What are the take home lessons from the US's invasion of Iraq

[Siddhartha]

My list is:
1. A powerful country can invade and wipe out a country's political power and industrial structure.

2. Can a country impose western style democracy on another country? It worked in Japan after the war, will it work in Iraq?

3. Without a strong, dicatorial, central government composite countries, like Yugoslavia and Iraq will dissolve into violent chaos.

What do you think?

 

[compuwiz1]

That a few rogues with proper training and funding, can drop a world trade center to it's knees, destroy a few Jetliners, and kill a bunch of people.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What are the take home lessons from the US's invasion of Iraq
What will the history books say about the invasion?

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
That a few rogues with proper training and funding, can drop a world trade center to it's knees, destroy a few Jetliners, and kill a bunch of people.

??:roll:??

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Blain
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What are the take home lessons from the US's invasion of Iraq
What will the history books say about the invasion?
</end quote></div>
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: compuwiz1
That a few rogues with proper training and funding, can drop a world trade center to it's knees, destroy a few Jetliners, and kill a bunch of people.</end quote></div>
??:roll:??

The completion backwards principle.

 

[gcy]

Quote:
"Those Who Do Not Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"

 

[Craig234]

I think the lesson has to do with the problems of our still having more powerful nations who benefit, or think they benefit, from exercising power over weaker nations.

We need somehow, in the world, to get closer to the way the 50 US states can exist without war (now - learning the lessons of the civil war, too).

The lesson has to do with how the world's superpower can sneeze and have a huge impact on others for good or bad. It's a bi-partisan lesson; LBJ had a lot of responsibility for Viet Nam, a misguided war whose lessons we also did not learn.

'You can't spread democracy at the point of a gun' might be a good lesson.

Even as we speak, there are contradictions betwen our espoused principles, and our policies towards the Kurds.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
My list is:
1. A powerful country can invade and wipe out a country's political power and industrial structure.

2. Can a country impose western style democracy on another country? It worked in Japan after the war, will it work in Iraq?

3. Without a strong, dicatorial, central government composite countries, like Yugoslavia and Iraq will dissolve into violent chaos.

What do you think?

1. A mob can run out and lynch a man but what does that prove exactly or achieve?

2.We didn't impose western style democracy on Japan as much as the Emperor of Japan felt it was necessary for the betterment of his people to give up the fight and cooperate with us. Had he not of had this sentiment and had he stuck with the hardcore conservatives in his government we would be fighting insurgents in Japan and dealing with Kamikaze style suicide bombers to this day.

In other words you need a society that has a respected central figure that everyone can look up to and follow. A society of people who are willing to go along with your end goals. Along with a society that is orderly, well structured by nature and has a common cultural/religious bond that everyone in that society identifies with at the end of the day.

Basically everything you do not see in Iraq today or which was not seen in Yugoslavia back when they had their messy split.

3. Yes you need a Saddam/Tito like figure to hold together groups of people by force that were never meant to be held together in the first place. The best lesson here is never make a nation out a people who are sworn enemies.

Once the shielding is removed they'll react like a open barrel of TNT mixed with gasoline on a hot July afternoon under a magnifying glass. Attempting to stand between the two and the inevitable outcome is just plain stupidity.

**The real lessons**

Always question the motives of those who are all to willing to start a war but have no real answers as to why we should go to war and what will happen afterwards.

Always demand accountability for the decisions made by those in charge.

Never settle for incompetence in a person or group of people just because you fear what the other guy may or may not do.

Always think through your actions and the consequences.

Never let fallacies ( which usually wrap themselves up in gimmicky so called patriotic one liners/talking points ) in a argument go unchallenged.

Never let so called emotional patriotic fervor to cloud a reasonable and logical mind.

Oh and any man that says he has never made a mistake in his life or on the job when asked by a reporters is either a damn liar, ignorant fool or worse both.

and last but not least "Never give up your freedom for the false illusion of safety because in the end you'll end up with neither of th."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: gcy
Quote:
"Those Who Do Not Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"

The Morbeus principle

When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop When time becomes a loop

 

[EagleKeeper]

The US history books will downplay the conflict because it does not have a positive outcome.

Look at how the British handle the American revolution, Spain handles the war where they lost Cuba, Japan in WWII, etc.

Good results are trumpted; bad news is expunged.

 

[rudder]

1) When the military leaders say you need 400,000 troops on the ground to get the job done correctly... don't send in 150,000.

