Was the Iraq Insurgency Unexpected? (1 Viewer)

[niftydrifty]

In another thread yesterday, easyt65 said this:

Accomplishing our mission and defeating Hussein/Iraq was easy! The follow-on war we are now in, asgainst Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists was unexpected and has proved more difficult than we planned for. The Insurgents' tactics have evolved, causing us to have to adapt and change often. It is a constant, fight, though. Meanwhile, Iraqs new military divisions are continuing to evolve and take over more and more of their own country's defense! The faster that happens, the better!

Questions for debate:

Is the war in Iraq that we are now in, primarily a war against Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists?

Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?

Has this war proven more difficult than we planned for?

Who are the insurgency?

Are Iraq's new military divisions continuing to evolve and take over more of their own country's defense? Is it fast enough?

 

[jfuh]

Unexpected? Hardly, it's why Bush's Father H.W. didn't go into Iraq. Unfortunately Cheny, Rummy, Wolfowitz didn't get it, and Rove only wanted a wedge issue that would allow for re-election.
W. Is just to stupid to have known any better.

But in reality, we all know it was Clinton for not getting congress to act sooner.:roll:

Now? We're ****en stuck.

 

[easyt65]

In another thread yesterday, easyt65 said this:



Questions for debate:

Is the war in Iraq that we are now in, primarily a war against Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists?

Primarily yes! 85% of the IEDs killing our troops and iRAQIS in Iraq are built in Iran. Many more IED factories are in Syria. Insurgents make up the majority of anti-Iraqi/US violence. There is still a lot of stress between Shias and Sunni, and there is some violence going on there. There are also Hussein 'Cling-ons' who are still fighting beyond hope for Hussein to return because without him they have lost status, power, money - everything. The majority of the violence and the main on-going conflict is terrorists and (primarily) Iran/Syria who want to turn Iraq into another 'Lebanon' (puppet goverment they own and control)!

Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?

Yes! Iraq's troops were mostly comprised of troops who were 'fighting' mainly because Hussein and the Republican guard threatened to kill their families if they did not go to war. as soon as we began crossing the border, much like in Desert Storm, the majority of these troops began dropping their weapons and going home. After the war, the worst part about helping re-form their military is the extremely poor or lack of record-keeping. There was almost no way to find out who the trained pilots were or who had other specific ckills. the Republican guard, however, was Hussein's loyal crack troops! They were not that much of a problem either, though. As everyone saw, we swept through Iraq and on to Baghdad like a prairey fire. One thing they underestimated was the flood of Insurgency in their wake, crossing the border from syria and Iran! (If you ask me, we invaded the wrong country! If we had to take down 1 country that was more pivotal that taking down Iran or Iraq, it would have been Syria. Syrai is Iran's conduit/link to supplying/arming/funding Hezbollah in lebanon, to controlling and keeping Lebanon enslaved, to the mjajor violence going on against Israel....taking down Syria would have been like cutting Iran's right arm off! taking down Iraq gives Iran an opportunity (if we give up now) to make iraq another 'Lebanon. taking down syria would have put Iran back on its heels!)

but yes, the current and immediate influx of Iranian soldiers and insurgents, terrorists, and other insurgents (Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian - Islamic Extremists) was underestimated.

Has this war proven more difficult than we planned for?

Which one? The war against Hussein's regime went about as planned, maybe a little easier. The people were ready to be free of that scumbag. The war against Iran and the insuing insurgency has been a lot more difficult. The terrorists adapt and change tactics - you can definitely see the Iranian military's hand in what they are doing! What has helped immensely is the Iraqi people stepping up by the thousands and re-froming their divisions! They are taking control of more and more of their own country. meanwhile, their newly-formed goverment is doing an adequate job at keeping the Shia and Sunni sects focused on coming together more than separating, reminding them that the consequences of not are probably another regime where they are ruled rather than the rulers - this time by Iran! as the old saying goes, 'united they stand, divided they fall!'

Who are the insurgency?

As I said, Iran is primarily behind the Insurgency, along with Syria. Al Qaeda is definitely there as well. They were quick to step up and announce the name of their new Leader in Iraq, which led to his pretty quick end. they learned not to be so dumb by announcing the name of the next leader, and they are adapting and still attacking as well. As Zarqawi said, though, the more the Iraqi people take over control of their own goverment, the more it means Al Qaeda will be killing Muslims, which they do not want! Finally, again, there are the Cling-ons, and some Sunni-shia violence.

Are Iraq's new military divisions continuing to evolve and take over more of their own country's defense? Is it fast enough?

The Iraqis are joining up at an incredible rate, and we are training them as fast as we can. we want to ensure they are trained right, though so they can handle the job. They have numerous divisions already, have taken over several huge sections of their country, and are leading in many different operations now! They are evolving, growing, and becoming a self-reliant force! It is great to see. early on, immediately after the war, I read where some people were saying 'when are the Iraqis going to start fighting and dying for their own country?' They have made incredible sacrifices! Lines of Iraqs waiting to becoem policemen or join the military have been attacked, but still they come! they crave freedom about as much as you could imagine our own founding fathers did. They are stepping up, taking over, and hungry for more!

