Pajamas Media

48 Comments

1. Nick G.:

Good article Michael. While I agree with the premise, I think the transformation of the region would have required, and still requires, a hands-on approach in all of these areas. Yes, a constitutional Iraq could have — and now, hopefully will — help reform parts of the Mideast.

But Iran needed to be confronted directly. A hands-off, wait-and-see-what-Iraq-does policy was never a wise one, and it still isn’t. Ditto that with Syria and Lebanon. Even though democracy in Iraq encouraged the Lebanese to kick the Syrians out, Hezbollah was never going to crumble once the Iraqis had the right to vote. True revolutionary change requires sustained pressure on all of the regions.

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:45 pm 2. Marc Malone:

Stupid article. Monday morning quarterbacking. You’re assuming that we could have won it without AQ instituting Sharia Law in areas of resistance. Once people got a taste of terrorist medicine, then they were willing to change sides.

Even if we could have won, no one knew how back then. Bush 41 stayed out of Iraq after Desert Storm, because his generals said it couldn’t be won. Guerrilla wars have heretofore been insoluble. I can’t think of even one that was crushed so thoroughly.

It took a new theory of war, and the President had to be wise enough to recognize the plan’s validity, and resolute enough to push forward against the tide of public opinion. He also had to ram it through a hostile Dem Congress, when he had no political capital. What Bush did was impossible, and people don’t even know it.

So, it wasn’t done perfectly, but no one else would have done it any better. Most would not have won it at all.

The Dems would’ve bailed for sure. We’d've taken more losses getting out than staying. AQ would’ve had a great victory. Their status, morale, fundraising, and recruitment would all have soared while ours would’ve tanked. Our interests across the globe would’ve come under heavy attack, as we became perceived as being weak. It would’ve taken us years to recover from such a defeat, just like ‘Nam.

President Bush won. It wasn’t pretty, but it was a win. And no one can honestly say they could’ve done any better under the circumstances. Bush made some 4th-qtr adjustments and got a BIG come-from-behind win. Does anyone realize how bad AQ looks after they let that victory slip away? Don’t forget to look at the view from the opponent’s side. It was an ugly, ugly loss for them. They had it in the bag… and lost. Ours was a great victory. An impossible victory.

So, STFU!

Feb 14, 2009 - 2:35 am 3. njcommuter:

Let’s see it from the other side. Our enemies, all of then enemies of freedom, managed to stave off disaster. But they were badly hurt and, if Obama can’t give it all away, we have a presence in the region and our way of life has a presence in the region, imperfect though it is.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:39 am 4. ligneus:

Who’s to say that whatever the US had done that the insurgency and Al Qaeda involvement wouldn’t have happened, and maybe it was a necessary thing for the Iraqis to look into the abyss of sectarian war as a reality check on the choice before them, much as Germany and Japan needed the horrors of total war to purge the militarism and expansionism from their respective countries.
A question for all the armchair and lefty critics. And the consequences of your apathetic do nothing approach would have been what? A continuance of a despotic and dysfunctional Iraq along with the rest of the dysfunctional Arab states, the underground spread of nuclear weapons courtesy of Khan and the boost it would have given to a virulent and confident Islamism? Lovely scenario.
Meantime, well done GWB, Petraeus and the US Military.

Feb 14, 2009 - 5:28 am 5. Emphasis:

When a democracy feels it is necessary to go into a war it should fight to win fast and thoroughly, there can not be any sanctuary given to the enemy. If because of the military might or weapons in the hands of your potential adversary the leaders do not feel this can be done they should not start the war.

When you fight against an enemy which is totalitarian or dictatorial in nature your war must be personal. As he does not care for anyone around him other than himself and those he loves, the dictator must be assured that he and them will not survive the war.

Our biggest advantage was that militarily we could not be defeated. We could have put it to Syria and Iran’s leaders that either they would close their frontier to infiltration into Iraq, or we would go in militarily, eliminate them, and leave the country with a demand to those now in power that they secure their frontier, or face again the same military juggernaut.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:03 am 6. Perfected Democrat:

Excellent comments from Marc Malone. This article is just more of the old “if we had just used 400,000 troops” it all would have been faster, better, cheaper, blah, blah… Well, the muslim world has a knack for making life difficult for the non-muslim world, and a horror for their own innocent. Actually the execution of the war was masterful, we were very lucky to have the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and company. “So, STFU!”

