Were the objectives of the Iraq war met?

[reefedjib]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:
- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

 

[reefedjib]

As far as the objectives go, there are short-term and long-term objectives. One short-term objective is that it forced Saudi Arabia to deal with the growing Jihadist threat within that country and they did indeed deal with it. I think the number one long-term objective was to build a weapon and deploy it in the region. That weapon is a democratic Iraq and the primary target is Iran.

There is a dysfunctional democracy in Lebanon. Turkey has a democracy. And of course Israel. There are no other democratic examples. The primary target of a democratic Iraq is Iran. We can see the effects starting to cause trouble within that country.

There are two schools of political theory in the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. The Twelver sect is the dominant sect in Iraq and Iran (and other countries in the Gulf). One of these political schools is in power in Iran and is the Khomenist School. This school believes that the government is run by the clerics and so the clerics have executive power in Iran. The other school is the Quietist School headed by Ali Sistani of Iraq. This school thinks that the jurisprudence of a government should be run by the Clerics, or at least that the Quran is a leading text of jurisprudence, but that the executive is a secular function.

Since the invasion and introduction of democracy in a Quietist fashion in Iraq, there has been a lot of clerical travels between Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. Qom is the spiritual center of Iran. The Quietist school has been gaining significant ground against the Khomenist School in Qom and the real struggle in Iran is between groups of clerics over who will run the government.

This is a non-trivial result of the invasion of Iraq, and it's true long-term objective.

 

[reefedjib]

No one has a comment to make about this? I'm hurt. This idea is my baby. I mean come on! The implications are huge!

The Bush Administration kne3w exactly what they were doing from the get go. All of the turmoil immediately after the invasion was planned. The activities of General Jay Garner, followed by Paul Bremer were part of the plan. This includes things like disbanding the Iraqi Army so that the power structure of Sunnis in Iraq was broken irrepairably. This empowered the Shia so that their power base could be dominant and enable Sistani's school of political theory. It possibly goes so far as to anticipate the insurgency.

Somebody has to have something to say.

 

[American]

I think some have been met. But Iraq is out of style now.

 

[reefedjib]

Yes, so it seems. I thought my speculation that Bush wasn't dumb about the planning and had in fact choreographed this outcome would grab some people into discussion. It's such an important event and no one wants to discuss it anymore. Must be topic exhaustion.

Cheers

 

[Elena]

Was relocation of Iraq into Europe one of the objectives?

 

[bhkad]

Was relocation of Iraq into Europe one of the objectives?

That's funny.

 

[Metrophobe]

My first thought was to ask which objectives we are talking about, but then you laid out the ones you thought were important. I would be more interested in talking about what objectives were met based on what the stated objectives were at the outset of the war/invasion. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but it's a lot easier to use 20/20 hindsight to define some of these things.

I think to truly judge the success of the objectives, you would need to have a list of the real pre-war objectives.

 

[reefedjib]

My first thought was to ask which objectives we are talking about, but then you laid out the ones you thought were important. I would be more interested in talking about what objectives were met based on what the stated objectives were at the outset of the war/invasion. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but it's a lot easier to use 20/20 hindsight to define some of these things.

I think to truly judge the success of the objectives, you would need to have a list of the real pre-war objectives.

Ok, I'm down with that. Do you have that list?

 

[Arch Enemy]

I really think it depends on "whose" objectives you are talking about.

George Dubyas? Heck yeah we blew them out of the water-- his objectives were complete by the first week. You could even argue his objecteives were complete before the invasion, as most of them were baseless.

Our Armies? We're getting there. The surge and change of how we handled the population (COIN instead of Conventional Warfare) did wonders.

Our Politicans? I don't even think they know we're still there.

 

[reefedjib]

I really think it depends on "whose" objectives you are talking about.

George Dubyas? Heck yeah we blew them out of the water-- his objectives were complete by the first week. You could even argue his objecteives were complete before the invasion, as most of them were baseless.

Our Armies? We're getting there. The surge and change of how we handled the population (COIN instead of Conventional Warfare) did wonders.

Our Politicans? I don't even think they know we're still there.

I had to laugh at this, especially that last one.

Seriously, though it was Bush's objectives. He's the CIC and sets them, not the military. I truly believe that originally it was to build a democracy that could stand on its own feet, defend itself and not be a threat to its neighbors.

There was a sequence of decisions made that could only have come from Bush.
- not to install a strong man
- removal of Jay Garner from the top dog spot
- Bremer
- creation of the interim government
- disbanding the Iraqi Army!
- forming a democracy
- elections
- civic institutions

 

[Metrophobe]

Ok, I'm down with that. Do you have that list?

