Not enough boots on the ground

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
The war went rather smooth but the peace seems completely disorganized, it seems as if there was zero planning for what happened after the reigme fell.


I just don't understand why there where no police trained for going in after the reigme fell or why there weren't more troops to provide security. The 300,000 troops was enough to win the war but even the millitary figure it would take several hundred thousand to provide security and yet they didn't mobilize any additional troops.

It seems they wanted to do it on the cheap.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
It's what happens when you do things without the support of any international bodies (aka the UN).
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Perhaps they believed too much in their "they are peaceful and tolerant" propaganda and didn't think that the Iraqis would turn to wholesale rioting and looting.

Oh well, the situation is getting better stabalized each day.

edit/

The blame also partly falls on Turkey. Remember what country the 4th ID was going to come through and both cut off escape routes to the north and also give more boots on the ground. Turkey forced a change in plans.
 

bolinger

Member
Apr 16, 2003
132
0
0
Well doesn't anybody know, peace-keeping troops don't bring in a very high approval rating compared to attacking/bombing/killing-troops.

Why do you think all the press coming out of the Whitehouse nowadays is about Syria, Iran, and North Korea instead of Afghanistan and Iraq? Let's roll onto the next target before the my approval rating takes a hit.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
It's what happens when you do things without the support of any international bodies (aka the UN).

Yes, please list all the military successes the UN had?
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
You are asking for an utterly impossible standard of success here. Even highly developed western nations have occasional riots that the police and national guard/military have difficulty putting a stop to. Why do you think this would be an easier regardless of the number of troops involved? They want to riot, they're going to riot, as long as wel get it calmed down within a few weeks that'll be just fine.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
Originally posted by: Helenihi
You are asking for an utterly impossible standard of success here. Even highly developed western nations have occasional riots that the police and national guard/military have difficulty putting a stop to. Why do you think this would be an easier regardless of the number of troops involved? They want to riot, they're going to riot, as long as wel get it calmed down within a few weeks that'll be just fine.


Yes but before other invasions they always had trained police ready to go in, there only started to ask for volunteers now and only 24 has sign up. I would consider that piss poor planning.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: konichiwa
It's what happens when you do things without the support of any international bodies (aka the UN).

Yes, please list all the military successes the UN had?

I didn't say anything about military successes, but UN peacekeepers and quasi-police forces would have been perfect for this type of situation.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: konichiwa
It's what happens when you do things without the support of any international bodies (aka the UN).

Yes, please list all the military successes the UN had?

I didn't say anything about military successes, but UN peacekeepers and quasi-police forces would have been perfect for this type of situation.

5 mins spent on google:

(New York, June 20, 2000)?In a letter to the members of the United
Nations Security Council, Human Rights Watch today urged decisive action
to bring war criminals in Sierra Leone to justice. The rights group
also called for stepped up U.N. efforts to protect civilians, and strict
enforcement of an arms and diamond embargo against the Sierra Leonean
rebels.

"The U.N. must set up a credible, even-handed, and well-funded court to
bring to justice the perpetrators of atrocities in Sierra Leone," said
Peter Takirambudde, Executive Director of the Africa Division of Human
Rights Watch. "The international community must also cut off the supply
of arms to the rebels and their illegal trade in diamonds which is
fueling the war."

Since the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) took more than five
hundred U.N. peacekeepers hostage and restarted offensive actions
against the Sierra Leone government in early May, Human Rights Watch has
documented a renewed surge in abuses by the RUF, including the first
testimonies of amputations since the July 1999 Lomé peace accord, as
well as numerous cases of rape, widespread looting, abductions, forced
recruitment of child soldiers, and summary executions. Disturbingly,
U.N. peacekeepers have on several occasions abandoned civilians to their
fate without making any attempt to protect them from RUF attack.
-----------
RODALJICE, Croatia (AP) -- If U.N. peacekeepers leave Croatia, a
handful of Croats who have clung to their homes and meager
livelihoods in Serb-held territory say they will have to give up
and flee, too.-snip-
Despite the international presence, they have faced evictions,
harassment, looting and even murder in retaliation for Croatian
army attacks, aid workers say
--------
04/11/96 - 02:40 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
U.N. reports looting by African peacekeepers
MONROVIA, Liberia - West African peacekeepers were reported Thursday to have
joined in "very
heavy" looting in Monrovia, virtually paralyzing the U.N. food distribution
system that feeds about
1.5 million people throughout Liberia.
--------------
Violence Erupts in East Timor Despite UN Presence

By Shravanti Reddy
Red Pepper
UK
January 2003

What began as a peaceful student protest on December 4 in the East Timor
capital city of Dili ended in the largest violent conflict the nation has
seen since independence.

On that day, two people were shot and killed and 26 people were injured as
a state of emergency was declared and the city was placed on curfew. Peace
returned the following morning, with the help of the UN Peacekeeping Force
(PKF) and the UN Police (UNPOL).


It's a big nasty world out there...no one has all the answers...not even the UN.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
I didn't say the UN has "all the answers," only that their involvement would have been yet another helping hand in this affair, not to mention a harbringer of international support.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
I didn't say the UN has "all the answers," only that their involvement would have been yet another helping hand in this affair, not to mention a harbringer of international support.

The only problem is, the UN was not interested in helping.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Takes two to tango. The UN (along with the rest of the popular world) would have loved to help with an "intervention" of some kind in Iraq, but not in the way the US was set on carrying it out, justifiably so.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: konichiwa
I didn't say the UN has "all the answers," only that their involvement would have been yet another helping hand in this affair, not to mention a harbringer of international support.


No, you said "this is what happens when you do things without the support of any international bodies (aka the UN)" as if the UN being there would solve the problems.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
We pretty much screwed the cradle of civilization, but you learn by doing. Perhaps we can ask Syria to UPS their treasures to Jordan before we hit them.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Takes two to tango. The UN (along with the rest of the popular world) would have loved to help with an "intervention" of some kind in Iraq, but not in the way the US was set on carrying it out, justifiably so.

THe UN would have been content with 12 more years of the status quo. The UN would not have been able to put any deadlines on disarming Iraq thanks to France. The French for what ever reason were not willing to negotiate. France killed the deal.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Right right. 12 more years, France, bla bla. The party line. If we are so abhorred that there was "12 years" of failed diplomacy, how come it took us twelve years to realize that diplomacy was failing?
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference. The dichotomy of the two diplomatic abilities is atounding...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Right right. 12 more years, France, bla bla. The party line. If we are so abhorred that there was "12 years" of failed diplomacy, how come it took us twelve years to realize that diplomacy was failing?

Why did it take 12 years? I dont know, it should have happened during gulf war 1. Clinton's Desert Fox should have been a larger operation to remove him. The US should have kept its word over the 12 years to better help those in Iraq that wanted to rise up and remove Saddam. Bush Sr and Clinton failed big time in supporting the Iraqi uprisings.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference. The dichotomy of the two diplomatic abilities is atounding...

I agree with the dichotomy... Bush is making Clinton look like a total moron.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference.

It is? The only difference I see is this time we actually removed Saddam...a good thing from all accounts.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference. The dichotomy of the two diplomatic abilities is atounding...

In that same precautionary fashion we removed Saddam from power.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.