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:15 am 7. MarkD:

We should have forced Hussein’s mother to abort him, thus saving the day with even less expenditure of life and money. As long as we’re dealing with woulda, shoulda and coulda, think big. Why does PJM allow this drivel?

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:27 am 8. Ret7army:

Mike R. should read a bit of Mike Yon’s work and better yet have a good long sit down discussion with him after getting the preliminary homework done. My reason for thinking this is that this article gets rather flimsy at the end…my impression is of a dog that barks a couple of times and then whines and rolls over. Were mistakes made? Certainly, Yon will be happy to point our several (I don’t want to agree with him, but he has the virtue of being there, boots on the ground, with briefings and patrols with those that should know). On the other hand, AQI needed to be decisively crushed, that took time, numbers (surge), and the savvy of several people, not the least being Gen Patreaus.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:43 am 9. Kyle Godfrey:

So, is it the Bush administration’s fault or military commanders that there weren’t “enough” troops in-country following the fall of Saddam and the Ba’ath party?

So-called “Monday morning quarterbacking” is crucial in learning from past mistakes, successes, and and all the in betweens; as well as to examine what choices for similar situations in the future could produce a more positive outcome. I think more scrutiny is due upon Paul Bremer & the CPA, granted, Bremer was appointed to head the reconstruction by President Bush.

There are many lessons to be learned from Iraq, as is the case with all wars & major international actions. It is imperative that we examine Iraq and the steps taken soon after the fact, as we know, history has a way of getting skewed.

Above all, I am thankful for President Bush & his will to stay in the fight and not back down from the terrorists attempting to tear Iraq apart at the seams. Our nation is forever in debt to General Petraeus and the troops he lead during the surge that turned that nation around and perhaps began a new era in Middle East politics.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:52 am 10. goy:

- Let’s not deceive ourselves into believing that the surge made up for prior missteps.

Let’s not deceive ourselves into believing that the above represents anything other than the torching of a straw man.

The notions of “a consistently competent Iraq policy”, “one blunder after another” and “the proper number of troops” only exist in the insular context of 20/20 hindsight. Every armed conflict is an education involving lost battles and failed/corrected strategies, and Iraq was no exception. Iraq was unique in this regard because the goalposts defining victory were constantly shifted by the left and their fifth column media throughout. This article is reminiscent of that effort.

The purpose of victory in war is never to “make up for” anything. It’s purpose is to resolve conflict in the best interests of the victorious parties. Period. Second-guessing that victory by imposing the constraints of unreal perfection, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a fantastical view of the reasons for the conflict’s lack of popularity, is ground better ceded to the hysterical, anti-American left – don’t you think?

It was in the best interests of the U.S. and its allies that Saddam’s destabilizing, tyrannical, illegitimate rule be ended, that the country be pacified and that its governance be returned to the control of its people so they could recover – not only from the conflict itself, but also from the destructive effects of Saddam’s decades of abuse. Every single one of those objectives was met in this conflict.

To that list another objective was added after the initial conflict was resolved: crushing al Qaeda’s subsequent campaign of terrorism aimed at destabilization. That objective was met as well, but not before the entrenched media spent years misrepresenting this aspect as something that should somehow have been anticipated.

Bush’s major strategic error is typically cited as Bremer’s disbanding the Iraqi Army, and his restrictions with respect to the Ba’athists. But neither Bremer nor Bush was acting in a vacuum, they were acting based on advice and direction provided by others in Washington.

The point our lying media consistently avoided as they pursued their 24/7/365 attacks against the Bush Administration, was that Washington was still following failed Clinton policies regarding al Qaeda, et al., throughout 2003. As an organization they were still seen as a criminal element requiring a law enforcement solution. They were not seen as a virtual nation capable of fielding a large military force.

This policy continued until it was blatantly obvious that it was suicidal. The biggest error Bush made was in kidding himself for so long regarding the validity of his predecessor’s policy. In that I will wholeheartedly concede that they blinded themselves to the facts even after their commanders on the ground were telling them otherwise (Michael Yon’s book addresses this – highly recommended). But that is very different from the common assertions that they went in either “willfully ignorant” or thinking it would be “easy”, and that this was the reason why there weren’t “enough troops”.

There was another factor at work during exactly this same period, which speaks directly to the appearance of a botched military campaign. Once Saddam was ousted – because of the erroneous policy being followed regarding al Qaeda, et al., and in keeping with the pattern that had worked in Japan and Germany, and to a lesser extent, in Italy after WWII – Washington, through Bremer, almost immediately shifted into “reconstruction” mode. In fact, the reconstruction was almost immediately interrupted by an ensuing conflict. And that is the key to understanding the false history that Bush handled the war “ineptly”.