Ha ha! We can certainly look around and try to come up with one! I think that list is pretty hard to come by, which turns it into a list of at least mild conjecture, which means it will be hard to agree upon.

...But I'm up for it too.

Who do you think would be most likely to lay out the objectives?

Bush?
Cheney?
Rumsfeld?
Powell?
Rice?
Someone else?

 

[reefedjib]

Ha ha! We can certainly look around and try to come up with one! I think that list is pretty hard to come by, which turns it into a list of at least mild conjecture, which means it will be hard to agree upon.

...But I'm up for it too.

Who do you think would be most likely to lay out the objectives?

Bush?
Cheney?
Rumsfeld?
Powell?
Rice?
Someone else?

I think they all contributed but as I said in post #11, it was Bush's objectives. He made the final decision. That was his job.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I had to laugh at this, especially that last one.

Seriously, though it was Bush's objectives. He's the CIC and sets them, not the military. I truly believe that originally it was to build a democracy that could stand on its own feet, defend itself and not be a threat to its neighbors.

There was a sequence of decisions made that could only have come from Bush.
- not to install a strong man
- removal of Jay Garner from the top dog spot
- Bremer
- creation of the interim government
- disbanding the Iraqi Army!
- forming a democracy
- elections
- civic institutions

Bremer was by far the worst.

We disbanded the Iraqi Army and then complained when there wasn't an Iraqi Army.

Sad Days.

 

[reefedjib]

Bremer was by far the worst.

We disbanded the Iraqi Army and then complained when there wasn't an Iraqi Army.

Sad Days.

We "complained when there wasn't an Iraqi Army"? I don't remember this. I think it was a realistic excuse for why things took time to develop - we had to train a new army.

I submit that it was necesary to disband the army since it was part of the Sunni power structure in the country. To build a truly democratic Iraq, it had to go.

 

[Arch Enemy]

We "complained when there wasn't an Iraqi Army"? I don't remember this. I think it was a realistic excuse for why things took time to develop - we had to train a new army.

I submit that it was necesary to disband the army since it was part of the Sunni power structure in the country. To build a truly democratic Iraq, it had to go.

We disbanded the Iraqi army and saw similar faces shooting at us under the A.Q. flag-- A.Q. offered them money for something we wouldn't.

 

[reefedjib]

We disbanded the Iraqi army and saw similar faces shooting at us under the A.Q. flag-- A.Q. offered them money for something we wouldn't.

Ok, I agree that. It did fuel the insurgency.

It was a power structure that we broke. It tried to fight back and not go easily.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Ok, I agree that. It did fuel the insurgency.

It was a power structure that we broke. It tried to fight back and not go easily.

It was a horrible decision. Their backs were broke, their headquarters was non-existent, we took them as the arms of Saddam and we forgot that they were professional soldiers-- whose entire livelihood depended on that pay check.

Our biggest problem in Iraq was our ignorance. Bremer out of the P.A. banned Baathists above (I believe the rank was Colonel) a certain military rank and it's civilian-party equivalent. It surprised everyone when half of the entire Baghdad infrastructre was banned. Saddam gave out ranks like candy, and if you were to operate in Baghdad you sure as hell better be Baathist.

 

[reefedjib]

It was a horrible decision. Their backs were broke, their headquarters was non-existent, we took them as the arms of Saddam and we forgot that they were professional soldiers-- whose entire livelihood depended on that pay check.

Practically all officers were Sunni and significant numbers of the troops as well. They had no NCOs. They weren't very well trained. They implemented some of the grotesque actions of the Saddam regime against the Shia and the Kurds. To bring the Shia to power, they had to go.

Our biggest problem in Iraq was our ignorance. Bremer out of the P.A. banned Baathists above (I believe the rank was Colonel) a certain military rank and it's civilian-party equivalent. It surprised everyone when half of the entire Baghdad infrastructre was banned. Saddam gave out ranks like candy, and if you were to operate in Baghdad you sure as hell better be Baathist.

Same story here. We had to break the Sunni hold on power. Those dismissed civilians in the government were replaced with Shia, Kurd and non-Baathist Sunni. (keeping in mind that there were Baathist Shia and Kurd). It took some time for the new folks to get their feet under them, but they did.

The insurgency was not a surprise.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Practically all officers were Sunni and significant numbers of the troops as well. They had no NCOs. They weren't very well trained. They implemented some of the grotesque actions of the Saddam regime against the Shia and the Kurds. To bring the Shia to power, they had to go.

Ridding them of their pay checks did nothing but entice them to find a new patron. The J.A.M and Shia militants employed similar tactics against Sunni -- it wasn't a "baathist army" thing.
Oh the Kurds! They vote in Iraqi national elections, then wave the flag of "Kurdistan" (literally).

