Unbelieveable

[MSimon]

Bush's plan for Iraq
1. Remove Saddam
2. ?
3. Democracy!

Point 2 was actually: start holding elections as soon as possible. Learn by doing.

[WizWom]

Bush's plan for Iraq
1. Remove Saddam
2. ?
3. Democracy!

Point 2 was actually: start holding elections as soon as possible. Learn by doing.

Isn't it supposed to be:

1. Conquer Iraq
2. Install Democracy
3. ?
4. PROFIT!

[MSimon]

I believe the French got most of the oil contracts.

[bcglorf]

BTW my argument (such as it is) rests on the foundation of the fact that de-Nazifying Germany caused chaos in that country for about 5 years after the war was over.

I take the modest position that the Bush admin could have gone for both de-Baathification AND an interim leader with some experience in the country. You also completely ignored my other question. Can your argument not even accept that even if Bremer's ignorance made him the perfect candidate, surely he should have had more than 2 weeks from being asked to do it to the time he was in Baghdad?

I also insist that people familiar with Iraq would have been a big asset to de-Baathification. The people in charge of de-Nazification weren't chosen specifically for their ignorance of Germany. You don't want Bremer bringing along one of Bush Senior's assistant secretaries of state with him to talk with the Kurds. At least, not when they will bring up with the Kurd's that they'd never even heard of the Anfal campaign. That's like de-Nazifying Germany with people so green their first question on arrival is What's this holocaust thing everyone's talking about? Which would be a step up from I've never heard of the holocaust, which is pretty appalling for someone appointed with removing those responsible for it. Which I dare say is a very fair analogy to I'd never heard of the Anfal before from someone working on de-Baathification.

[Diogenes]

It's just too bad nobody in Bush and Cheney's offices had the foresight and knowledge to understand the kind of complex quagmire that Saddam's removal would create. People like the guy in this video here predicting exactly that back right after the first gulf war.

Not to imply anything sinister about Cheney. Perhaps one of his greatest sins was the failure to remove Saddam the first time around, and I'm not sure finally doing so a decade later earns him forgiveness. The gross incompetence displayed by all those around him in 2003 contrasts very badly with his clear understanding of the enormity of the task back in the 90's. I really hate politics.

Cheney would have by far, made the better President. I think he was wrong in 1994, or he was voicing the Administration policy.

Had we taken out Saddam in the first gulf war, we wouldn't have had the second gulf war. People at the time thought it was necessary, and ought to be the central aim of the war. We didn't need the coalition forces, THAT was only cobbled together because people like George H W Bush were so concerned about the appearances of American aggression, ala John Kennedy when he stabbed the cubans in the back back in the 1960s.

Had we invaded, some countries would have been angry, but no worse, and probably not nearly as much as they were during the 2003 invasion. With most of the Iraqi army thoroughly defeated and surrendering en mass , there would hardly have been sufficient manpower available for the same sort of insurgency that came with the fumbling of the aftermath of Gulf War II.

Most importantly, it would have granted closure to America regarding the war, and George H. W. Bush would probably not have lost the following election, and all of the horrible things that occurred as a result of "slick willie" would have been prevented. (Expansion of CRA causing the housing crash, 911 terrorist attack, etc. )

[Diogenes]

It's just too bad nobody in Bush and Cheney's offices had the foresight and knowledge to understand the kind of complex quagmire that Saddam's removal would create. People like the guy in this video here predicting exactly that back right after the first gulf war.

Not to imply anything sinister about Cheney. Perhaps one of his greatest sins was the failure to remove Saddam the first time around, and I'm not sure finally doing so a decade later earns him forgiveness. The gross incompetence displayed by all those around him in 2003 contrasts very badly with his clear understanding of the enormity of the task back in the 90's. I really hate politics.

Ah. But the sweet thing is: not that I can fall down but that I'm able to get back up.

BTW my argument (such as it is) rests on the foundation of the fact that de-Nazifying Germany caused chaos in that country for about 5 years after the war was over. New cadre had to be trained. New politicians had to be found. Everyone with experience was considered tainted. (except in a few "important" cases - like Gehlen)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen

My guess is that no administrator could have done the job much better than what was done. A political problem became a military problem. It was solved militarily.

It also had the effect of making the population adverse to the goals of the jihadists. A lesson only learned the hard way.

A further couple of points.

