What is really going on in Iraq?

[BDC]

If you have enough soldiers then you don't need to support anybody...

However, they will never have that many. I have no idea what they will do. Several politicians need to be tried for treason over this. There was no way it was accidentally bungled this badly.

[Redleg]

If you have enough soldiers then you don't need to support anybody...

However, they will never have that many. I have no idea what they will do. Several politicians need to be tried for treason over this. There was no way it was accidentally bungled this badly.

Oh yes it could. We have done almost as badly in other conflicts. The main difference is that we learned from our errors and corrected them before it became the overriding issue. This time the politicans have placed themselves in a quandry of their own making. They want to maintain power so they can not take the actions necessary to actually place more troops into the theather.

As Tribesman might say - they completely mucked it up because they are politians first and foremost.

[yesdachi]

As Tribesman might say - they completely mucked it up because they are politians first and foremost.

Except Tribesman would have used several dozen laughing smilies.

[BDC]

Surely behaviour, incompetant or otherwise, which damages your country's interests, results in the deaths of soliders, and aids the enemy, is treason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Saddam was an effective dictator -- as this legacy proves.

He so effectively squelched anybody who even seemed to be a source of threat or resistance that few "leader types" are left. Nobody has the charisma/charm/power to take the lead and cross ethnic/ideological lines to establish a stable Iraq.

The largely Sunni government is trying to co-opt the militias and I am sure that the stated goal is to "pull the teeth" of the threat by making it part of the solution. May even be working to some extent. As the death squad thing shows, however, the strategy as a whole hasn't worked.

Like it or not, we are going to end up with (de facto if not de jure) a tripartite Iraq that is one country only for: sporting events & UN membership purposes. The interesting and unresolved question is just how much independence the Shia segment of the new Iraq will have from Iran's ayatollahs.

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

[Pannonian]

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

Do you think it could have been done if the US went in with 400K from the start as Shinseki suggested?

[Shahed]

More soldiers won't work either. The more American soldiers the more the people get pissed off. They prefer being killed by "their own". Seeing foreigners only makes it worse. If there's no foreign troops they have only one place to channel their attacks --> on themselves.

Lot of Fragonies in Iraq. (lol)

[Sir Moody]

I think a lot of this could have been avoided if we hadnt disarmed and decommisioned the Iraq army - since we have tried to rebuild it from scratch it is nowhere near as complete as it was before

at this point i dont think there is anything we can do - the country has reached critical mass and will only get worse from here on in

[Redleg]

Do you think it could have been done if the US went in with 400K from the start as Shinseki suggested?

It would have had a greater chance of success, being that enough boots were on the ground to do the mission. It still could of easily been screwed up if the military leadership began to play politics instead of fulfilling the mission. I stated this view here at the.org when the invasion started that three divisions were not enough to accomplish the mission. While I agree with the necessity of the operation being conducted, it does not mean I agree with the way it has been conducted. THe United States should of went with 10 divisions - but that would of required delay because of Afganstan and the call up of the National Guard. Two options that the political leadership decide were not necessary.

Part of the muck up also is that the senior leadership of the military have been playing politics versus soldiering and leading their troops.

[Spino]

More troops from the start would have definitely helped. 400 thousand is a far cry from ~130(?) thousand or so.

It's simple really, once the initial invasion of Iraq was over and the coalition assumed the role of regional policeman the movers and shakers behind the invasion refused to even recognize the notion that the conventional force which blew through Iraq's armed forces would be inadequate for such a role. They failed to take a page from the playbook of America's larger cities that have successfully tackled widespread crime (i.e. NYC). Basically more cops walking the beat in bad neighborhoods and engaging in aggressive policing means there will be fewer opportunities for criminals to do their dirty work unhindered (i.e. insurgents planting massive roadside IED ambushes in Iraq).

The Neo-Cons played this one like a 20th century Democrat tribute band and it has blown up in their faces (literally and figuratively). By following in the footsteps of the Truman and Johnson administrations and interfering with the generals' planning and execution of the invasion and occupation they have set themselves up for a nasty and bloody third act. It is foolish to say Iraq is a complete failure but I think it's safe to say our horse isn't going to finish first.