Is it fast enough? that depends on who you ask! All of us will be extremely proud and excited to see them stand up completely and take over (sort of like a proud dad watching his kid take his 1st steps). To some, though, every day an American dies while working to get these guys independent and self-reliant is a day too long/too much time.

 

[Kandahar]

Is the war in Iraq that we are now in, primarily a war against Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists?

No. Those groups certainly aren't making things easier, but they couldn't thrive without the anarchy. And what has caused this anarchy? Iraqi insurgents who simply resent foreign troops in their country. It's probably too late at this point to think that Iraq would be a stable country if we withdraw, but our presence there is the main cause of this problem in the first place.

Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?

I hope not. *I* expected it, as did Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and George H.W. Bush. If our present government didn't expect it, it was due to their incompetence, not because it was unforseeable.

Has this war proven more difficult than we planned for?

Definitely. We planned to occupy Iraq with only 100,000 troops, when many generals said we would need at least three times that many. Only a moron would send as few troops into Iraq as we did. Coincidentally, we have such a moron calling those shots.

Who are the insurgency?

"The insurgency" is a bit of a misnomer now, as it implies that there is a uniform resistance movement fighting against a recognizable government. Only the Sunni Kurds have a reasonably stable society. The rest of the country is in anarchy, and Sunni and Shiite Arabs are fighting a civil war. Al-Qaeda and Iran, respectively, are assisting them, but they would have little impact if not for the feelings of the Iraqis themselves.

Are Iraq's new military divisions continuing to evolve and take over more of their own country's defense? Is it fast enough?

Well, American troops are turning over security to them...but I doubt they're really "taking over their own country's defense." They're mostly death squads, mercenaries, or incompetent. And no, it's obviously not fast enough. American troops should get out now. If we started packing tomorrow, we could be out in 60 days.

 

[niftydrifty]

Is the war in Iraq that we are now in, primarily a war against Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists?

No, it is not. One could accurately say that there are several wars going in Iraq now.

Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?

It depends upon whom you talk to. It was unexpected by the Bush administration and by Bush supporters and apologists like easyt65. But it was expected by the reality-based community.

Here are a couple of quotes from some whom did expect it.

Youssef Ibrahim, Council on Foreign Relations, 2/19/2003: "I don't want to find 100,000 American kids caught in the middle of a shooting war, a civil war, in which they don't know where the bullets are coming."

Alan Colmes, 1/17/2003: "I'm not a supporter of Saddam Hussein, contrary to those people who want to say, oh, if you're against war you must love Saddam Hussein. But sometimes the devil you know is worse than the devil you don't (sic). We don't know what's going to happen if he's not in power. We don't know that there won't be civil war breaking out. We don't know if there won't be incursions from the north and all kinds of conflict breaking out. We don't know what would happen or how many years we would have to put up a government or if we should put up a democracy, or could put up a democracy, in the middle of the Arab world. We know we can beat them in a war. But then what?"

Harry Dunphy, Associated Press, 10/5/2002: "Even before hostilities erupt in a war with Iraq, what happens the day after President Saddam Hussein falls is raising critical questions. A new and legitimate authority may take time to emerge, civil war could break out between the majority Shiite and minority Sunni Arabs, and Kurds in the north might press for an independent state, which U.S. ally Turkey opposes."

Juan Cole, 7/22/2003: "Whether Sunni and Shiite radicals fight one another or forge a political alliance, they pose a significant long-term threat to US plans for the country. Their weapon of choice * large urban demonstrations * is very difficult for an occupying army to fight. The possibility that Wolfowitz had to be whisked out of Najaf in the midst of his victory lap there symbolizes the uncertainties the US faces in Iraq."

James Fallows, 11/1/2002: "Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?"

Jimmy Carter, 3/9/2003: "Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home."

"The U.S. is not prepared: Unready for the Aftermath," by Kenneth H. Bacon and George Rupp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54153-2003Mar6.html

"The possible pitfalls are huge: The Consequences of War" by william Raspberry
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31236-2003Mar2.html

Eric Boehlert, 1/22/2003: "They are scenes of chaos from a paranoid's nightmare: The U.S. and its allies attack Iraq and the country splinters into warring factions, trapping the invaders in a quagmire. Hordes of refugees flee from the carnage, toward closed and militarized borders. Rulers in neighboring nations face mass unrest. Al-Qaida feeds off runaway anti-Western sentiment in the region and mounts new terrorist attacks."

Al Gore, 9/23/2002: "And when you ask the administration about this, what's their intention in the aftermath of a war--Secretary Rumsfeld was asked recently about what our responsibility would be for restabilizing Iraq in the aftermath of an invasion. And his answer was, and I quote, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 2/7/2003: "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially. As recent events around the world attest, terrorism is like malaria. You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists."

Has this war proven more difficult than we planned for?