Upon the cessation of major combat operations (i.e., against Saddam’s Republican Guard), Washington (notably: not just Evil W. Bush) immediately began doing reconstruction. During this process, they were simply unwilling, for too long, to accept that al Qaeda, et al., were not just a bunch of loosely organized criminals, as the Clinton administration intelligence (which had also cheerfully handed us 9/11) had led them to believe. They were also unwilling, for too long, to accept the damage that could be done when al Qaeda and ilk began working toward fomenting Sunni/Shia civil war. That’s why we kept getting the statements that things would settle down “Real Soon Now”.

The re-surgence of violence had the combined effect of completely destroying almost all reconstruction efforts and giving the appearance that the military wasn’t handling things appropriately. The bottom line is that one doesn’t fight off an invading guerrilla force using a conventional army recently re-tasked for a reconstruction mission, but that’s effectively what went on. This is the key to understanding why Bremer failed so spectacularly while the Surge, which was essentially a change in tactics with only a nominal increase in troop strength, was so successful.

But the Anti-Bush Party – founded by the hysterical political left when Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in 2000 – amplified all this to fantastical proportions with the cheerful help of their lapdogs in the entrenched media. They consistently ignored the realities and (certainly) any positive outcomes, and focused instead on hyperbolic or utterly false narratives about Abu Ghraib, Korans in toilets, lies about what the Bush Administration knew/didn’t know, lies about warrantless wiretaps, lies about what Joe Wilson didn’t find in Africa, lies about “outing” Valerie Plame, lies about the Duelfer report and lies about Haditha – representing our efforts in Iraq as Needless War™ characterized by “one blunder after another”.

Instead of working together for victory through a shift in strategy when it was called for, Bush’s political enemies misrepresented and politicized the conflict in order to provide news cycle fodder for his daily demonization. That political mendacity worked, and it gave us a Democrat Congress in 2006, as well as the socialist empty suit now feverishly writing Executive Orders and signing laws the likes of which we haven’t seen since FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court with leftist justices.

But we get it. Victory in Iraq wasn’t achieved perfectly – like every other military victory in history. Thanks for that exciting news flash.

Bush is no longer President. Can we move on to more pressing issues now?

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:59 am 11. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

Disenfranchised Sunnis threaten stability again.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/62175.html

Now what about that drawdown?

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:05 am 12. David W. Lincoln:

As long as the animosity towards Wafa Sultan, Bat Yeor, Nonie Darwish, and the rest of the doughty folk who write in the same vein is what it is amongst the Sons of Allah (to use Orianna Fallaci’s description), then the reins of government have to be removed from them.

For the definition of peace being submission is too narrow a definition for life to be what it can be.

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:29 am 13. KP:

I agree that this is a useless analysis. The third possible option is just daydreaming. There is nothing substantive here. One can dream up as many fictional scenarios as one likes – it doesn’t change history. Just pure speculation.

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:33 am 14. D. Grant Chee----:

U.S. citizens have been split on our efforts to
do preventative war in the ME region. It is
great to see our troops victorious –despite
the undermining pundits–elected and amateur.
I agree that every major player is to be thanked and given the respect and honor they earned the
old fashioned way-leting their actions speak for
the truth. Thanks to Bush and his every subordinate-the mission IS accomplished. Islamo-
facist are on notice—we’re coming, unless they
repent and crawl back under their rock–for a
season. They will resurface–Mo’s orders.

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:49 am 15. BC:

Ummm, I hate to break the news (well, maybe “hate” is not quite the right word….), but Iraq was an end to end disaster — it’s laughable to even imply that there was any sort of success in that sorry, bloody enterprise.

Lest you are completely uninformed on what happened: the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 — Bush simply implemented a long-standing policy wish by this numbnutted, American Enterprise Institute-affiliated, right-wing frat house called the Partners for a New American Century, aka the PNAC. Bush’s intial cabinet was loaded with PNAC members (and Bush’s brother Jeb was/is a PNAC member as well.) Apparently, if you put all the publicly available sources together, Hussein was in Bush’s crosshairs shortly after Bush became elected, but supposedly only Paul Wolfowitch, the then Vice Secretary Of Defense (and yes, a PNAC member), was pushing for a military overthrow of Hussein before 9/11. After 9/11, though, it was a different matter: despite zero confirmable evidence for Hussein having WMD’s and evidence actually pointing *away* from Hussein having any ties to al-Qaeda or even supporting any terrorist organizations outside of the Palestinians, the decision was made to invade Iraq and remove Hussein. The reasons given were end to end BS.

