It's Worse Than You think

[OneOfTheseDays]

Why pick Iraq? There are so many more dangerous threats in the Middle East alone that we could have and should have confronted before Iraq. So, why Iraq?

 

[conjur]

A thread I started in early April of LAST YEAR:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1021268&arctab=arc

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: conjur
I knew that if security forces and Iraqi police and security forces didn't secure the borders and the cities that the Saddam faithful would rise up and start picking us off or disrupting daily life to make the US troops look bad and incompetent at providing safety.

I'm not alone either.

When I read Bremer let the Saddam Feddayeen go home w/their weapons, the writing was on the wall.


And, we now see the result of that failure. It can be blamed solely on Bush for not listening to his military leaders in their calls for much higher troop numbers. Bush used the bare minimum.

Not only that, with which I agree, but the part that most bothers me is the way that Powell was relegated to the back like some step child so Rumsfeld could prove his little theory of small force, high tech combat (probably to advance his interest with the military-industrial complex).

Powell made it quite clear that we should have used overwhelming force, in the excess of 500,000 troops, and to have relied on non-technical solutions (age old detective work, human intelligence gathering, etc). Rumsfeld wanted a new war.

Well we see the error of this. Who wants to bet that it will die the death that it deserves, like trickle down economics? Oh wait, I forgot, that disproved idea is now the cornerstone of our economic policy.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Why pick Iraq? There are so many more dangerous threats in the Middle East alone that we could have and should have confronted before Iraq. So, why Iraq?

I think we all know the answer to that question, don't we.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

no, I really don't know the answer.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: conjur
I knew that if security forces and Iraqi police and security forces didn't secure the borders and the cities that the Saddam faithful would rise up and start picking us off or disrupting daily life to make the US troops look bad and incompetent at providing safety.

I'm not alone either.

When I read Bremer let the Saddam Feddayeen go home w/their weapons, the writing was on the wall.


And, we now see the result of that failure. It can be blamed solely on Bush for not listening to his military leaders in their calls for much higher troop numbers. Bush used the bare minimum.

Not only that, with which I agree, but the part that most bothers me is the way that Powell was relegated to the back like some step child so Rumsfeld could prove his little theory of small force, high tech combat (probably to advance his interest with the military-industrial complex).

Powell made it quite clear that we should have used overwhelming force, in the excess of 500,000 troops, and to have relied on non-technical solutions (age old detective work, human intelligence gathering, etc). Rumsfeld wanted a new war.

Well we see the error of this. Who wants to bet that it will die the death that it deserves, like trickle down economics? Oh wait, I forgot, that disproved idea is now the cornerstone of our economic policy.

Rumsfeld's plans for an even more trimmed down and teched-up military are already on hold now.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Why pick Iraq? There are so many more dangerous threats in the Middle East alone that we could have and should have confronted before Iraq. So, why Iraq?

Because none of this was about threats. The US needs a battleground in the ME for the WoT and Iraq was the easiest and most convenient target.

 

[CycloWizard]

First, some sort of police authority needs to be put in place before looting and rioting become more than rampant and turn dangerous. This needs to be done now. Bring in the National Guard units and start bringing in some UN peacekeeping forces.

And, leading members of the Shiites, Kurds, and, yes, Baath party, need to be brought together to discuss peaceful relations amongst their people in Iraq.

We've done all those things, except UN peacekeeping forces.

I would question whether 500,000 troops would settle the problems that we have now. The problem is not that our military can't win its battles - it's that our military is being ambushed, having to fight those who don't obey Geneva, and so on. Adding more troops gives more opportunity for insurgents to pick them off. I'm not saying more troops wouldn't help, but there is a law of diminishing returns with troops, just like everything else. If the Iraqis are pissed about 140,000 troops there, do you think they would feel better about 500,000? There are more sides to these issues than you are letting on.

 

[DealMonkey]

Do you Bush apologists have to make excuses for every F-up the administration makes? Even Bush has admitted he "miscalculated" in Iraq. Truly, not everything the administration does is wrong, yet not everything they do is right either. Christ, conceed a point once in a while that the administration FUBAR'd.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

First, some sort of police authority needs to be put in place before looting and rioting become more than rampant and turn dangerous. This needs to be done now. Bring in the National Guard units and start bringing in some UN peacekeeping forces.

And, leading members of the Shiites, Kurds, and, yes, Baath party, need to be brought together to discuss peaceful relations amongst their people in Iraq.

We've done all those things, except UN peacekeeping forces.

I would question whether 500,000 troops would settle the problems that we have now. The problem is not that our military can't win its battles - it's that our military is being ambushed, having to fight those who don't obey Geneva, and so on. Adding more troops gives more opportunity for insurgents to pick them off. I'm not saying more troops wouldn't help, but there is a law of diminishing returns with troops, just like everything else. If the Iraqis are pissed about 140,000 troops there, do you think they would feel better about 500,000? There are more sides to these issues than you are letting on.