Again, it depends upon whom you talk to, and what you mean by "we." The war, the invasion, that was planned for, was, as easyt65 claims, "easy." The war that we are in now, was not planned for, and therefore, has been more difficult. It is not more difficult than what the reality-based community said it would be.

Who are the insurgency?

The insurgency are primarily Saddam Baath-party loyalists, and Iraqis that oppose US progress in Iraq. A much smaller percentage, a minority, are foreign extremists that have come to Iraq to kill Americans. Because most of the insurgency are former Baath party loyalists, the war in Iraq is essentially the same war now, as it was in the beginning. But the insurgency was never planned for. We were told by the Bush Administration that we would be greeted as liberators.

Are Iraq's new military divisions continuing to evolve and take over more of their own country's defense? Is it fast enough?

They are continuing to evolve, sure. But not nearly fast enough. Besides, violence is constantly growing, not diminishing. The problems are expanding faster than any force in that country can be trained to deal with them. So no, it is not fast enough, and this is very very bad.

The Iraqis are joining up at an incredible rate, and we are training them as fast as we can. we want to ensure they are trained right, though so they can handle the job. They have numerous divisions already, have taken over several huge sections of their country, and are leading in many different operations now! They are evolving, growing, and becoming a self-reliant force! It is great to see. early on, immediately after the war, I read where some people were saying 'when are the Iraqis going to start fighting and dying for their own country?' They have made incredible sacrifices! Lines of Iraqs waiting to becoem policemen or join the military have been attacked, but still they come! they crave freedom about as much as you could imagine our own founding fathers did. They are stepping up, taking over, and hungry for more!

Is it fast enough? that depends on who you ask! All of us will be extremely proud and excited to see them stand up completely and take over (sort of like a proud dad watching his kid take his 1st steps). To some, though, every day an American dies while working to get these guys independent and self-reliant is a day too long/too much time.

Mmmmmmm, that Kool-ade sure is yummy, but I'm not about to drink it.

 

[niftydrifty]

they crave freedom about as much as you could imagine our own founding fathers did. They are stepping up, taking over, and hungry for more!

stepping up, taking over, indeed:

Shiite militia takes control of Iraqi town

meanwhile, here's how the fight against the "insurgency" is going:

U.S. says battle for Baghdad falling short

U.S. military official says 2-month effort to secure Iraq's capital needs re-evaluation

The U.S. military acknowledged Thursday that its two-month drive to crush insurgent and militia violence in the Iraqi capital had fallen short, calling the raging bloodshed disheartening and saying it was rethinking its strategy to rein in gunmen, torturers and bombers.

 

[easyt65]

For clarification and determining your level of expertise:

Nifty, how long have you been in the military?

Or at least, how long DID you served in the military?

__________________________________________________________
Anyway:


Colmes: We don't know what would happen...
Dunphy: A new and legitimate authority may take time to emerge...
Cole: The possibility that....
Carter: ...it is quite possible that....

Thank you for posting the words of a few Bush-hating rabid liberals who all play politics, who made comments which set up the scenario where they could say 'I told you so' JUST IN CASE our plans went awry.

I could post even MORE Democrats, including Bill Clinton himself who declared beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hussein not only had WMD but that there should be a regime change! Pelosi, Kerry, Hillary, Slick Willey...all of them declared to the world that Hussein was a threat, had WMD, and that we needed to affect a regime change!

My point is: You posting a few comments by Democrats who hate the military to begin with, based on their actions and comments DAILY, does nothing to prove you are right or that you have any clue what you are talking about!

I distictly remember participating/sitting in on the planning meetings with General Mosley, now the Chief of Staff of the Air Force - the Commander of theat region at the time, and the rest of the team here at the HQ for that AOR. YOU weren't there! I worked side-by-side with the man and with the team. I helped train not only the American Commanders who went forward to execute the plan but the coalition commanders as well. YOU were not here! the best you can do is pick and choose a few comments from guys who said 'May', Might', and 'we don't know' and attempt to use them to make some BS point about how they KNEW it would turn out this way! No one knew! As 'they' say, no military plan survives first contact with the enemy.

One of the main problems we had was that the plan we had worked to perfection - TOO perfectly. We went through Iraq like corn through a goose and took down Hussein. We went TOO fast. The plan to defeat the general military, a group of Iraqis threatened into service by Hussein, who said he would kill their families if they did not fight for him was easy. Once we went in, they dropped their weapons and started going home. Hussein's Republican Guard, his loyal professional military were the biggest 'challenge'.