[Idaho]

Basically more cops walking the beat in bad neighborhoods and engaging in aggressive policing means there will be fewer opportunities for criminals to do their dirty work unhindered (i.e. insurgents planting massive roadside IED ambushes in Iraq).

You've missed the point here. The Sunni insurgents are fighting Shia militia, Shia secret police death squads and the US forces. To compare it to the law and order problem in US cities is frankly laughable.

[Shahed]

Saddam was an effective dictator -- as this legacy proves.

He so effectively squelched anybody who even seemed to be a source of threat or resistance that few "leader types" are left. Nobody has the charisma/charm/power to take the lead and cross ethnic/ideological lines to establish a stable Iraq.

The largely Sunni government is trying to co-opt the militias and I am sure that the stated goal is to "pull the teeth" of the threat by making it part of the solution. May even be working to some extent. As the death squad thing shows, however, the strategy as a whole hasn't worked.

Like it or not, we are going to end up with (de facto if not de jure) a tripartite Iraq that is one country only for: sporting events & UN membership purposes. The interesting and unresolved question is just how much independence the Shia segment of the new Iraq will have from Iran's ayatollahs.

The USA is not willing to pay the price in blood, treasure, and bad press to truly subjugate Iraq and start over from a basis of relative stability. Since, given the size of the militias that would need to be suppressed and disarmed along with the insurgencies, you're talking about 1-1.5M coalition troops, the lack of political will isn't too surprising.

Iran's influence is crystal clear. They own the Shia groups in Iraq. It's not more complex than that. Considering that Hizbollah won the war against Israel, it's a pretty desperate situation.

This means in the tripartite Iraq there is an extremely powerful probability that a majority Shia element owned by Iran. And in Palestine, Hamas and Hizbollah hold the reigns. The power struggle between the Fatah and Hamas is obviously going to be a major victory for Hamas. They will try to kill whatever Fatah leaders they can, those who are not in the spotlight. When I say owned by Iran I mean they will do exactly what the Iranians tell them to do. Imagine what bricks the Soddies (saudis) are defecating. They must be drinking oil to alleviate their constipation.

[yesdachi]

Our aversion to killing and our enemy’s inability to do anything else is what has screwed our efforts in Iraq. More troops will help but the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system. It seems that most of Iraq wants the benefits of democracy but only if their party is dominant, and if it is not, it’s fighting time, not voting time.

[Idaho]

Our aversion to killing and our enemy’s inability to do anything else is what has screwed our efforts in Iraq. More troops will help but the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system. It seems that most of Iraq wants the benefits of democracy but only if their party is dominant, and if it is not, it’s fighting time, not voting time.

That is extremely niaive. When you have armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soliders and secret police, you aren't going to be that impressed by a concerted leaflet campaign by you prospective parliamentary candidate

[English assassin]

I saw the same programme. ******* me, what a mess. No disrespect to Redleg, but if there has been a foreign policy disaster this bad before I can't think what it was. Not using force to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, maybe. But that wasn't stupid, more naive.

If anyone can see a solution other than partition, they are more far sighted than me. And "partition" might mean "complete expulsion of the Sunnis to Saudi" I guess. Its that or a failed state.

Lemur...err, debaathification and the somewhat "lax" approach to basic financial controls? I mean, there is so much, how are we supposed to choose.

the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system.

Yeah. Next time we should invade Iceland.

[Redleg]

I saw the same programme. ******* me, what a mess. No disrespect to Redleg, but if there has been a foreign policy disaster this bad before I can't think what it was. Not using force to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, maybe. But that wasn't stupid, more naive.

I can think of a couple - the immediate reconstruction period after the civil war comes to mind, but that did not generate near the crisis that our mishandling of events in Iraq. My point was that earlier screw ups were fixed as the mistakes were realized. In this instance the mistakes are not being fixed they are only being compounded upon. So in essence I did agree with the orginal premise.

I just placed an additional qualifier on it.

[caravel]

If anyone can see a solution other than partition, they are more far sighted than me. And "partition" might mean "complete expulsion of the Sunnis to Saudi" I guess. Its that or a failed state.

Without years of further bloodshed there is probably no other solution. When you consider that the Iraqi state was a British Mandate and not a real nation anyway it makes a lot more sense. The only entity holding the whole thing together for the last 30 odd years was the Ba'athist regime, with it's collapse it has basically ceased to exist.