1. I dare say the Germans were more likely willing to be reasoned with than Iraqi Arabs.

2. We would utilize far greater force convincing the Germans to do as we told them, than we used against the Iraqis.


I know several fellows who were veterans of World War II. One of them was a captain during the war. He told me of one German town that was the site of a lot of insurgency against the allies, and an artillery commander sent for the mayor. The mayor told him there was nothing he could do about it. The Commander told the mayor that he would start shelling the town in the morning if he didn't get his hands on the insurgents. The Next morning, they opened up on the town with howitzers, and the German mayor came running back pleading with him to stop. That evening, they had the insurgents.

They would shoot non-cooperative or militant Germans at a moment's notice, and everyone knew it. It prevented a lot of bloodshed and solved a lot of problems.

Nowadays, it would be impossible for our military to use these sorts of tactics, but from my conversations with the Veterans of that era, it was a common enough methodology.

[MSimon]

Can your argument not even accept that even if Bremer's ignorance made him the perfect candidate, surely he should have had more than 2 weeks from being asked to do it to the time he was in Baghdad?

I'm not familiar with the time line so you will correct me if I'm in error.

Maybe it was a case of not appointing a Governor before the war was effectively won. You know, avoid leaks and hubris.

I see no problem in making it up as you go along in a fluid situation. What our Brit cousins refer to as "muddling through".

The question always is an engineering one - good enough vs. perfect. Was he good enough? Iraq is prospering today. Bremer did not lose to the jihadis. The military beat them. Good enough.

[Diogenes]

Bush's plan for Iraq
1. Remove Saddam
2. ?
3. Democracy!

Point 2 was actually: start holding elections as soon as possible. Learn by doing.

Isn't it supposed to be:

1. Conquer Iraq
2. Install Democracy
3. ?
4. PROFIT!

Nah, that's just left wing propaganda. You really shouldn't be spreading it, because it damages the country when lies are promulgated. There is no way that anyone is going to make enough money off of Iraq to pay for the cost of freeing it.

The Grand strategy is actually quite simple. The Hijackers were mostly Saudi. The Saudis are our ally. We cannot overtly undermine them.

The problem remains. How to prevent religiously fanatical Saudis from committing terrorist attacks? Get the PEOPLE of the region to stop them first!

How would that work? Well, if the people of the region were prosperous and happy, they would "mess up" anyone who tried rocking the boat. (aka religious terrorists) People will protect the status quo if they have a stake in it. As most of the people in the middle east are dirt poor, how would they have a stake in anything?

In the middle east, there are the very rich, and the very poor, and a relatively small middle class. The reason for this is that the Despotic style of government tends to favor the croneys of the ruler, and disdain everyone else, so the first impediment to prosperity for a large middle class is the despot. This form of government is rampant throughout the middle east, and is mainly responsible for the severe stratification between the very rich and the very poor.

If we come along, and tip over the first domino, (one major government located in the heart of the middle east) then the ensuing prosperity will eventually inspire envy in the citizenship (subjects really) of the adjacent governments. They too will clamor for the prosperity and happiness that the Iraqi's are now demonstrating. They will soon realize, the key is NOT HAVING A DICTATOR STEALING ALL THE COUNTRY'S WEALTH, and so will agitate for reform or even overthrow.

To simplify the above, the strategy is to destabilize the Saudi regime towards democracy, without making it look like we're doing it on purpose, because after all, that would be a very traitorous thing to do to an ally wouldn't it ?

Brilliant!

[Diogenes]

Can your argument not even accept that even if Bremer's ignorance made him the perfect candidate, surely he should have had more than 2 weeks from being asked to do it to the time he was in Baghdad?

I'm not familiar with the time line so you will correct me if I'm in error.

Maybe it was a case of not appointing a Governor before the war was effectively won. You know, avoid leaks and hubris.

I see no problem in making it up as you go along in a fluid situation. What our Brit cousins refer to as "muddling through".

The question always is an engineering one - good enough vs. perfect. Was he good enough? Iraq is prospering today. Bremer did not lose to the jihadis. The military beat them. Good enough.

We could have done it five years earlier while spending less and saving several thousand lives.

[bcglorf]

I'm not familiar with the time line so you will correct me if I'm in error.

I don't know what you thought the timeline was. It was two weeks from the day Bremer was asked to head the CPA to the day he was supposed to be in Baghdad doing the job. My source for that is Peter Galbraith's book, but I'm pretty sure his source was citing Bremer's own book.