Once Hussein was defeated, the U.N. should have established a stabilization and a Nation-building team, which is their job according to the U.N. doctrine! No one could have known terrorists were going to flock there. The longer we stay(ed) there, the more the iranians, syrians, and other terrorists flock there to kill Americans. Iran has got its troops in there right now trying to destabilize the country and kill our troops to turn Iraq into another Lebanon.

one problem that we did not foresee, but which is not my job as a soldier, is the religeous factions. There are 3 main factions in Iraq: Shia, Shi-ite, and Kurds. In Bosnia, there were several groups being held together by a strongman dictator like Hussein. When he fell, the country split into several new countries. If I were a politician rather than a soldier, I probably would have pushed for Iraq to be broken up into 3 separate democratic nations instead of 1: the Shias, The Sunnis, and the Kurds to the north. Bush wanted only 1 country, though. Again, if I was a politician instead of a soldier, I would have (and do) believed that it would be better to have 3 separate nations rather than 1 divided. I am glad we were able to free Iraq from hussein, glad they are building a new goverment, but it is THEIR goverment, not ours. I would prefer that these 3 new goverments be somewhat democratic and be friendly to the U.S., which I think is possible; however, I think if we try to force OUR political plan for their goverment, all 3 groups will end up hating us.

that said, I think we should leave the politics up to them but should stay for their stability and success until they can work out whatever plan THEY come up with and as long as THEY want us there. Right now, they want us there!
THEY want us there - I am not talking about the BS we are bombarded with on the news and by the Dems. I am talking about the Iraqi people and politicians who are trying to carbve out a new nation the way we did in the mid/late 1700s in America! I have been there, talked to diplomats, talked to Iraqis, and what we are being bombarded with on TV by the politically biased media is NOT the real story....

and you can hunt and peck all the bits of quotes from the internet all you want, but it does not change THAT truth - that we still have a job to finish and are still wanted there by the Iraqi people/Goverment!

 

[bismitch]

For clarification and determining your level of expertise:

Nifty, how long have you been in the military?

Or at least, how long DID you served in the military?

__________________________________________________________
Anyway:


Colmes: We don't know what would happen...
Dunphy: A new and legitimate authority may take time to emerge...
Cole: The possibility that....
Carter: ...it is quite possible that....

Thank you for posting the words of a few Bush-hating rabid liberals who all play politics, who made comments which set up the scenario where they could say 'I told you so' JUST IN CASE our plans went awry.

I could post even MORE Democrats, including Bill Clinton himself who declared beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hussein not only had WMD but that there should be a regime change! Pelosi, Kerry, Hillary, Slick Willey...all of them declared to the world that Hussein was a threat, had WMD, and that we needed to affect a regime change!

My point is: You posting a few comments by Democrats who hate the military to begin with, based on their actions and comments DAILY, does nothing to prove you are right or that you have any clue what you are talking about!

I distictly remember participating/sitting in on the planning meetings with General Mosley, now the Chief of Staff of the Air Force - the Commander of theat region at the time, and the rest of the team here at the HQ for that AOR. YOU weren't there! I worked side-by-side with the man and with the team. I helped train not only the American Commanders who went forward to execute the plan but the coalition commanders as well. YOU were not here! the best you can do is pick and choose a few comments from guys who said 'May', Might', and 'we don't know' and attempt to use them to make some BS point about how they KNEW it would turn out this way! No one knew! As 'they' say, no military plan survives first contact with the enemy.

One of the main problems we had was that the plan we had worked to perfection - TOO perfectly. We went through Iraq like corn through a goose and took down Hussein. We went TOO fast. The plan to defeat the general military, a group of Iraqis threatened into service by Hussein, who said he would kill their families if they did not fight for him was easy. Once we went in, they dropped their weapons and started going home. Hussein's Republican Guard, his loyal professional military were the biggest 'challenge'.

Once Hussein was defeated, the U.N. should have established a stabilization and a Nation-building team, which is their job according to the U.N. doctrine! No one could have known terrorists were going to flock there. The longer we stay(ed) there, the more the iranians, syrians, and other terrorists flock there to kill Americans. Iran has got its troops in there right now trying to destabilize the country and kill our troops to turn Iraq into another Lebanon.

one problem that we did not foresee, but which is not my job as a soldier, is the religeous factions. There are 3 main factions in Iraq: Shia, Shi-ite, and Kurds. In Bosnia, there were several groups being held together by a strongman dictator like Hussein. When he fell, the country split into several new countries. If I were a politician rather than a soldier, I probably would have pushed for Iraq to be broken up into 3 separate democratic nations instead of 1: the Shias, The Sunnis, and the Kurds to the north. Bush wanted only 1 country, though. Again, if I was a politician instead of a soldier, I would have (and do) believed that it would be better to have 3 separate nations rather than 1 divided. I am glad we were able to free Iraq from hussein, glad they are building a new goverment, but it is THEIR goverment, not ours. I would prefer that these 3 new goverments be somewhat democratic and be friendly to the U.S., which I think is possible; however, I think if we try to force OUR political plan for their goverment, all 3 groups will end up hating us.

that said, I think we should leave the politics up to them but should stay for their stability and success until they can work out whatever plan THEY come up with and as long as THEY want us there. Right now, they want us there!
THEY want us there - I am not talking about the BS we are bombarded with on the news and by the Dems. I am talking about the Iraqi people and politicians who are trying to carbve out a new nation the way we did in the mid/late 1700s in America! I have been there, talked to diplomats, talked to Iraqis, and what we are being bombarded with on TV by the politically biased media is NOT the real story....

and you can hunt and peck all the bits of quotes from the internet all you want, but it does not change THAT truth - that we still have a job to finish and are still wanted there by the Iraqi people/Goverment!