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the least personally believed that Hussein still had WMD’s despite any real supporting evidence, but instead of ramping up intel to get better info, all non-supporting intel for their beliefs was simply deliberately ignored. Evidently the “thinking” was that once US military troops seized control of Iraq, and every door knocked down and every rock overturned, the WMD stuff would somehow turn up. Imagine if cops used this “logic”.

Colin Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming force was replaced with Rumsfeld’s notion of employing fast-moving, relatively lightly armored troops utilizing the latest and greatest in hi-tech toys and air power. We know how well that little plan worked out.

By the time the “surge” was implemented, the war was burning itself out on its own accord: the Iraqi people were tiring of all the death and destruction, really fed up with both al-Qaeda and the US screwing around with them, and even missing Hussein — he may have been brutal, but he kept civil order, including keeping the Sunnis and Shi’ites away from each other’s throats. At best the surge only sped things up a little bit. The fame that Iraqi shoe-thrower so quickly achieved pretty much encapsulates how the Iraqis genuinely feel about US efforts to “liberate” them.

The bottom line is that there is nothing good whatsoever to be said about our invasion of Iraq — nothing.

Feb 14, 2009 - 11:25 am 16. cedarford:

Rappaport gives a good basic “lessons learned” commentary.
Die-hard supporters of Maximum Beloved War Leader Dubya of course object, but the basic lessons are pretty much agreed on by senior levels in the US military, by strategic analysts here and in foreign nations. The US had too few soldiers, had made no concrete plans for what to do AFTER Baghdad fell, and made a disastrous series of decisions in the 1st 16 months. Not just the Bremer decisions, but triumphant Neocon saber-rattling about how wonderful it would be for their Special Friend if America then took down it’s other two big enemies – Iran and Syria – right after we “finished” in Iraq.
This created the Sunnis with nothing to lose and committed almost to a man to defending Sunni neighborhoods & killing Americans in the Insurgency with Syria and other nations sympathetic to their co-religionists allowing Iraqis to muster men and material on their soil….which the Neocons had said was the next target.
And the complete breakdown of law and order allowed competing Shiite Militias to run wild and further tie Americans down and do some serious killing and maiming with Iranian training and EFPs, mortars, missiles. Which further neutralized US ability to have any credibility of attacking Iran for regime change. And also created a political stalemate as both Sunni and Shia were more interested in killing and dying to get power than in the US Army handing out soccer balls for girls in whatever schools were still functioning.

AQ was not a big factor in the basic post-invasion conflict. They were only opportunists sent in to make things worse and take potshots at foreign coalition troops wherever possible. Shiites killed or maimed more Americans and Sunnis than AQ did, and Sunnis killed and made casualties of lots more Americans than AQ. Then AQ overreached and not only alienated Shiites by bombing their sacred places and doing mass killings by bombs in marketplaces – they also became so brutal that the main killers of Americans – the Sunnis screwed by Bremer so much – offered to switch sides and kill AQ for US backing, money, and agreement to not go after Sunni killers of US “Heroes”.

(Iraqi Sunnis produced 70% of US casualties, Shiite Militias 20%, and foreign fighters, inc. AQ – only 10%.)

We were smart enough to agree to this.

Hence the Surge and the strategic defeat of AQI by Sunnis and a wised-up US military after the domestic purge of Neocons and those conservative radicals advocating a broad regional conflict.

******************

Emphasis – Our biggest advantage was that militarily we could not be defeated. We could have put it to Syria and Iran’s leaders that either they would close their frontier to infiltration into Iraq, or we would go in militarily, eliminate them, and leave the country with a demand to those now in power that they secure their frontier, or face again the same military juggernaut.

Our military’s ground forces were tapped out. We were very close to defeat by late 2005. We had lost almost all of Bush’s hapless “Coalition of the Willing” by 2005, and few remaining..Britain and a couple of small contingents from E European countries had decided to simply show the flag, then bunker down.
By 2004 both Iran and Syria had assessed the US was stuck in Iraq with no ability to affect events elsewhere except by mass bombing campaigns the rest of the world would oppose (except America’s Special Friend) that would do little but destroy some military capacity, kill lots of civilians, while leaving the ruling networks of the Syrian and Iranian regime in power, perhaps sans a few leaders…So it was safe to flip the bird at the US. Something the NORKs, Bolivia, Ecuador, Pakistan, Hugo Chavez and even “the Special Friend” with announcement 50,000 new Settlers were being established in E Jerusalem and West Bank did as well after late 2003…Even Russia and China rousted the US out of its oil and king-making machinations in Central Asia…then Russia pounded the crap out of Georgia as a hapless Bush Administration sputtered but could do nothing to stop it.