Maybe it was a case of not appointing a Governor before the war was effectively won.

Or maybe it was a consequence of Feith's failure to plan. Feith insists that they had numerous plans for post-Saddam Iraq, to cover every contingency. The only one they didn't plan for was the case where all of Iraq's government related agencies collapsed and ceased to function upon Saddam's removal. Upon that <sarcasm>unimaginable</sarcasm> circumstance arising, the panicked two week nod was given for an interim American run administration. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about suggesting that was a failure to plan. Cheney's own statements after the first Gulf War suggests that at least he was very much aware that this scenario was the most likely one, and maybe should have had someone looking at the problem ahead of time.

Iraq is prospering today. Bremer did not lose to the jihadis. The military beat them. Good enough.

Iraq is prospering in spite of Bremer, not because of him. Bremer did lose to the jihadis. They gained influence and power throughout Bremer's entire administration, and continued to do so well after Bremer was gone. It was the Shia Iraqi's that defeated the jihadists, and no thanks to Bremer. The American military did do a spectacular job in the country too, but they did it independently of the various administrators that came and went. I think it's a disservice to the American military and the Shia Iraqi's to give Bremer any credit for the fight they won with their lives while Bremer's ignorance was driving waves of recruits into the arms of the insurgents.

[CaptainBeowulf]

We could have done it five years earlier while spending less and saving several thousand lives.

This also has knock-on effects to our strategic situation today. If the U.S. had spent a few hundred billion dollars less on the war in Iraq, along with the last few years' worth of interest servicing payments on that borrowed money, it would now have been in a better position to deal with the financial crisis that started in 2008. Still not in a great position, still running a huge deficit, but not as bad.

Or, that money could still have been spent, but on much more extensive reconstruction employing Iraqis and creating a robust middle class there (and therefore greater stability).

Also, a surge into Afghanistan would have become possible years earlier. That may well have stabilized the situation there far better than the delayed return of strategic focus to Afghanistan that only happened over the last year.

Then, of course, there is the possibility that various elections would have gone rather differently... not just in the U.S., but possibly also in allies like Spain and Holland where controversy over military commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan have had a major impact.

In terms of grand strategy a drawn-out, expensive conflict in Iraq was one of the worst things that could happen.

Edit: Just to make sure I'm not sounding too defeatist, I will say that there is still hope that the Bush admin's grand strategy will work: if Iraq continues to improve it can become a prosperous democratic state in the middle east which will undermine extremism throughout the region. However, the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

Now we just need polywell to work out in order to create cheap energy in North America and draw manufacturing jobs back from overseas, open new industrial possibilities, and cause massive creation of new wealth and a surge in the economy that will allow most of the debt to be easily paid off... keeping my fingers crossed on that one too

[WizWom]

Point 2 was actually: start holding elections as soon as possible. Learn by doing.

Isn't it supposed to be:

1. Conquer Iraq
2. Install Democracy
3. ?
4. PROFIT!

Nah, that's just left wing propaganda. You really shouldn't be spreading it, because it damages the country when lies are promulgated.

<sigh>
It's an internet meme. You start with two insane steps, and have a third, unknown step, and the 4th step is PROFIT!

The joke is that the two steps are mildly insane and only slightly related, and the 3rd step is impossible.

[MSimon]

Diogenes - Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:24 pm

That is my take of the Grand Strategy as well.

[MSimon]

Or, that money could still have been spent, but on much more extensive reconstruction employing Iraqis and creating a robust middle class there (and therefore greater stability).

Instead it was wasted on attracting jihadis to Iraq and then killing them.

[JLawson]

Okay... I may be going out on a limb here, since you folks have put far more thought and analysis into the subject than I have - but what responsibility does the Department of State have in all this mess? Seems to me from what I was observing at the time that their Foriegn Office types were charged with advising Bush on who to trust, who to appoint, who was capable of what - and a lot of them were long-term folks who saw Bush as both an interloper AND not a Democrat, so anything they could do to trip him up was fair game.

"Yeah, let's advise that darn cowboy on how to run Iraq - and then just go "Hey, not our fault!" when it all goes down the crapper! It's a twofer - we look good and he looks like shit!"

And let's be honest, here - even under Obama they've pulled some darn silly crap. Remember Hillary's 'reset' button and the screwed up translation? I'm sure Lavrov was QUITE amused at the joke by the State Department translators.

There's something deeply wrong in State, no matter what the administration.