I don't know where to begin with all the errors in this post, I think I correct it tommorrow unless someone beats me to the chase.

 

[niftydrifty]

bismitch, I've been working on it for a good long time, too long, so don't waste your time. I don't know why I bother. It's a pet project, until I get bored again.

[Niftydrifty double-checks questions for debate] Niftydrifty's military service has nothing to do with this debate. The subject is Iraq, not Niftydrifty. easyt, you provided no evidence to support any of your statements. it's quite obvious as to why.

"Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?"

Easyt65, the point in making any kind of statement, for thoughtful people, is to say something that is true. When one speaks about the future, it is hard to speak about things with 100% certainty. Because as you know, in something like war, almost nothing is certain. Therefore, in order to be accurate, and rational, you choose your words carefully, in order to say things that are true. To rational observers in 2002 or 2003, it was possible that Iraq might go bad. But many got it wrong, they didn't expect an insurgency, or a long occupation. They didn't choose their words carefully. To them, the war might "last a few weeks", or the "mission was accomplished" in May 2003, or the "Insurgency was in its last throes," or ... we were perpetually "turning the corner." To them, there was no possibility for a Civil War, or for a long war against an unexpected insurgency, or for foreign terrorists to go to Iraq in order to kill Americans. The Bush Administration didn't expect it. Those that produced my quotes did.

I could post even MORE Democrats, including Bill Clinton himself who declared beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hussein not only had WMD ...snip

go ahead, but we're not debating WMD or stuff that anyone said about WMD or even anything that happened in the 90's. I realize that you tend to bring up all kinds of junk around the topic. But I'm not going to make the mistake anymore of responding to all of your nonsense when you do.

My point is: You posting a few comments by Democrats who hate the military to begin with, based on their actions and comments DAILY, does nothing to prove you are right or that you have any clue what you are talking about!

one of the debate questions was "Was the current war in Iraq that we are now in, unexpected?" I posted quotes by some that did expect it. It is your opinion that they didn't. but you've just talked about their character, and mine. that isn't an argument, that addresses the topic, easyt. some expected it. and I demonstrated it. if you don't think I did, hey, that's you thinking. respond with more ad hominems, all you like. it doesn't change the fact that some did expect it, and said so.

I distinctly remember participating/sitting in on the planning meetings with General Mosley, now the Chief of Staff of the Air Force - the Commander of theat region at the time, and the rest of the team here at the HQ for that AOR. YOU weren't there! I worked side-by-side with the man and with the team. I helped train not only the American Commanders who went forward to execute the plan but the coalition commanders as well. YOU were not here! the best you can do is pick and choose a few comments from guys who said 'May', Might', and 'we don't know' and attempt to use them to make some BS point about how they KNEW it would turn out this way! No one knew! As 'they' say, no military plan survives first contact with the enemy.

what does this have to do with ANY of the debate questions? really now, I'm impressed that you're doing these things with your life. but why are you telling me this? and why did you say earlier that no one expected an insurgency when many did? isn't that what we're talking about? man, I thought that's what we were talking about. [checks the thread title again. shakes head in disbelief.]

No one knew!

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 2/7/2003: "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially. As recent events around the world attest, terrorism is like malaria. You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists."

um, hello? easyt65, they did.

No one could have known terrorists were going to flock there.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 2/7/2003: "With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists."

uh, easyt65, they did. no maybe's, mighta's, possiblys, sortas, or whatever's there. I realize that you're a Bushie and an administration apologist, but you need to face reality. and try to stop saying things that aren't true. the Bush administration was wrong, and when you say "no one knew," you ought to get acquianted with the people who did know, and that do know. what are these guys saying about Iraq now? you ought to believe it. and it ain't pretty.

I wasn't at your meeting with some of the guys that screwed up Iraq. but former CIA officials did know better, much better than you do. they saw the situation for what it was before it happened, and said so. you said "no one knew." uh, easyt65, someone DID know. it's just too bad that the Bush administration shunned their advice.

one problem that we did not foresee, but which is not my job as a soldier, is the religeous factions. There are 3 main factions in Iraq: Shia, Shi-ite, and Kurds. In Bosnia, there were several groups being held together by a strongman dictator like Hussein. When he fell, the country split into several new countries. If I were a politician rather than a soldier, I probably would have pushed for Iraq to be broken up into 3 separate democratic nations instead of 1: the Shias, The Sunnis, and the Kurds to the north. Bush wanted only 1 country, though. Again, if I was a politician instead of a soldier, I would have (and do) believed that it would be better to have 3 separate nations rather than 1 divided. I am glad we were able to free Iraq from hussein, glad they are building a new goverment, but it is THEIR goverment, not ours. I would prefer that these 3 new goverments be somewhat democratic and be friendly to the U.S., which I think is possible; however, I think if we try to force OUR political plan for their goverment, all 3 groups will end up hating us.