And the worst thing was that in 2002 the argument was made that our success in Afghanistan would be jeopardized by becoming overly involved in Iraq. Most of us believed that this was not a concern because Iraq would be a fast war and not tie up all our ground forces. But it effectively did and stripped manpower out of Afghanistan and we basically sat around looking for a few “high value” terrorist targets as the Taliban and elements of AQ rebuilt.
Now the Russian generals see what is happening and believe that the US and NATO are on the same track to losing as they were 25 years ago.

****************
Time will tell if one trillion spent, 42,000 casualties and the Afghanistan War looking to be lost or compromised with the Taliban returning to full or part-power over Afghanistan and Pashtun areas of Pakistan was worth establishing the 6th Islamic Democracy (after various iterations in Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Iran, and now Indonesia) and the 1st fragile Arab Islamist democracy – with Iran as at least as influential in processes happening and policies drafted in Iraq as the US is and was..
(Key among manifestations are the 2006 treaties allowing large movement of Iranians inside Iraq, and a mutual defense treaty that says the US may not use Iraqi air or soil as a staging ground for attacking Iran unless the US is attacked 1st..and never will the Zionists be allowed to attack Iran through Iraq without full Iraqi resistance…)

Feb 14, 2009 - 11:54 am 17. Mike O:

The was actually an important positive result of the ‘years of incompetance; the militias and AQI gained control. And the Iraqi people got a taste of that, which they wouldn’t have otherwise. AQI and Al Sadr always talked a good story but until they were actually running things, the Iraqi people could not have possibly realized what vicious goons they were. Without those year, there would have been no Awakening of the people to reject extremism. And that is the lesson that will carry the Iraqi people through, and possibly others in the region.

The Iraqis are lucky we were there when they made THEIR decision to fight; of course, if we listened to people like our new Commander-in-Chief, we would not have been.

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:54 pm 18. Michael Rappaport:

I see that my essay is drawing forth objections from the commentators. Those knees are jerking consistently. So let me try to answer some of these points.

First, the essay was not an attempt to detail the errors of the Bush Administration. I don’t really mention any errors except in general terms. The point was to show that without many of those errors the results might have been much better.

Second, read the essay. I do not argue that the Iraq policy failed. I argue it has been a success. I supported the Iraq War and continue to do so. What I criticize are the errors.

Third, it is not Monday morning quarterbacking to point out mistakes on Monday that one also pointed out on Sunday during the game. Sorry it was obvious that more troops were needed and it was obvious that General Casey’s policy of drawing down the troops was a recipe for disaster.

Fourth, no one has more respect for General Petraeus than I do. The man is an American hero and extremely competent. General Petraeus was in Iraq in 2003. When Bremer sought to implement the de-Baathification decree, Petraeus tried to convince him that this was a mistake. But Bremer wouldn’t listen. These are not simply mistakes. These are incompetent errors. Read Linda Robinson’s excellent Tell Me How This Ends, General Petraeus David Petraeus and the Search for a Way Out of Iraq.

If one honors General Petraeus, then one must also criticize General Casey and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for most part, President Bush. On the other hand, Bush finally did get it in the end. And we should be thankful for that. But that does mean the errors did not have big consequences, which was the point of the essay.

Fifth, other Bush Administration people also were incompetent. Condi Rice was a force for some very bad things, including not having a democratic structure that included significant checks and balances. And many Administration officials just said, the hell with the Sunnis, the Shites are the majority. That way led to disaster.

Finally, the commentators here seem to have been so beaten up by the liberal media that they cannot distinguish between friendly constructive criticism and liberal bashing. I supported and support the war. But there is no advantage to circling the wagons and not realizing what went right, what went wrong, and what was lost through the mistakes.

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:56 pm 19. Charlie:

Back in 2002, I very much favored the liberation of Iraq from Saddam.

Looking back in 2009, I find myself amazed that it has been accomplished as rapidly and with as little loss of US military and Iraqi civilian life as has occurred. The degree of democratization and stability in Iraq governance is turning out better than I hoped also.