Many Iraqis were pissed off at the US for allowing the looting to go on. Had he we had more troops, that could have been entirely avoided. And, the cities would have been more secure which would have left time for extra troops to properly train Iraqi national guard units and Iraqi police.

How many Iraqi police or national guardsmen have undergone the full training? Zero.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Many Iraqis were pissed off at the US for allowing the looting to go on. Had he we had more troops, that could have been entirely avoided. And, the cities would have been more secure which would have left time for extra troops to properly train Iraqi national guard units and Iraqi police.

How many Iraqi police or national guardsmen have undergone the full training? Zero.

You restate what you just said, but ignored what I just said. There are other considerations than just the one that you're presenting.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Many Iraqis were pissed off at the US for allowing the looting to go on. Had he we had more troops, that could have been entirely avoided. And, the cities would have been more secure which would have left time for extra troops to properly train Iraqi national guard units and Iraqi police.

How many Iraqi police or national guardsmen have undergone the full training? Zero.

You restate what you just said, but ignored what I just said. There are other considerations than just the one that you're presenting.

No, you're ignoring the point!


Had we gone in with the proper # of troops, properly trained the Iraqi forces, our troops could have begun the process of pulling out and leaving security to the Iraqi forces. The insurgents would have had no justification for fighting as the US troops would not be the ones in charge of security in the cities.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Czar
excuse me, but while the US is fighting the good fight in a civilian populated area where people dont much like the US being there anyway and the conflict will result in civilian lives. Do you think that maybe the presence there is creating militants to fight the US as well as destroying them? So in the end we might end up with 1000 dead militants who would be fighting the US regardless of where they are and then at least the same number of militants who wouldnt be fighting the US but are because the US has caused them in some way direct or indirect harm?

Are we destroying them faster than making them? Competing functions, neither of which are well defined.

but is it the right methood for fighting, giving them a reason to justifiy a whole lot to people living there

and in the end, we might end up with tens of thousands of people dead who are classified as "militants" or "terrorists" plus another tens of thousands civilians dead used as a justification just because the US is there fighting a few thousand known militants, is this justified?

 

[kage69]

Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals

More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!


The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: kage69

Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals

More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!


The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

Didn't the USS Cole bombing occur 1 month before Bush took office? Hell, he could have at least attempted to strike back at those SOBs. Instead, he did nothing. Pretty much his MO right up until 9/11. There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: kage69
More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!


The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

Don't forget that the only terrorism related convictions were for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (that would be under Clinton).

Also, while we are at it, don't forget that when Clinton was bombing Sudan at the same time that his little affair with Monica was playing out on TV it was the right wing Republicans who cried "wag the dog" and said he was attempting to distract the country from Monica.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: kage69
More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!


The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

Don't forget that the only terrorism related convictions were for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (that would be under Clinton).

Also, while we are at it, don't forget that when Clinton was bombing Sudan at the same time that his little affair with Monica was playing out on TV it was the right wing Republicans who cried "wag the dog" and said he was attempting to distract the country from Monica.

Ah yes, I remember that.

 

[DealMonkey]

IIRC, the CIA had Bin Laden in their sights (UAVs with hellfires) on three separate occasions and wouldn't pull the trigger. Also, IIRC every time Clinton proposed a military action against AQ, The Pentagon came up with some weak-ass excuse why it couldn't happen. The CIA and the Pentagon obstructed this country's ability to take out OBL and AQ more than Clinton ever did.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GrGr
The US has never particularily cared for the "liberation of the oppressed people" in the ME before. In fact the US has done it's utmost to keep them oppressed.

The French in Algeria killed about 1 million "insurgents" yet they failed. How many of the people you say you want to liberate are you prepared to kill so they can live in freedom? 1 million? 2 million? All of them?

9/11 was a wakeup call to change our policy. We realized that propagating despotism was creating morem problems than it was solving, so we switched.

You switched? Eh, no, these actions are a bit more drastic but it basically the same things you have been doing for the last three decades, supporting US friendly governments and replacing dictators and regimes with new regimes (and i have little faith that Iraq will be a democracy within the next decade).

So you took a failed policy and made it worse, wow, this is going to work wonders, it will definently not create more terrorists when you are bombing and invading their country or the country of their friends.

 

[b0mbrman]

It's Worse Than You think...the insurgents are still getting stronger

Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.

It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

It's Worse Than You think...the insurgents are still getting stronger

Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.

It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate

I didn't see anyone cheering about it, just stating the facts as they are.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, you're ignoring the point!