You sound a lot like Joe Biden (That's a compliment.)

for the record, I am in total agreement with you here, EXCEPT for the part about "we did not foresee." what do you mean by we? if by "we," you mean the Bush administration or the military leadership, sure. but many outside of the Bush administration foresaw this too. heck, I sat around on some guy's porch in 2002 and talked about sectarian divisions in Iraq. I was there! here you go again with something you've brought up related to the topic, as it occurs to you. but you're so wrong about "we did not foresee. "I just have to straighten you out about this as well. maybe if you considered leftists as "we" also, you wouldn't be led so easily astray by your insulated far-right colleagues. I was reading left wing blogs almost four years ago that were saying Iraq was three states held together only by a dictator. four years ago. I was there! ... and I guess you weren't.

Right now, they want us there!

no, they don't. many Iraqis, a very large percentage, support attacks on Americans. many, also a very, very large percentage, want us to leave. can you post some evidence that says the Iraqis, a majority, want us to stay? if it is a majority, it isn't a very big one. if you are just talking about a few people that you bumped into, I can see how you can carry this misconception. so when you talk about "they" [in Iraq], you're talking about an unrepresentative minority. and when you talk about "we" [here in the US before the war], you're only talking about those that got it wrong. not everyone did. some got it right and you would be wise not to dismiss them any more.

and what we are being bombarded with on TV by the politically biased media is NOT the real story....

LOL, this is the part where you disregard the stories by journalists that say the things that you don't like!

and you can hunt and peck all the bits of quotes from the internet all you want, but it does not change THAT truth - that we still have a job to finish and are still wanted there by the Iraqi people/Goverment!

"we still have a job to finish" is an opinion. I don't think we do. most Americans don't think it was worth it any more. Not with this President, or the clueless SOD.

and your statement about "still [being] wanted there by the Iraqi people/Government" ... is not true. it might be true of the few people you spoke with in the Green Zone. but it isn't true of most Iraqis.

Question for you, easyt65. how are any of these stories not true? I really dont want to hear you talk about how the authors are Democrats, or they're liberals, or how they're not real journalists, or about how they have bias. I also don't want to hear you talk about some meeting you went to, or anecdotal evidence you gathered on your own, or how you think I must be some guy that just reads the internet, or what my military service might have been. I want to hear you explain why the stories about Iraq are not true.

When you try to do that, and also focus on the way the debate was framed, not your random musings on all-things-Iraq, the debate will then start.

 

[oldreliable67]

easyt and niftydrifty: You guys are shooting at each other for all the wrong reasons. Of course there were people who had opinions contrary to those in the Bush administration:

...some of those people were being absolutely intellectually honest with their opinions;

...some of those people were simply playing partisan politics (whatever the current administration was for, they were against, and it didn't matter whether the current admin was blue or red, they were the admin in power at the time);

...some of those people were Bush haters seeking revenge for the job the GOP did on Clinton.

More importantly, most of the blame game you are trying to play over Iraq — and always with the wisdom of hindsight and the ability to google up a bunch of appropriate quotes — is now irrelevant. Military historian Victor Davis Hanson addressed this question recently. He wrote:

Many wars metamorphize into something they were not supposed to be. Few imagined that the Poland war of 1939 would within two years evolve into a war of annihilation involving the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, Japan, and Italy. So too with the third Iraqi war of 2003 (following the first 1991 Gulf War, and the second, subsequent 12-year no-fly zone stand-off) that has now become a fight against jihadists for the future course of the entire Middle East.

What matters now is not so much what the war was or should have been, but only what it is — and whether we have learned from our mistakes and can still win. The answer to both questions is yes. We have the right strategy — birthing (through three elections already) an autonomous democracy; training an army subject to a civil government; and pledging support until it can protect its own constitutional government.
[...]
No, only the United States, and its superb military, can stabilize Iraq and give the Iraqis enough time and confidence to do what has not been done before, and what apparently no one any longer thinks will be done: a surviving, viable democratic government in the heart of the dictatorial Middle East. Though the necessary aims are clear, they are not quickly and easily attained. Everyone understands that there is no single military answer to Iraq, but rather that the political solution depends on soldiers providing enough security long enough for free commerce and expression to become established. So rather than agonize endlessly over past perceived errors, we must realize that such lapses are not unprecedented in our military experience and focus on whether they are still correctable.

By the standards of Grenada, Panama, and Serbia — where few American died and some sort of tenuous consensual government emerged fairly quickly — Iraq is indeed messy. But if we grant that the effort to replace Saddam with democracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate is a far formidable enterprise, and thus akin to the challenge, and cost, of taking an Okinawa or saving a Korea, then our losses and heartbreak so far are not extraordinary.

For all the Democrats loud criticism, if they do regain Congress, they would probably rely on the present expertise of a Khalizad, Abizaid, or Petraeus, and not the often quoted wisdom of three years past of a Gen. Shinseki or Zinni. I doubt they will bring back Gen. Wesley Clark to fix the “mess.” They will either have to cut off funds, ensure a pull out before the end of the year, and then watch real blood sport as reformers are butchered; or they will have to trust that our present military and civilian leadership has learned the hard lessons of three years in Iraq, and can find a way to stabilize the nascent democracy.

