things. It's like playing defense in football - are they going to run or pass? If you play the run, then everyone says you're stupid and didn't plan for the pass. You may well have considered the pass and calculated they would run. That's an honest miscalculation. It doesn't mean you never planned for it, or considered it.

 

Look, I have no love for GWB. He's an idiot. And I'll never forgive going against the UN for this invasion of Iraq - resuming the 1991 war. I was against it then, and I'm against it now. But that doesn't mean the good people behind the scenes and behind the headlines are also that stupid.

[Pangloss]

What irks me is that we've essentially created a socio-political environment that prohibits the celebration of success and achievement. The best we can hope for is to lower the amount of trumped-up criticism to a level that is accepted by 51% of the polling population.

 

Afghanistan being a perfect example. Afghani polls indicate overwhelming gratitude and optimism. But all you hear about are "a rising tide of disatisfaction" and "return of the Taliban", which is a phrase that always has to be proceeded with "possible" or "eventual".

 

It simply is not possible to pat ourselves on the back about anything. It's just not politically correct.

 

 

(Yeah I know they operate in some areas. I'm generalizing. Sue me.)

[ParanoiA]

What irks me is that we've essentially created a socio-political environment that prohibits the celebration of success and achievement. The best we can hope for is to lower the amount of trumped-up criticism to a level that is accepted by 51% of the polling population.

 

You could start a thread on that subject alone. The celebration of success and achievement is overshadowed by the belief that such prosperity is off the backs and plight of others.

 

It's as if the country is in this doom and gloom mode where we cannot be proud of ourselves in any capacity. Is it too much conflict?

 

Thanksgiving is twisted up with the reality that we dominated and took this land from its inhabitants. Christmas is twisted up with the repulsion of religion and war. It's like we have intellectually beaten ourselves into a corner. This is why I don't dwell on history and assign blame to the present day heirs. It's unhealthy and decays the vigor of a prosperous society.

[CPL.Luke]

meh, I think everyone still thinks that afghanistan was a good job, that is having some temporary difficulties, essentially we need to put more troops there and it will be ok, because the majority of afghani's support us, its just a matter of getting the trops there (which we all know is a difficult thing to do in today's political climate)

 

but what if the afghani's don't support us? on who's word do we have poll numbers that say that they support us? I've heard the same thing about the people of Iraq up until a few months ago where people could no longer deny that the Iraqi's did not support us.

 

Keep in mind that this administration has lied their collective arse's off before, why should we believe that afghanistan is any different?

 

Furthermore even if the poll numbers are legitamate how do we know there isn't a bias. The Afghani's lived under a totalitarian government for over a decade and have been told that the US is the most evil country in the world, do they belive they can answer the poll questions honestly without fear of reprisal?

 

 

I hate to argue a debate with questions but these are some very important questions, I don't think anybody wants to pat ourselves on the back because we eitehr A: don't know what the real situation is like or B: know that its not in a place where we can pat ourselve's on the back.

[Sisyphus]

It's not that I think there was NO plan. That was an exaggeration, of course. Obviously people were concerned about it. I just think the plan was vague, unrealistic, and of low priority, when it should have been 90% of the focus before the war.

 

So how could that happen?

 

I think the neocon idealists in the administration got carried away with their own pet theories and view of the world, and foolishly dismissed everyone who had what were actually intelligent and legitimate concerns as "silly liberals" and the like. In their view, the world is divided into good and evil, and democracy is good (and everyone wants it), and Saddam was evil. Hence, the Iraqis would be overwhelmingly grateful for the toppling of Saddam, and would promptly set up a functioning democracy more or less on their own, with perhaps some advice from the United States. People like Ahmed Chalabi, with a strong interest in an invasion, told the administration exactly what it wanted to hear, what it already believed. This included, of course, stuff about WMDs, which more reliable sources claimed did not exist. But for such blind idealogues, what counts as "reliable" gets greatly distorted. And so we were told some fibs in order to convince the skeptical among us, because they just knew they would find them.

 

And so, when the war actually came, we destroyed their military, and that's it. We didn't move step by step, securing each area, guarding the abandoned armories, factories, and civic centers. We didn't patrol or bring law and order to regions in the wake of our advance, because the idea of such chaos was inconceivable to the administration, because it conflicted with their dogmatic idealogy. And so we allowed much, easily preventable chaos.

 

The other issue, as I thought I already explained, was related: Rummy's military strategy. For those who don't know, he was all about streamlining large military forces into smaller, high tech, highly trained strike forces that could go anywhere, do the job, and get out before anyone could respond. And this is very effective at killing people, it's true. But, like the initial lack of realistic planning, it assumes a friendly and cooperative populace. All we have to do is find the terrorists and kill them, and then we can safely leave the area! Never mind that the population might be sympathetic of the insurgents and resentful of the Americans bringing violence but failing to bring safety. Never mind the retributions that would come to those who cooperated as soon as the Americans left. The Americans live on their impenetrable military bases, while actual Iraqis live, basically, in anarchy. This is the essence of despotism. Killing enemies brutally, but ignoring everyone else.

 

But how preventable was all this, you ask? Surely there would still be an insurgency! Yes, probably. But consider. The arms looted in those first few days of chaos still amount for more than the total firepower of IUDs exploded since the conflict began. More importantly, what of the public perception? Could we have even said more effectively that we don't care what happens to them, we just want Saddam's head? Remember, leftover Saddam loyalists account for a negligible portion of the violence in Iraq today - that's why it didn't diminish when he was captured. Most of it is former civilians taking up arms against a perceived oppressor, or foreign terrorists taking advantage of the continuing nationwide anarchy in all regions, or, most damning of all, the militias which formed to protect particular ethnic groups (since the Iraqi government couldn't, and the Americans wouldn't), operating just like American mafia families of an earlier era, thuggishly claiming territory and waging war on one another. Our lack of stable presence in any area is what allowed these groups to arise, and that lack of presence is part of our stated strategy!

[Pangloss]

I think everyone still thinks that afghanistan was a good job

 

Under no circumstances will we be allowed to celebrate victory in Afghanistan. It simply cannot be allowed.

 

PBS Frontline put its entire recent episode called "The Return of the Taliban" online, something they only do with about a third of their episodes due to the expense. The episode and its flashy accompanying web site, which will likely be nominated for a Pulitzer, can be viewed here.

 

For another example, see this recent op/ed in the New York Times. Not that there's anything wrong with his assessment, mind you. What's worth noticing is its title: "One War We Can Still Win". Present tense.

 

Under no circumstances will we be allowed to celebrate victory in Afghanistan. Not then, not now, not ever.