Anyone, like Rappaport, who believes you can remake deeply troubled societies without an extended period of purging the old venoms is just plain naive. The years of turmoil may prove a boon for Iraq in the long run as mostly it was bad actors eliminating other bad actors. They also served as a stark demonstration to the citizenry of the overwhelming importance of striving for a better system.

My hat is off to the Iraqi people. I just hope we don’t proceed from here to screw up the most promising development in the region in my lifetime.

Feb 14, 2009 - 1:58 pm 20. Bilgeman:

#2 Marc Malone:

“. Guerrilla wars have heretofore been insoluble. I can’t think of even one that was crushed so thoroughly.”

The Malay Insurgency of the late 1950’s early 1960’s. The British decided to stay and fight the CT’s, (Communist Terrorists), in order to bequeath a functioning parliamentary democracy to Malaysia once they withdrew.

The 3rd Reich. It was censored, but the Allies were executing Operation Werewolf Nazi guerrillas up until 1947, and liberally jailing anyone who so much as uttered a “Sieg Heil” or whistled the “Horst Wessel Lied”.

And, the Confederate States of America, which insurgency, the Ku Klux Klan, has simmered on for decades, and morphed into a criminal racist group that doesn’t even remember that they were originally founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest as a querrila organization.

All three insurgencies, and all three unsuccesful in the face of an occupying force with overwhelming military might.

The operative word being “occupying”.

“The Dems would’ve bailed for sure.”

I disagree.

The Dems would never have went in the first place, and we’d still be dickin’ around with the pathetically laughable UN sanctions while Sadaam was busy pursuing whatever schemes he’d gotten into.
Including the reasonable assumption of subsidizing AQ, as long as their operations remained offshore from Iraq.

Feb 14, 2009 - 2:07 pm 21. Charlie:

I see that while I was typing, Rappaport was posting.

Let me just reply.

You don’t come across at all as friendly constructive criticism. You come across as Monday morning quarterbacking, as one commenter said.

By now I’ve read scores of such pieces, all alluding to the “errors that were made” but failing to elucidate even one (or running the standard “Rumsfeld was wrong” laundry list.

Read some history. War is overwhelmingly missteps together with expedients that work in the long run but look ugly at the time. In contemporary times, we have both an entrenched opportunistic opposition to any exertion of power by the US and a class of well-meaning but unworldly elite commentators. Both seize on every misstep that comes to light as evidence that our effort is horribly misguided.

How I long for the days when Americans had the fortitude to see tough jobs through.

Feb 14, 2009 - 2:10 pm 22. David Thomson:

“Finally, the commentators here seem to have been so beaten up by the liberal media that they cannot distinguish between friendly constructive criticism and liberal bashing.”

I completely agree. As matter of fact, Michael Rappaport seems to be on the same page with Victor Davis Hanson. The latter gentleman also took to task the Bush administration for its initial mistakes in Iraq. It is my very strong belief that George W. Bush’s political correct inclinations worsened the situation considerably. There is something else that must be addressed: the study of history normally engages in “Monday morning quarterbacking”! We often do indeed learn much from a “hindsight is 20/20″ perspective.

Feb 14, 2009 - 2:24 pm 23. sherlock:

I wonder if the willingness of Bush’s political opponents to use the very ordinary mistakes of the early war to demonize him had any effect?

The fact that the US was NOT an imperial power, and Bush was not an Emperor meant that we had to learn occupation on the job, and we naturally stumbled. But the Democrats and the media went beyond legitimate criticism into demonization, and then were unable to stop themselves from falling over the precipice into the treachery of giving encouragement to the enemy.

Bush was one of the relatively few in Washington who legitimately saw this as a war of liberation, which it was, and not just a political football, which his political enemies transformed it into.

I voted for Gore in 2000 by the way, but I will never vote for another Democrat for as long as I live. Anyone who writes of Bush’s mistakes and does not also write of the fifth-column that the Democrats and the media became at home is working with blinders on, and their conclusions are worthless.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:10 pm 24. Roborob:

Sherlock has the right of it: the Democratic Party did not like being out of power, and pulled every lever at its disposal to right the ship. Consequences be damned. Perception is a very important element to success in the Middle East, and the constant drubbing the Bush administration endured following Katrina really put the entire effort in jeopardy. That to me is the single point source of failure for the entire administration. They got no breaks and nothing but derision following that storm and the mishandling by local authorities that were attributed to Bush and the administration set the tone for the jackals in the press to hound him forever more.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:50 pm 25. Wadeusaf:

Michael Rappaport draws a fairly meaningless bit of prose from the what could have been a very good discourse on the battle for Iraq. What would have or could have made a difference given the size of forces the uncertainty about the intentions of the Baathist members of the military and former baathist party members of the regime.