Hanson concluded with the following:

"...if we should withdraw from Iraq right now, there will be an industry in the next decade of hindsight exposés — but they won’t be the gotcha ones like State of Denial or Fiasco. Instead we will revisit the 1974-5 Vietnam genre of hindsight — of why after such heartbreak and sacrifice the United States gave up when it was so close to succeeding."

Indeed.

 

[niftydrifty]

You guys are shooting at each other for all the wrong reasons.

OR67, your post attempts to examine INTENT. the intent of both me and easyt. and the intent of pundits, politicians, et al., when they spoke about Iraq in the past.

a study of intent is interesting, but I don't feel it's useful. and I don't believe me an easyt were so much examining intent, as you claim. ok, maybe easyt was just a little bit. but mostly, he wasn't.

when anyone gets it wrong, I believe that it is notable. and that it ought to be noticed. and that anyone who gets it wrong, er ... really, really, really wrong, ought to be dismissed. so, hey, you don't. I guess we disagree, in that regard. I believe in accountability. you don't. more power to ya.

OR67, do you care to respond to any of the debate questions, or are you here just to diss me and easyt, to parrot irrelevant "blame" soundbites, and to paste quotes about withdrawal that have nothing to do with this thread at all?

 

[oldreliable67]

OR67, your post attempts to examine INTENT. the intent of both me and easyt. and the intent of pundits, politicians, et al., when they spoke about Iraq in the past.

No. I simply observed that the so-called debate, as you framed it and to which Easyt responded is pointless, except perhaps as mental masturbation. It has been done ad nauseum here and elsewhere.

when anyone gets it wrong, I believe that it is notable. and that it ought to be noticed. and that anyone who gets it wrong, er ... really, really, really wrong, ought to be dismissed. so, hey, you don't. I guess we disagree, in that regard. I believe in accountability. you don't. more power to ya.

No, you are wrong again. I have remarked in a number of threads that Rumsfeld's offer to resign should have been accepted long ago - and if he should offer it again, it should be accepted.

I have also written that, IMO, we went into Iraq with a superb war-fighting machine but a very poor peace-keeping and rebuilding machine. The differences such as policy disputes, separation of responsibilities (eg., between DoD and State and the CPA) , and other factors that needlessly hindered rebuilding re-establing governance were all the responsiblity of the current administration. There is more than ample analysis in the public domain to sufficiently prove they got it wrong in way too many cases. See, for example, Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor for an account of how Rumsfeld influenced Tommy Frank's plans for Iraq, both pre- and post-invasion.

OR67, do you care to respond to any of the debate questions, or are you here just to diss me and easyt, to parrot irrelevant "blame" soundbites, and to paste quotes about withdrawal that have nothing to do with this thread at all?

First, I'm certainly not "dissing" either of you. If you get that from what I wrote, such was not intended and its my bad for not making myself clear. My only contention is that the points that you offered for debate (and for which you apparently had your sound bites all queued up and ready for whomever chose to take your bait) have all been cussed and discussed ad nauseum. It seems highly unlikely that anyone at our distance from the policy-making apparatus will be able to add anything new.

Lastly, this thread is really about using good ol' 20-20 hindsight to judge the competency of those charged with planning and executing the Iraq war, with an emphasis on the insurgency, correct? My response first asserts that in order to respond to the various points/criticisms you posted, one needs to examine the motives and intellectual honesty of those having authored those criticisms. Some are honest criticisms, some are just partisan politics. Then I offer some thoughts from a noted military historian on why your proposed debate, as you have framed it, is pointless. Been there, done that. Time to focus on more current issues.

But hey, thats just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[niftydrifty]

OldReliable, I asked you a question: "do you care to respond to any of the debate questions?"

You could have saved everyone's valuable time, and simply said "no." IE., if you were to respond to others that address you.

Lastly, this thread is really about using good ol' 20-20 hindsight to judge the competency of those charged with planning and executing the Iraq war.

Nope, this thread is about statements that easyt made recently. I didn't think they were true. He thinks they're true, and I don't. It's a difference of opinion. And we're debating these differences of opinion.

If you've been there, and done that, good for you. We're doing it now. And you're adding nothing to the debate.

 

[oldreliable67]

this thread is about statements that easyt made recently. I didn't think they were true. He thinks they're true, and I don't. It's a difference of opinion. And we're debating these differences of opinion.

It isn't a debate. Its you trying to set up Easyt for what you think will be easy-pickings. To reiterate, its just mental masturbation.

Just so we're clear: I agree with some - but not all - of the arguments/quotes that you have put forth regarding who said what and when. But in putting forth those arguments, one must take into account their credibility and relevancy to policy makers at the time. For example, Jimmy Carter is certainly entitled to his opinion, as we all are. But he in no way shape or form was in any position to influence policy at the time he uttered those remarks. Consequently, his remarks cost him nothing - he had no responisbility or authority over policy at the time.