Same story here. We had to break the Sunni hold on power. Those dismissed civilians in the government were replaced with Shia, Kurd and non-Baathist Sunni. (keeping in mind that there were Baathist Shia and Kurd). It took some time for the new folks to get their feet under them, but they did.

The insurgency was not a surprise.

Get their feet under them? You mean the biggest demographic change in Baghdad since Genghis Kahn?

We gave the Shia the Sunni power structure. They went to lengths to disenfranchise Sunnis. Baathism died as soon as United States made it to Baghdad. We drew three very distinct battle lines, and we can expect the intensity to get worse within a couple of years as our biggest ally within the Shia Community comes to the end of his life, and Sadr returns (from Iran) with Ayatollah credentials.

Democracy is a noisy process.

 

[reefedjib]

Ridding them of their pay checks did nothing but entice them to find a new patron. The J.A.M and Shia militants employed similar tactics against Sunni -- it wasn't a "baathist army" thing. Oh the Kurds! They vote in Iraqi national elections, then wave the flag of "Kurdistan" (literally).

All true.

Get their feet under them? You mean the biggest demographic change in Baghdad since Genghis Kahn?

yes.

We gave the Shia the Sunni power structure. They went to lengths to disenfranchise Sunnis.

Yes.

Baathism died as soon as United States made it to Baghdad.

The formal party may have, but the same people were in positions of authority.

We drew three very distinct battle lines

Which were what?

and we can expect the intensity to get worse within a couple of years as our biggest ally within the Shia Community comes to the end of his life

Yes, I am concerned. What will happen to the Quietist school, with al-Sistani gone and al-Hakim already gone?

and Sadr returns (from Iran) with Ayatollah credentials.

Yes, should be interesting. I haven't heard anything about JAM or Sadr. What happened to his folks after al-Maliki attacked them in Basra and Sadr City? Have you heard anything?

Democracy is a noisy process.

It's messy.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Which were what?

Kurds, Sunni, and Shia -- Even though the Kurd-Shia alliance changes things ever so slightly.

Yes, I am concerned. What will happen to the Quietist school, with al-Sistani gone and al-Hakim already gone?

Same here. We will see a Shia community that swings much closer to Iranian doctrine-- that's what I think.

Yes, should be interesting. I haven't heard anything about JAM or Sadr. What happened to his folks after al-Maliki attacked them in Basra and Sadr City? Have you heard anything?

I suspect JAM is in hiding. According to his Wikipedia, Sadr is in Iran "studying to be Ayatollah". He made a visit to Turkey and Islamabad in 2009, showing his continuation to be political.

It's messy.

Necessary mess.

 

[reefedjib]

Kurds, Sunni, and Shia -- Even though the Kurd-Shia alliance changes things ever so slightly.

Oh, right. They definetly have a lot of enthic and sectarian challenges. Fault lines.

Same here. We will see a Shia community that swings much closer to Iranian doctrine-- that's what I think.

I don't know a lot about the inner workings of the Shia political community. I know there is strong feeling in the Shia community to NOT be influenced by Iran. There is SCIRI (or whatever its new name is), DAWA, Sadr. It will be interesting!

I suspect JAM is in hiding. According to his Wikipedia, Sadr is in Iran "studying to be Ayatollah". He made a visit to Turkey and Islamabad in 2009, showing his continuation to be political.

This is the first I had heard he went to Turkey and Pakistan. Interesting. He's a chubby boy.

Necessary mess.

Yep

 

[MSgt]

The consequences are still unfolding, but in the main, were the objectives met?

I would say the fundamental objective was to create a democracy. There are both strong indicators that his was accomplished:
- Parliament
- coalition government
- operating ministries
- military
- police
- regulatory framework
- provential elections
- local government

and strong indicators that there are difficulties:
- failure to build effective bridges between ethnic groups
- funding difficulties
- corruption

On balance though, it seems to be working.

The difficulties were never our problem. We did exactly what we set out to do. Whether or not they can take advantage of the opportunity, which they would not have gotten otherwise, is up to them.

 

[MSgt]

The Bush Administration knew exactly what they were doing from the get go.

No they didn't. They ignored every rule of "Occupation: 101," set the military up for disaster, and hoped for the best. As it turned out, placing their money on the U.S. military to pull off their half-assed planning and ignorance was in their best interest. And by 2006, Bush finally recognized that...

1) Rumsfeld had to go,
2) he had to seek the advice from regional experts like Vali Nasr, and
3) and he had to finally trust those in uniform when it comes to warfare over idiot civilians who have never even served.

They didn't have a clue what they were doing. And Rumsfeld sacrificed far too many military lives just to conlcude that his theories of warfare were incorrect.