Had we gone in with the proper # of troops, properly trained the Iraqi forces, our troops could have begun the process of pulling out and leaving security to the Iraqi forces. The insurgents would have had no justification for fighting as the US troops would not be the ones in charge of security in the cities.

You're assuming away the whole problem by asserting that your position is correct, also known as begging the question. My point is, again, other problems arise from having such a large number of troops in a country that we are not having now.

Originally posted by: Czar
but is it the right methood for fighting, giving them a reason to justifiy a whole lot to people living there

and in the end, we might end up with tens of thousands of people dead who are classified as "militants" or "terrorists" plus another tens of thousands civilians dead used as a justification just because the US is there fighting a few thousand known militants, is this justified?

Unfortunately, I don't think there are answers for these questions. History will sort this out and tell us where we went right and wrong - I don't know for sure what would be better or worse at the moment.

Originally posted by: kage69

Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals

More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!

The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

Clinton did what to combat terrorism? Here's my personal experience: he shot some cruise missiles at bin Laden which didn't make it there. He then invested a lot of money to fix the problem with cruise missiles, which gave me a job for two years. That's about all I know that he did to fight terrorism, though feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
You switched? Eh, no, these actions are a bit more drastic but it basically the same things you have been doing for the last three decades, supporting US friendly governments and replacing dictators and regimes with new regimes (and i have little faith that Iraq will be a democracy within the next decade).

So you took a failed policy and made it worse, wow, this is going to work wonders, it will definently not create more terrorists when you are bombing and invading their country or the country of their friends.

I wish I could see into the future as well as you pretend to. Your opinion isn't fact, especially with respect to policies that will take years to have their full effect, so kindly stop stating it as fact.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
IIRC, the CIA had Bin Laden in their sights (UAVs with hellfires) on three separate occasions and wouldn't pull the trigger. Also, IIRC every time Clinton proposed a military action against AQ, The Pentagon came up with some weak-ass excuse why it couldn't happen. The CIA and the Pentagon obstructed this country's ability to take out OBL and AQ more than Clinton ever did.

LOL, I guess they didn't want to kill any "innocent" terrorists.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

It's Worse Than You think...the insurgents are still getting stronger

Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.

It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate

I didn't see anyone cheering about it, just stating the facts as they are.

Yawp, that's where the "almost" comes from.

And to say that there were no political implications to his statement...well, never mind

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
No, you're ignoring the point!

Had we gone in with the proper # of troops, properly trained the Iraqi forces, our troops could have begun the process of pulling out and leaving security to the Iraqi forces. The insurgents would have had no justification for fighting as the US troops would not be the ones in charge of security in the cities.

You're assuming away the whole problem by asserting that your position is correct, also known as begging the question. My point is, again, other problems arise from having such a large number of troops in a country that we are not having now.

Originally posted by: Czar
but is it the right methood for fighting, giving them a reason to justifiy a whole lot to people living there

and in the end, we might end up with tens of thousands of people dead who are classified as "militants" or "terrorists" plus another tens of thousands civilians dead used as a justification just because the US is there fighting a few thousand known militants, is this justified?

Unfortunately, I don't think there are answers for these questions. History will sort this out and tell us where we went right and wrong - I don't know for sure what would be better or worse at the moment.

Originally posted by: kage69

Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals

More bullsh!t neocon lies! Clinton has proven himself to be 10 times the leader Bush is when it comes to terrorism. If Bush and his handlers had an iota of merit for the job, they wouldn't have ignored Clinton's people when they moved into the White House. Bush did jack sh!t towards terror for a full 9 months! He didn't even meet once with all terror-czar Richard Clarke!

The FBI and CIA have been inept and competing with eachother for awhile now, and this predates both Bush and Clinton. Don't blame someone else for their fundamental flaws.

Clinton did what to combat terrorism? Here's my personal experience: he shot some cruise missiles at bin Laden which didn't make it there. He then invested a lot of money to fix the problem with cruise missiles, which gave me a job for two years. That's about all I know that he did to fight terrorism, though feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
You switched? Eh, no, these actions are a bit more drastic but it basically the same things you have been doing for the last three decades, supporting US friendly governments and replacing dictators and regimes with new regimes (and i have little faith that Iraq will be a democracy within the next decade).

So you took a failed policy and made it worse, wow, this is going to work wonders, it will definently not create more terrorists when you are bombing and invading their country or the country of their friends.

I wish I could see into the future as well as you pretend to. Your opinion isn't fact, especially with respect to policies that will take years to have their full effect, so kindly stop stating it as fact.

I am just stating what is being reported, it is not my opinion, it is what is happening (read the link in the OP), regarding the future i said "i have little faith" if you think that is stating it as a fact then i don't know what to say.