Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We are right!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Iraq, on the other hand, will probably never again be a producer of WMDs.
    It will provide the manpower for IRGC expeditionary units in the region.

    Sure you could and it's been done and being done. Set up a civil war and let them kill each other for generations to come. That's how the Turks manged to keep their empire.
    Seeing as "team-Iran" is winning and will be dictating terms to the Sunni-Arabs, the "generations to come" is looking pretty short.

    The nuclear and biological programs went to hell, but the chemical infrastructure was all there to start manufacturing weapons inside of 30 days, in a nation full of starving people and serious infrastructure gaps practically everywhere, especially in his military capacity. '
    Hardly the painting of an existential threat. A few squadrons of outdated planes, some sort range ballistic missiles, a military not fully trusted, and forced to keep their boot on the throats of the locals.

    Bush and team wanted a war, got the war they wanted, bungled it horribly, and now Iraq went from a secular dictatorship (a type of rule the Government doesn't like) which may have been a hedge against Iran; to the recruiting ground for pro-Iranian militias.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by snapper View Post
      The point is that after 9/11 the weight of presumption HAD to change. If you wait for a 'smoking gun' it's too late... suppose Saddam did have nuke? If he didn't why block weapons inspectors? Can you take that risk when 'waiting for the 100% proof' was what lead to 9/11? I think if I had been in Bush's shoes I would have done the same.
      So, the ends justify the means?
      Lying about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was the right thing to do?

      I disagree.

      If the case for going to war cannot be made on the basis of facts and urgent national interest, perhaps a prudent leadership might opt for an alternative.
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by snapper View Post
        The point is that after 9/11 the weight of presumption HAD to change. If you wait for a 'smoking gun' it's too late... suppose Saddam did have nuke? If he didn't why block weapons inspectors? Can you take that risk when 'waiting for the 100% proof' was what lead to 9/11? I think if I had been in Bush's shoes I would have done the same.
        Waiting for 100% proof didn't result in 9/11, and invading the ME wouldn't have prevented it. We got blindsided by a type of attack we hadn't considered to be credible. The real change that had to come from 9/11 was the reorganization of the federal government to facilitate cooperation and effective communication between intelligence agencies.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          Waiting for 100% proof didn't result in 9/11, and invading the ME wouldn't have prevented it. We got blindsided by a type of attack we hadn't considered to be credible. The real change that had to come from 9/11 was the reorganization of the federal government to facilitate cooperation and effective communication between intelligence agencies.
          In regards to "Waiting for 100% proof didn't result in 9/11" it was inaction perhaps more: OBL made a video declaring war on the US, the Embassy bombing, the attack on the US naval ship - I forget which ship - hell why was Clinton launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan if the threat had not been recognised?

          In regard to "invading the ME wouldn't have prevented it" I agree but could you gamble on the risk that Saddam did not have the ability and inclination to do something similar to 9/11 - or worse? To do so and be proved wrong would smack of gross negligence and we cannot take our decisions with the benefit of hindsight.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            I'm not defending the occupation. When ISIS started winning, I took the opinion we should have done a Genghis Khan and left.
            What would "doing a Genghis Khan" actually entail in the Iraqi context? And how would any US president sign off on doing it without becoming a war criminal?

            More importantly, how would the American public react to their government taking their cue from Genghis Khan? The US didn't come close to doing a Genghis Khan in Vietnam, yet half the country seemed to be opposing that war.

            Doing a genghis khan is easy for you to say. But the reality is that when the US attacked Iraq with the intention of removing Saddam they were stuck with it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by troung View Post
              Bush and team wanted a war, got the war they wanted, bungled it horribly, and now Iraq went from a secular dictatorship (a type of rule the Government doesn't like) which may have been a hedge against Iran; to the recruiting ground for pro-Iranian militias.
              Succinct...

              Comment


              • #52
                Doing a genghis khan is easy for you to say. But the reality is that when the US attacked Iraq with the intention of removing Saddam they were stuck with it.

                The Pottery Barn rule applied.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule

                SEC Powell could not have been more correct in his projection of what the outcomes would be.

                That Powell warned them and then Wolfowitz was allowed to savage GEN Shinseki when he suggested what was needed borders on the outright criminal.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                  What would "doing a Genghis Khan" actually entail in the Iraqi context? And how would any US president sign off on doing it without becoming a war criminal?

                  More importantly, how would the American public react to their government taking their cue from Genghis Khan? The US didn't come close to doing a Genghis Khan in Vietnam, yet half the country seemed to be opposing that war.

                  Doing a genghis khan is easy for you to say. But the reality is that when the US attacked Iraq with the intention of removing Saddam they were stuck with it.