What is given is that the decision to go into Iraq was not taken lightly, nor was it reckless. However, much of the efforts that had to be undertaken were duplicative of the ground work that should have been done, and was ordered to be done under President Clinton, and been easily amended to the needs of the Bush adminestration. It was not. The DoS, the CIA and parts of the DoD failed to fulfill their obligation under the Clinton era law declaring our goal in Iraq was regime change. The contacts that were never made, the resources that were never prepared and the elements of “free Iraq” that were never consulted honestly just astounds me. That the Iraqi army needed to be disbanded and rebuilt from scratch, including NCO and Officer Corps, is not so surprising as the fact that the apparatus did not completely fall apart in its infancy following the golden mosque bombing.

That the Sunni had to undergo such tribulation before joining the rest of Iraq in a republic is not surprising. That they did so so soon with such dedication and success is.

I think the democracy movement in the region will rebound, without the rose colored glasses it will be stronger and more reasoned. Unless of course, we blow it. I would have liked to have seen more listing of the facts that led the author to his conclusions. I can supply support for my opinion.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:50 pm 26. Marc Malone:

Michael Rappaport – Not knowing your history, I will concede that you perhaps made legitimate criticisms way back when. The point is, we’ll never really know if other processes would have worked. Certainly Powell called for overwhelming force, but was it available, and would it have worked? I think not.

We had overwhelming force in Vietnam, won every battle, but eventually lost. The most important thing there was that we used a firebase system. We had to reconquer the teritory every day. The Surge was effective because we decided to actually hold the territory we’d taken. This was a new strategy.

It still comes down, however, to hearts and minds. In Vietnam and Iraq, the press opposed the conflict, and the people were against it. Even in victory (in Iraq), it became, at best, a non-story. But for the Iraqis, it was a different story. The Awakening was the key to victory. This is generally accepted. Without suffering through the savagery of their own people, without their war-fatigue, the Surge would not have succeeded. Without the Surge, we would not have been in a position to take advantage of the war-fatigue, nor to create a Democracy.

In this vein, overwhelming force would have suppressed the resistance, as long as we kept the force in country… but only as long. The Awakening had to happen. The sectarian violence had to happen.

I have a lot of knowledge of military history, and am also known in my experienced group as an excellent tactician and strategist. I can honestly say that I can’t see the war having developed better in any way. If we had occupied territory, we’d've repressed the violence that was key to victory. The one exception is that we might have kept our casualties down a bit better. Still, even that implies that we could’ve anticipated the clever tactics the insurgents came up with.

Critiquing is important in order to learn lessons, but don’t make the mistake of hubris. Don’t assert that other things would’ve been better for sure. That was the problem I had with the tone of the article: You lacked self-doubt. A few “might-haves” would have made the article more well-received.

Feb 14, 2009 - 4:09 pm 27. John D:

A constant refrain of critics of GWB, Rumsfeld and the Iraq War is that we should have used more troops.

But where were these troops to come from?

The numbers that they claim should have been send exceeded the entire troops strength of the military even if you ignore the fact that it was primarily ground combat which made it an Army and Marine show.

We took troops out of Europe, Japan and Korea but had to keep enough to fulfill our commitments. We had to keep sufficient troops in the U.S. to provide reinforcements and to rotate in to relieve the initial combat troops. We had already activated numerous Guard and Reserve units.

Did they think we could just give Airmen and Sailors M-16s and send them out with the Army and Marines?

Did they think that you just send everyone and keep them there with no relief?

That would have been stupid and unsustainable. It shows what a vast gap there is between perception and reality. People hear that Bush should have used more troops, but they never think about what sending more troops would have required. They just nod their heads and say “that’s right”.

Feb 14, 2009 - 5:54 pm 28. john from cinncinatti:

the big old army report on its actions in Iraq and the ensuing self corrections helped win this war. yes the evil Bush made every effort to win it and he did make mistakes, the law of unintended consequences was kept at bay. well to paraphrase the campaigner in chief”we won”. it was ugly win but i’ll take it. so what are the consequences? Democracy in the Middle East or Sharia law in Europe, go ahead pick one.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:42 pm 29. ARJIS:

“With the insurgency leading to increased American casualties and costs, the war soon became unpopular domestically, and it became clear that the United States was no longer a threat to invade any other countries in the region. Its influence waned, and its enemies, especially Iran, have grown bolder.”