2) Have the money ready to be doled out. Sure you can say you are thier friends... but if you come and blow up the jobs... now there is no way to support the family and people will be pissed at you.

3) If there is a standing army in place... and one that is not particularly loyal to the leader you just ousted, give some consideration to keeping them employed. See #2 in this regard.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The US history books will downplay the conflict because it does not have a positive outcome.

Look at how the British handle the American revolution, Spain handles the war where they lost Cuba, Japan in WWII, etc.

Good results are trumpted; bad news is expunged.

QFT!

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: rudder
2) Have the money ready to be doled out. Sure you can say you are thier friends... but if you come and blow up the jobs... now there is no way to support the family and people will be pissed at you.

I don't think money availability was ever a problem, right now we can't account for a few plane-loads of cash that was given out to anyone who asked and spent like money were going out of style.

 

[Genx87]

1. True
2. Yes, hard to erect democracys from the outside. Though not impossible, takes a lot of time, patience, and effort.
3. I dont know about requiring dictorial powers. But there was a definate power vacuum created with the fall of Saddams regime. That vacuum was occupied by many people who are not interested in a vision set forth by our administration and the people appointed to initially run the govt of Iraq post war. We didnt move fast enough to fill this vacuum imo and it has been biting us on the ass ever since.

The war itself will be looked at by historians as rather remarkable a force of that size moved so quickly and defeated a numerically superior enemy with such ease. The occupation is what people will remember.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Here's some conjecture:

The President has been described, from pretty much the beginning, as one who would get a list of choices from his ?expert? advisors, and then choose one (or maybe one from column A and one from Column B.)

More recently he has presented himself as "The Decider".

Let?s take that for the reality.

There is a difference between working through material on your own - deciding within yourself what you think and then charting a course - and choosing something from a list provided you.

It is something like the difference between breeding, raising, training and racing a thoroughbred, and picking one before a race to bet on.

You are ?personally invested? in the former in a way you cannot be in the latter.

True leadership could be proposed to consist of the former, and then, after '?peer review'?, choosing a course. The strategy of choosing from a list can, over time, create a framework for your "experts" in which they will never challenge you to think for yourself; they will just provide new lists. You never develop any personal investment beyond placing 'the bet'. And, of course, one can incline towards placing a bet on gut instinct.

Sound familiar?

Perhaps someone (Condi?) should have made Bush write a ?term paper? on situations he faced, certainly on Iraq. Made to do that kind of ?homework?, the president might have cultivated habits of personal investment conducive to more effective leadership.

Lacking that, leadership can become confused with sticking with your bet, come hell or high water (or Iraq as it is, and Katrina as it was). The ''quality'' of your leadership becomes solely a function of the resolve with which you pursue your 'selection': A curiously hollow kind leadership.

No wonder people have trouble figuring out what is going on inside your head. You are just reviewing the lists and waiting for the twitch of your gut.

 

[Lemon law]

1. In an occupation, you have to have excellent planning and execution. And you must hit the ground running.

2. You cannot go light on troops. You must patrol the streets or native street thugs will take over.

3. You cannot give the occupied people the Katrina treatment---see points 1&2.

4. You cannot make any assumptions of the people loving you---assume the opposite and prove that they should. Never be over optimistic or think its a commitment that may be cheap.

5. You must have strong regional and international support. Which takes non stop diplomacy. Isolating or antagonizing other regional players is a huge mistake.

6. You cannot afford to alienate any group. Because even if just a few percent of the population oppose you violently, you are almost beat before you start.

7. Study the lessons of Vietnam---and especially the GWB occupation of Iraq for lessons on how not to conduct an occupation. If you oppose the popular will of the people or historical nationalistic forces, any occupation is doomed.

8. You are the alien in an alien culture. You must accommodate to the alien culture and not the alien culture must accommodate you. Troops with excellent local language skills are needed from the start. You must connect with the people and not assume a local puppet government will do it for you. Which means you must work with and not against local institutions and social organizing factors.

I could go on but the idea is clear---and other posters have also touched on the same ideas.

 

[Wreckem]

Uh, it just repeats the same lesson we've already had.

Occupation of a foreign land by another nation is not possible.

The Brits, French, and Spainsh learned this with their imperial conquests...

We won the war, lost the occupation. Occupations are always going to be lose-lose if one follows international law. And by that I mean the only way an occupation will ever work is if there is widespread repression and eradication of people.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Uh, it just repeats the same lesson we've already had.

