Thread: Assessing the Decision to Intervene in Iraq

Not what was meant, as you know, of course. But thanks anyway for the contribution.

bluesman,

blademaster's just trying to finagle an invite to the hot-tub, too. )

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Dr. Metz, don't listen to HIM; I have photos of him in my hot tub, and he's afraid of me.

Aaaahhhhh...hhmmmm...I'm afraid that if I was to say anything else, my comment would incriminate me....

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Aaaahhhhh...hhmmmm...I'm afraid that if I was to say anything else, my comment would incriminate me....

Ah, you chicken ! I want to see you in your skivvies ! )

I may not know a lot about this war as some of the other fellow posters hear. But I have made some observations.. first about the original post, and secondly about the war.

1. SteveMetz, your article basically says that the Bush administration made a whole lot of assumptions. I do not know a lot about Bush or his administration, but it seems that you are also making a lot of assumptions about his administration.

I mean, did you speak with anyone from the administration to make sure that what you are saying, about what he did in the lead up to the war was accurate? Or are you making observations, as I am, and are making calculated assumptions on what he did in the lead up to the war, and the building of his strategy.

secondly

2. How can America win this war? America is fighting an enemy, that is not bound to the same Geneva convention as America is.

The article explains that the American Military must first break the will of the Iraqi people, in order to rebuild them.

In this day and age cannot break the confidence and will of a people without breaking the Geneva Convention. The enemy knows this, and will fight you with two arms, while you must fight with one arm tied behind your back.

Also, the media and as a result, the majority of the American people have lost faith in this war. Further stacking the cards against victory.
Media can be a powerful pro-war propaganda tool, but it can also become a destructive anti-war tool as well.

I just cannot see how America will will this war.

but hey..what do I know

Originally Posted by Canmoore

1. SteveMetz, your article basically says that the Bush administration made a whole lot of assumptions. I do not know a lot about Bush or his administration, but it seems that you are also making a lot of assumptions about his administration.

Dr. Metz is pretty much on the money when he talks about pre-war assumptions. You can see that when you look at the pre-war force structure and the moves made by the occupation authority following the initial victory. We didn't have the troops on the ground to prevent looting, secure ammo dumps, and keep a lit on the insurgency. We expected for more gratitude from the Iraqis than we got. The simple fact that things spun out of control early on indicates what the pre-war assumptions were.

When Dr. Metz gets into a the larger picture of regional issues and paints a picture of what we're facing and where we are headed, one has to respect his views given his background and current profession. Of course, one can disagree with him, as you can see has happened here. But there's no denying that his views carry a lot of weight. Your attitude is healthy: question everything.

I mean, did you speak with anyone from the administration to make sure that what you are saying, about what he did in the lead up to the war was accurate?

He's closely connected with the military; in fact he works with it. So, I'd say it's safe to assume he heard a lot that we didn't during the run-up to the war and after.

2. How can America win this war? America is fighting an enemy, that is not bound to the same Geneva convention as America is.

First of all, this is not a conventional war. The primary enemy on the ground is a mix of insurgent groups that not only target us, but innocent Iraqis. I am sure you have noticed media reports saying the level of violence is dropping in Iraq. Part of that is due to a new approach by the US command in Iraq which seeks closer cooperation with Iraqi tribal leaders and so on, and another part is due simply to the fact that average Iraqis are tired of all the violence and want to get on with builiding their lives.

The article explains that the American Military must first break the will of the Iraqi people, in order to rebuild them. In this day and age cannot break the confidence and will of a people without breaking the Geneva Convention. The enemy knows this, and will fight you with two arms, while you must fight with one arm tied behind your back.

In principle, you are right, and we suffered on that account. But we haven't had one arm tied behind our back. There are ways to defeat an insurgency as the Brits show so well in Malaysia. Even an insurgency unmindful of the Geneva convention must show itself, must move around and must find sources of supply. That's when they become vulnerable. Then if you can convince the indigenous people that the insurgency is not in their interests, they will turn on the insurgents. In short, there are many ways to kill a cat.

Also, the media and as a result, the majority of the American people have lost faith in this war. Further stacking the cards against victory.
Media can be a powerful pro-war propaganda tool, but it can also become a destructive anti-war tool as well.

No question about that.

I just cannot see how America will will this war.