                  Well, the other method worked nice. So, nothing to worry about.
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    What should have been done is exactly what GEN Shinseki testified to Congress...we should have mobilized many more troops. At least 2 corps should have gone in along with additional MPs, Civil Affairs and PSYOPS. I believe his estimate was 250,000 -300,000 troops. The force would be a stabilization force. We then should have kept the Iraqi Police and Army intact. We would have to de-Baath the public sector forces but that would have a left a stable infrastructure for us to work with. One of the great blunderers in American history was Paul Bremer. Jay Garner, who had experience in Iraq and Kurdistan, should have been left in charge.

                    We ended up mobilizing all of those units eventually over the next 8 years. Would have been better to have done it all at once.
                    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                    Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      unfortunately all of this was far more than just a question of numbers, but also a completely different mode of thinking.

                      lord knows i've castigated Rumsfeld here for using the war as a live testing ground for his FCS theories, but that just dovetailed in with the rest of the administration's efforts to lowball the cost, the time, and the effort that was necessary post-war. people who pointed this out were slammed as being just another anti-war hippie.

                      we'll be down to 30K troops in Nov 2003 and thus ready to move on Iran or Syria next. reconstruction is expensive; thankfully the Iraqis have a whole bunch of oil so that'll end up paying for itself. Iraq would become a US ally and friendly to Israel. we'll use Iraqi oil to break OPEC and Russia. Iraq would be the beacon to the entire region of the value of Western institutions. the mental masturbation was strong.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        unfortunately all of this was far more than just a question of numbers, but also a completely different mode of thinking.

                        lord knows i've castigated Rumsfeld here for using the war as a live testing ground for his FCS theories, but that just dovetailed in with the rest of the administration's efforts to lowball the cost, the time, and the effort that was necessary post-war. people who pointed this out were slammed as being just another anti-war hippie.

                        we'll be down to 30K troops in Nov 2003 and thus ready to move on Iran or Syria next. reconstruction is expensive; thankfully the Iraqis have a whole bunch of oil so that'll end up paying for itself. Iraq would become a US ally and friendly to Israel. we'll use Iraqi oil to break OPEC and Russia. Iraq would be the beacon to the entire region of the value of Western institutions. the mental masturbation was strong.

                        I remember reading Tom Ricks Fiasco as well as COBRA II in 2006. Both books talked about that CENTCOM, at the directions of Tommy Franks, did no post-conflict planning for stabilization. One of the planners quoted in both books, COL John Agoglia, was a captain when I served with him at FT Stewart in 1985. I knew John and was stunned to read him say in the book that they had been specifically forbidden to do this planning, at the direction of the NSC and was told "the State Department was handling it." The problem was no one ever told State...and that is per Colin Powell himself.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                          no post-conflict planning for stabilization
                          Knowing current status of Libya, Egypt an Syria, i see two options:

                          1) No plan was the Plan. Or, as OOE said: Set up a civil war and let them kill each other for generations to come. A Genghis Khan solution without formal US guilt.

                          2) They all are idiots who have no idea what to do. Using astralis words - mental masturbation is still strong.

                          I don't know which option is worse.

                          (Egypt avoided civil war through a military coup.)
                          Winter is coming.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            We have no grand strategy, we have a lot of posturing at a regional level and a fear of looking like cowards.

                            Probably a good thing, because all of our Presidents are naïve morons who cannot FORM a grand strategy that isn't steeped in one ideology or another. The best you can hope for is a Reagan who accidentally stumbles into the right strategy at the right time.

                            So, yes, #2, they are all idiots :P
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by NUS View Post
                              Knowing current status of Libya, Egypt an Syria, i see two options:

                              1) No plan was the Plan. Or, as OOE said: Set up a civil war and let them kill each other for generations to come. A Genghis Khan solution without formal US guilt.

                              2) They all are idiots who have no idea what to do. Using astralis words - mental masturbation is still strong.

                              I don't know which option is worse.

                              (Egypt avoided civil war through a military coup.)

                              Number-2 in all of our actions.
                              Last edited by troung; 15 Sep 16,, 21:56.
                              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                yeah, of course #2.

                                but as a saving grace--

                                Probably a good thing, because all of our Presidents are naïve morons who cannot FORM a grand strategy that isn't steeped in one ideology or another. The best you can hope for is a Reagan who accidentally stumbles into the right strategy at the right time.
                                a grand strategy by definition requires an ideology. otherwise all it can be is a bunch of tactical realist decisions.

                                in any case given the US system it's nigh impossible to sustain a long-term grand strategy. which is less hobbling than it used to be in the absence of a competing superpower and a more interconnected world (more white and black swan events).
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X