Occupation of a foreign land by another nation is not possible.

The Brits, French, and Spainsh learned this with their imperial conquests...

It is possible, we are still in Germany ect.

What we should have done is looked at what we did post war in those countries like Japan and Germany and tried to mimic it as much as possible in post war Iraq. We let that thing get way out of hand by sitting on our thumbs hoping it would get better on its own.

For as much as I have read about WWII. The occupation of Italy, Germany, and Japan I havent done much of any reading.

 

[azazyel]

I think relying on the military to end the conflict is a lesson of what not to do. Our Politians really should have worked much harder on getting their leaders to stand up.

 

[Wreckem]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
Uh, it just repeats the same lesson we've already had.

Occupation of a foreign land by another nation is not possible.

The Brits, French, and Spainsh learned this with their imperial conquests...</end quote></div>

It is possible, we are still in Germany ect.

What we should have done is looked at what we did post war in those countries like Japan and Germany and tried to mimic it as much as possible in post war Iraq. We let that thing get way out of hand by sitting on our thumbs hoping it would get better on its own.

For as much as I have read about WWII. The occupation of Italy, Germany, and Japan I havent done much of any reading.</end quote></div>

Yeah but there were four countries that occupied Germany. The US, Britain, France and USSR.

Comparing WWII to Iraq is a huge stretch.

Iraq is much more comparable to the conquests of England, France, and Spain in Africa/Asia.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
Uh, it just repeats the same lesson we've already had.

Occupation of a foreign land by another nation is not possible.

The Brits, French, and Spainsh learned this with their imperial conquests...</end quote></div>

It is possible, we are still in Germany ect.

What we should have done is looked at what we did post war in those countries like Japan and Germany and tried to mimic it as much as possible in post war Iraq. We let that thing get way out of hand by sitting on our thumbs hoping it would get better on its own.

For as much as I have read about WWII. The occupation of Italy, Germany, and Japan I havent done much of any reading.</end quote></div>

Yeah but there were four countries that occupied Germany. The US, Britain, France and USSR.

Comparing WWII to Iraq is a huge stretch.

I am not comparing it, I am saying we should have looked at the security situation and what we did post WWII in those countries that made it a success when Iraq is clearly a clusterfvck in some areas.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Trianon
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: rudder
2) Have the money ready to be doled out. Sure you can say you are thier friends... but if you come and blow up the jobs... now there is no way to support the family and people will be pissed at you. </end quote></div>


I don't think money availability was ever a problem, right now we can't account for a few plane-loads of cash that was given out to anyone who asked and spent like money were going out of style.

Somewhat true... the money you speak of went to pacify various leaders. However money to begin immediately rebuilding the infrastructure and employ Iraqis who were suddenly out of work... did not come in time or it was missapproriated.

That "Thank You America" glow quickly subsided when Iraqis suddenly found themselves with no money and no jobs. By the time things starting getting on track everything had already fallen apart.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: rudder
Somewhat true... the money you speak of went to pacify various leaders. However money to begin immediately rebuilding the infrastructure and employ Iraqis who were suddenly out of work... did not come in time or it was missapproriated.

That "Thank You America" glow quickly subsided when Iraqis suddenly found themselves with no money and no jobs. By the time things starting getting on track everything had already fallen apart.

I doubt trowing even more money at the problem would do the trick, we were told the occupation will pay for itself. What's the point to provide Iraqis with US dollars, if their infrustructure was meticulously destroyed in Shock and Awe. One cannot eat dollar bills.

I think the biggest blunder in Iraq was not having enough troops to maintain order in occupied territory, most of other problems stem from that one. And diplomatic failure to gather international support only made the problem worse.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
My list is:
1. A powerful country can invade and wipe out a country's political power and industrial structure.

2. Can a country impose western style democracy on another country? It worked in Japan after the war, will it work in Iraq?

3. Without a strong, dicatorial, central government composite countries, like Yugoslavia and Iraq will dissolve into violent chaos.

What do you think?

Simple, not fighting a war as a war. Really, the US has shown the failure of trying to restrict collateral damage because of the fact that people do not have a stomach for war anymore. We have been too lucky in this country for years that we forget how horrific it has to be to be won.

 

[Blain]

We support a dictator when it suites our needs, then take him out when we want a change.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Blain
We support a dictator when it suites our needs, then take him out when we want a change.

More like the enemy of our enemy is one of our allies.

Do not play by our needs and you are disposable.