Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm with you up to a point, except there were also so many unknowns about the 2010 decision. What numbers of troops? At what cost? We could barely keep control of Iraq as it was during most of the preceding period. The extent to which the Iraqis tolerated us towards the end was under the assumption that we WOULD be leaving.
Read Petraeus. He's an interesting guy. He'll give you the ideal, his preference - but then clearly place what he says into context providing a final assessment of what he believes possible or realistic.
Link to what you are reading by Petraeus? I recall that Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency, and IIRC his PhD thesis was on nation-building. Part of the problem with the Iraq invasion was that W Bush and co. were actively opposed to the notion of nation-building prior to 2001. He had always opposed getting involved in nation building, so when he decided to undertake it in Iraq, he hadn't a clue as to how to proceed. Things did not really improve until Petraus, who had been a life-long student of nation building, took over.
The planning for the invasion split it into four phases. Phases I, II, and III were meticulously planned, but phase IV (occupation) was always an afterthought.
It'd be better off, but it was still a bad deal under Hussein... People seem to forget that Saddam Hussein killed just as many Kurds and Yazidis and Shiites (as well as plenty of other people) as ISIS has--and that he supported terrorism against the Israelis not so covertly
Sounds like it's not okay to support your allies against Israel. But its ok to support IRAQ using terror/ chemical weapons on IRAN. Shrewed logic
Link to what you are reading by Petraeus? I recall that Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter insurgency, and IIRC his PhD thesis was on nation-building. Part of the problem with the Iraq invasion was that W Bush and co. were actively opposed to the notion of nation-building prior to 2001. He had always opposed getting involved in nation building, so when he decided to undertake it in Iraq, he hadn't a clue as to how to proceed. Things did not really improve until Petraus, who had been a life-long student of nation building, took over.
The planning for the invasion split it into four phases. Phases I, II, and III were meticulously planned, but phase IV (occupation) was always an afterthought.
This is the most recent assessment (July 2014) of the troop withdrawal by Petraeus that I've seen, with one of quotes making clear that what he would have ideally liked to have happened was tempered by other factors:
Quote:
So there’s a debate over when the troops are leaving, over the number of troops that will be left in 2011. There’s a difference of opinion from the DOD [Department of Defense] to the White House. Give us a little taste of what the debate was, why it was considered important, and where we ended up.
… I was in the CIA by just before Sept. 11, [2011,] and got into this particular, or at least observed the discussion at the Situation Room table.
I personally hoped that we could keep a force there but hoped that it could have a mission that would enable it to really contribute. I actually started to have my doubts that Prime Minister Maliki was going to allow that, frankly. … I was never sure that he’d allow our forces to really help, and I wasn’t certain what influence we’d had.
Having said that, I was a big supporter of keeping a force there on the idea that if it’s there, perhaps it can be useful. Perhaps it does have logistical bases. If push comes to shove, you have a footprint. You have individuals. You have people on the ground with a sense of what’s going on and so forth.
But at a certain point in time it was pretty clear that he wasn’t willing to take the agreement to the Parliament, which is what the bar was set. It had to have parliamentary approval. And thus, obviously, we ended up then removing those forces, although it’s important to remember we didn’t leave Iraq completely. We had hundreds of individuals that did stay with a three-star general, a two-star general, a one-star general initially, at least for quite a substantial security assistance effort.
Quote:
Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?
No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.
So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.
As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond.
But then again the interview only goes so far in that it does not fully address (for how could it) the motivations and intentions of Maliki, who is key to both the decision to stay or leave and to the impact any troops might have had. Could Obama have better managed Maliki? To what end? Endless questions, which is why there has been so much variance in opinions and assessments among civilian leadership and the military found throughout the conflict. (Sure, some of this is natural; even now we're still second-guessing and reevaluating the impact of decisions made in WW2.)
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,464,896 times
Reputation: 12187
Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc need to be tried to war crimes. The damage done both to America's reputation and Middle East stability will take generations to solve
Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc need to be tried to war crimes. The damage done both to America's reputation and Middle East stability will take generations to solve
Hey, I just realized that I voted incorrectly on the poll. Heard Bill Neely (Chief Global Correspondent for NBC) on a Morning Joe podcast this morning. Neely's been a global reporter for 25 years with a recent focus on Syria.
Neely reported being informed by local sources (unnamed on the air) that not only did Maliki start replacing well-tested Iraqi commanders with loyal incompetents, but that once the coast was clear Iraqi commanders (presumably not all) started SELLING OFF US-supplied arms and equipment.
Wonder who to?
INCREDIBLE. And this is what we funded all those years, not to mention the sacrifices made and lives lost. Trying to overlay democracy (with its concept of action for the common good) onto a tribal culture (with its concept of loyalty to the extended tribal/family grouping) does NOT work well.
For sure the Iraqis who profited from our involvement are better off than they would have been under Saddam.
What did you think? We invaded Iraq, disposed of its legal government and when nobody serious wanted anything to do with us as we were seen as the aggressor and occupier, we enlisted an opportunist who saw American occupation of Iraq as an opportunity to get even with his political enemies.
We didn't build any democracy in Iraq, we didn't build a government we use some shady characters to legitimize our presence there, that's all.
Who ever thought that any "nation building" will be successful in Iraq probably also believed that our soldiers would be greeted with flowers there.
Or rather wanted all of us to believe that....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Hey, I just realized that I voted incorrectly on the poll. Heard Bill Neely (Chief Global Correspondent for NBC) on a Morning Joe podcast this morning. Neely's been a global reporter for 25 years with a recent focus on Syria.
Neely reported being informed by local sources (unnamed on the air) that not only did Maliki start replacing well-tested Iraqi commanders with loyal incompetents, but that once the coast was clear Iraqi commanders (presumably not all) started SELLING OFF US-supplied arms and equipment.
Wonder who to?
INCREDIBLE. And this is what we funded all those years, not to mention the sacrifices made and lives lost. Trying to overlay democracy (with its concept of action for the common good) onto a tribal culture (with its concept of loyalty to the extended tribal/family grouping) does NOT work well.
For sure the Iraqis who profited from our involvement are better off than they would have been under Saddam.
What did you think? We invaded Iraq, disposed of its legal government and when nobody serious wanted anything to do with us as we were seen as the aggressor and occupier, we enlisted an opportunist who saw American occupation of Iraq as an opportunity to get even with his political enemies.
We didn't build any democracy in Iraq, we didn't build a government we use some shady characters to legitimize our presence there, that's all.
Who ever thought that any "nation building" will be successful in Iraq probably also believed that our soldiers would be greeted with flowers there.
Or rather wanted all of us to believe that....
Ah yes. I agree. Rather my post was a poor attempt at irony. My bad for my original vote was YES and remains YES.
Except that is for those Iraqi commanders who got to pocket some money from any under the counter sales of US supplied arms and equipment. Clearly, THEY are better off than had we not invaded.
Seriously, though, with this kind of stuff going on no wonder the Iraqi army has not been more effective against ISIS.
ISIS has a long ways to go before they murder the numbers Saddam did. If you remember he did mass killing of Kurds by gassing after gulf war. He also murdered anyone he thought might be of challenge to him in government circles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
on IRAN. Shrewed logic
