ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Lemur]

Let's be clear, America, along with the UK and France, is directly responsible for every stage of this mess. [...] If you have the power to act and choose not to, then you have chosen and becomes responsible.

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers. Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

What the writer is saying is that Iraq is not worth dead Americans, implicit in this is that Americans are, as individuals, worth more than Iraqis.

To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

[HoreTore]

Holy hell, that was a bloody fast advance. When did this thing start again, on Monday? And they reached the cities to the north of Baghdad? Didn't the US use a 3-week bombing campaign until they got that far?

How on earth did they manage that?

And no, Frags, 1700 is not "pretty much confirmed". Isis has reported 1700, the Iraqi government has confirmed some 50-ish people, with guesses going anywhere in between. They've obviously executed pow's, but how many is a wide open question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers. Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."

To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."



Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

[Husar]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

[HoreTore]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

[Pannonian]

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

Alternatively, do it the WW2 way and obliterate the enemy country in alliance with an infinitely worse partner, then occupy the obliterated enemy with you and your partner as direct comparisons of how life could be. You'll also need to wait for your enemy to invade someone first. So for PVC's plan to work, we should have bombed Iraq to the Stone Age after GW1, then occupied Iraq with Iran and Turkey having their own zones.

[Husar]

Doesn't that scenario also require that the USA wait until the other side declares war? And that the USA have no real air force to speak of.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a typical misconception in your logic, PVC. Most of the Iraqi civilians killed in the war were killed by IEDs or sectarian kill squads. While collateral damage from US ordinance did happen, it was far more common for AQI or some small-time sectarian group to indiscriminately lay waste to neighborhoods and blame it on us. We had no real grassroots propaganda tools over there, no way to counter that sort of message other than by patrolling the streets. The people we were able to work with on a daily basis tended to understand our role and our limits, but there was very little we could do to control the message in areas where we weren't operating in. Our very presence gave ammo to the bad guys, and it would have taken a lot more than any one country is capable of giving to pacify it the way you describe.

No, I get that the US wasn't killing Iraqi's, and I get that you guys had a horrid time of it, I really do. However, what the Iraqi's did not see was Americans dying FOR them, and that's why you lacked the "grass roots" support you needed, and that was why it was a waste of your time.

In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

From Vietnam onwards US military actions have been characterised by a lack of genuine operational commitment, this has led to quite a few dead Americans, lots wasted money and no successes other than Desert Storm.

One can only conclude that when the world's only Super Power cannot win even a minor war that something it wrong at the strategic level.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's easy to believe that Bilderberger or Illuminati is behind US foreign politics, merely because it's unfathomable to believe the US acted in their self interest, heck, even world or human interest at large.

But you know, never believe conspiracy theories, if it can be explained simply by people being absolutely retarded.

[Brenus]

“Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"” Worse than that, providing volunteers to go to fight for the Jihad…
This is the result of Assad the Bad against the nice insurgents, all democratic as err… I don’t know.
We had a French President who was ready to in war just like this, so it was ok to fight against Assad and his chemical weapons, indeed. So they went. Of course, they were supporting a totalitarian Islamic utopia, but were compare the International Brigades when they should have been seen as the Waffen-SS.
Media choose to ignore who were the “freedom” fighters and the ideology they serve, all against the tyrant (not the Dune’s one)… There you have the result. F it...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

[Pannonian]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

Another way of doing it is to do as the British did after the Indian Mutiny, taking exceptionally harsh measures against the active perpetrators (eg. blowing ringleaders from cannon), before re-adjusting to old pre-British power structures with the British on top, and visibly on top. Imperialism, in other words.

[Beskar]

I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

I thought Japan was very traditional/honour-based which is compatible with rule-of-law, or am I mistaken?

[Furunculus]

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied.

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

[Lemur]

disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy.

I don't know that it does us much good at this late date, but you are 100% correct. Those two moves were probably the most damning things out of a large mess of bad choices—worse than the decision to invade in the first place. The importance of the army disbandment and gov't sunni purge cannot be overstated.

On the bright side, maybe this crisis will push Iran and the U.S. into being the allies/frenemies we were always meant to be?

[T]he Obama administration said it is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.

The U.S.-Iran dialogue, which is expected to begin this week, will mark the latest in a rapid move toward rapprochement between Washington and Tehran over the past year. [...]

The U.S. and Iran have publicly committed in recent days to provide military support if requested to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and help his government repel an offensive the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, has launched against Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities over the past week.

[HopAlongBunny]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it hard to think that the outcome is other than intended.
Militias allowed to arm, army all but disbanded
Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"
Devolving Iraq from regional power to splintered cluster

Mission Accomplished indeed.

[Fisherking]

Guess the figured it was time to raise oil prices.

[Pannonian]

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

Legal or not, it doesn't make the Iraq war any less stupid, which is the barometer I use for judging a government's decision to go to war in this day and age. Back in 2003, I predicted that the country would fall apart due to contesting interests, and our lack of stomach for taking the measures necessary to suppress these interests. As such, I wanted us to stay out and leave it to Saddam to deal with that mess of a country. It's hard to argue that I was wrong in any way.