But thats not criticism of his speaking out. To his (and to the credit of others like him), he felt he owed the country the benefit of his thinking, rightly or wrongly, so he articulated his thoughts. Whether he is ultimately proven right or wrong, and regardless of one's feelings toward Carter, he added to the discourse at the time and thus performed a valuable public service.

On the other hand, consider your comment referring to the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: "but former CIA officials did know better, much better than you [referring to EAsyt65] do. they saw the situation for what it was before it happened, and said so."

Within this organization there is a mixture of former CIA personnel who came out of a CIA that had been gutted and marginalized for a number of years by a succession of budget and personnel cuts, an organization whose work product was the source of some of the same criticisms leveled at the administration. It was the CIA, after all, who said that "we would be greeted as liberators" and many of the other now infamous "slam dunk" assessments. Many of those same people responsible for the CIA's Iraq and terrorism work product make up the VIPS organization. Moreover, many of those same people are responsible for the long-running war between the WH and the CIA, availing theselves of every opportunity to bash the WH, including leaking classified info.

For some perspective on how those CIA conclusions played out with combat units during the invasion, read (as suggested earlier) Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor. Melissa Boyle Mahle offers an insider's account of the CIA in the years leading up to 9/11 in Denial and Deception: An Insider's View of the CIA From Iran-Contra to 9/11.

Clearly, just trotting a bunch of quotes made conveniently available by Google is insufficient. Dig a little deeper and examine motives and character.

I've now said my piece, so now I'll go away and let you continue uninterrupted with whatever it is that you think you're trying to accomplish.

 

[niftydrifty]

Dig a little deeper and examine motives and character.

I'll go deeper still, and examine content. While you're wondering about why they said it, or what kind of buddy they'd be at the bar ... I'm focused on "Is it true?" I'm in pursuit of the truth, thanks.

 

[easyt65]

Was the Iraq Insurgency Unexpected?
As part of the team that did the planning for OIF, YES - the Iraq insurgency, the level of participation by Iran and outside terrorists, was NOT expected!

Was this a mistake?
Considering hindsite is 20/20, YES!

THAT is all that pertains to this thread and all that needs to be said....the following is extra! Have at it!

Other related comments about previous posts:
- The problem I have with the media is that they are saying things I don't like.
-- BS! My problem with the extremely biased media is that they have had an agenda for some time now and they have strategically and systematically provided the 'news' slanted in the way THEY want the war to be seen! As I said, there has been a great deal of good done in Iraq that media like CNN refuses to show to the American people. They refuse to show ALL of the TRUTH about what is going on in Iraq while airing terrorist propoganda SNUFF FILMS of U.S. soldiers being murdered, all in the 'pursuit of TRUTH'! BS!

- Liberals and liberal media is trying to get back at the GOP for what they did to Clinton.
-- BS! You mean what the DEMOCRATS and GOP did to Clinton! Democrats voted for Clinton's Impeachment as well! Also, to correct you, the GOP didn't do anything to Clinton - he did it to himself. The guy was an habitually lying sexual preditor who sexually harrassed women and had an affain with an Intern in the White House before committing perjury and witness tampering while under oath before a Federal Grand jury, for which he was pnished by being stripped of his law liscence. During his administration he illegally collected FBI files on his enemies, committed treason by selling the Chinese military which provided them with the technology enabling them to finally reach the U.S. with its nukes one day, provided NK with the nuclear material to make its weapons, ignored a declaration of war by OBL and the ensuing murder of troops and American citizens around the world, his wife crossed a police tape to enter Vince Foster's office to steal files - which she declared she knew nothing of until they turned up in their living quarters with her fingerprints all over them....and this is only a small portion/sampling of the 'accomplishments of Bill Clinton during his 8 years in office. So, based on all this, if Clinton got $crewed, he $crewed HIMSELF! Members of his own party, as I mentioned, agreed that he deserved to be impeached because THEY voted him out as well!


- Iraqis don't want us there. Recent polls show....
As I always say, the only people who try to govern by polls are the Democrats/liberals. Yeah, 10 out of 10 insurgents want us out of Iraq. poll Question: Do you want Americans to leave Iraq - yes or no? Of course the answer is going to be yess because all Iraqis want us out eventually and to run their own country; however it is a BS question! Their military is taking over more and more of the country's defense/security, but they are not ready to do it all yet. So they ARE asking us to stay and help until they are prepared! Someone, who acknowledged they had never served in the military and that they had never been to iraq said I was definitely WRONG about my opinion here. To that, I respond with the fact that I have been to the AOR, have met Iraqis, have coordinated with Iraqi leaders, and they have overwhelmingly expressed thatthey want us to help them get strong enough to defend themselves. they know they have a big job, that terrorists are trying to keep chaos reigning in their country, that Iran has invaded - that their troops are in Iraq setting IEDs and trying to destabilize the country/goverment to be ready to 'Lebonize' Iraq the moment that we pull out! That is 1st hand experience/kjnowledge, not some dumb-@$$ed poll or opinion pulled out my rectum!