As you yourself said, you don't know that much about it. If you look deeper, you'll see ways to win, and in fact, if the level of violence continues to drop and if the Iraqi army can take over security and maintain it, we will have won.

JAD,

Malaya isn't necessarily the best insurgency to contrast Iraq against because of the vastly different terrain, both physical and cultural.

While your focus on the enemy's point of vulnerability is on target, I think the following quote by LTC Paul Yingling speaks to the point well:

"Don't train on finding the enemy, train on finding your friends, and they will help you find your enemy. . . . Once you find your friends, finding the enemy is easy."

Of course, Iraq isn't just an insurgency environment, so COIN may not carry the day in the end, but it is a component.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Dr. Metz

Metz has his/her PhD?! My apologies Dr. Metz, I concede to your argument.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

As you yourself said, you don't know that much about it. If you look deeper, you'll see ways to win, and in fact, if the level of violence continues to drop and if the Iraqi army can take over security and maintain it, we will have won.

I concede to your point.

However while a victory is possible, unlike the Iraqi insurgency. The american military answers to civilian authorities. And the American voters have the ability to vote in new Civilian authorities. If the democrats win next November, then victory or defeat will be replaced with a retreat/withdrawal.

Originally Posted by Shek

JAD,

Malaya isn't necessarily the best insurgency to contrast Iraq against because of the vastly different terrain, both physical and cultural.

You are absolutely right. I cited it only to make the point that an insurgency can be whipped.

While your focus on the enemy's point of vulnerability is on target, I think the following quote by LTC Paul Yingling speaks to the point well:

He puts it very well. Jungle or desert, the concept applies.

Of course, Iraq isn't just an insurgency environment, so COIN may not carry the day in the end, but it is a component.

A big component these days. But if you are referring to the sectarian component, I take your point. Yet, despite all the sectarian violence, I can't help but get the feeling that, while sectarian rivalry has always existed in modern Iraq, the greater inclination is to get along--to cross the divide, so to speak. There are too many mixed marriages and other inter-realationships to see it any other way. That may be why all-out civil war never happened. The tit-for-tat days seems to be waning.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

However while a victory is possible, unlike the Iraqi insurgency. The american military answers to civilian authorities. And the American voters have the ability to vote in new Civilian authorities. If the democrats win next November, then victory or defeat will be replaced with a retreat/withdrawal.

Yes, a change in political party next year could lead quickly to a change in US policy in Iraq. But there are certain realities that cannot be quickly altered without drastic consequences. Supposing the democrats win it all next year--the White House and the Congress--they would have the power to order an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq--drop everything, pack up, get on the troop ships and wave bye bye. While that could happen, it is unlikely to happen. More than likely the dems will run the war the way they want Bush to run it. For example, they would use the threat of rapid withdrawl to goad the elected government to act on measures the US would like to see even now, such as codified oil revenue sharing among the Sunni, Shites and Kurds, an end to de-Bathification, more autonomy in the areas where those three groups are the majority, a move against internal corruption, and so on. The democrats would simply be doing what they want Bush to do now--threaten withdrawal to push the Iraqi government to action. The republicans don't think that is a such good idea because, well, what if it doesn't work? What if you go through with your threat and leave? That's a big question. Will the insurgency rebound without us there? Will civil war break out? And then there is the geopolitical aspect to consider. The US went to war, not a political party. If every party change leads to a sudden, radical change in US policy abroad, how will we be able to maintain reliable relations with other countries in the region, or anywhere for that matter? We would be abandonning a complex web of alliances. So, only a complete dunce for a president would pull out all at once. As bad as the dems may be, most are not dunces of that order...

So why does it seem the dems are hellbent to get out? That's public face of the dem candidates and Congressional bigwigs. It leads voters to believe the war will be over once a dem is elected president. The dems do little to disspell that image, though down deep they know that a quick withdrawal is not in the best interests of the nation.

I hope I haven't put you to sleep. )

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Metz has his/her PhD?! My apologies Dr. Metz, I concede to your argument.

Son,

You should have just shut the freak up. SteveMetz is the handle you idiot.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Son,

You should have just shut the freak up. SteveMetz is the handle you idiot.

Why so hard on the lad?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Why so hard on the lad?

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, meaning it was so damned obvious.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, meaning it was so damned obvious.

I shall reinsert my tongue and move on.)