Combining the events referred to in the above quote, with the Left promoting the domestic anti-war sentiment, Iran has now taken that “boldness” and believes it holds some good cards with which to deal with the present Administration. The President’s recent remarks to the Muslim world seem to infer the US was in the wrong by embarking in our war on terror, in my opinion.

The Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released on 2/12/09, shows there will be some major differences that will need to be overcome before the US and Iran can “unclench their fists” and explore “potential avenues for progress”.

http://arjis.blogspot.com/2009/02/lets-be-friends-obama-says-to-iran.html

Feb 14, 2009 - 7:20 pm 30. Terry Gain:

Great comments goy and Marc Malone. Considering the amount and viciousness of the attacks in America upon President Bush throughout the war it’s remarkable and to his credit that so much has been accomplisehd.

The opponents of Bush in America have not been fixed with the reponsibilty they bear for extending the war by giving hope and encouragement to the insurgents. One day, likely in 2005, Ted Kennedy loudly pronounced that Iraq was a quagmire and within days his words were repeated by al Sadr. I’ve no doubt the daily attacks upon Bush gave great encouragement to the insurgents.

Rapaport’s article adds nothing to what we know about the war. He talks about blunders without any analysis. Bush couldn’t have sent more troops. There were no more troops to send. If the Iraq army had not been broken up whose side would they have fought on? Obviously they had to be built from the ground up – and infused with our military’s ethos. An earlier surge without the surge of Iraqi forces wouldn’t have worked. The Sunnis needed to experience the brutality of al QAeda and the honor of American forces before they awakened to the differences.

Perhaps if he analyzed the significant role played by al Qaeda at least one verbose commenter at this site might have learned something and not bore us again with his anti-neocon silliness. I read MSF-Iraq every day after the Surge and it was apparent that the Surge was targeting al Qaeda – and then peace broke out. And the media denied al Qaeda’s role throughout.

I find it ironic that Rapaport muses about the kind of democracy Iraq may become – given the recent election as POTUS of someone who favored the first(the diastrous one) of the three scenarios set out.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:22 pm 31. goy:

Michael, the fact that Petraeus turned out to be right is precisely the point I made up above – it’s not something that could have been known with certainty, absent the events that followed. And I maintain that criticizing errors that were made in good faith – based on the information available and policies in effect at the time – is simply pointless backbiting.

Far more useful would be to take into consideration the full spectrum of events and actions that led to and confounded this conflict. Perhaps start with the fecklessness of the U.N. and how their ineptitude led to the conflict in the first place. Or maybe discuss the duplicity of China, Russia and France, whose conflicts of interest corrupted the international resolve that would have pressured Saddam to abdicate. Consider the politicization of the conflict by the Anti-Bush Party and the distractions provided by their media’s relentless bashing, which transformed all military decisions into political ones. There’s plenty of blame to go around if that’s what you’re into.

It is hardly “circling the wagons” to point this out. It is certainly useful to understand what went right/wrong in this situation, since we may find ourselves fighting this same war over again in Iran or Pakistan. But it’s simply not “constructive” to fantasize about what “might have been” while cherry-picking the Bush Administration’s errors and just ignoring all others’.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:24 pm 32. cedarford:

John from Cincinnati – Democracy in the Middle East or Sharia law in Europe, go ahead pick one.

Doesn’t work that way. Where you have democracy in Muslim countries, the people vote in more Islamic Law.
See Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey recently, Hamas elections, and now Bush’s “the noble purple-fingered freedom lovers!!! of Iraq” just added a wad of Islamic restrictions as the official law of the land.
If the people of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, perhaps Egypt were allowed a vote we know where it would end. Sharia and radical Islam in charge.

*************
John D:
A constant refrain of critics of GWB, Rumsfeld and the Iraq War is that we should have used more troops.
But where were these troops to come from?

Certainly not from the children of Neocons or any other Americans, for that matter, lining up at recruiting stations all over the country, begging to volunteer to fight and if need be, to die, so the “noble Iraqis” would be liberated and free.

Certainly not more troops from any other country in the region, who called the US preemptive war a “huge mistake”. Of course, there is “Our Special Friend”…but no other nation on the planet would have Israeli forces on the same battlefield with them and damage their international reputation and their other existing alliances.

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:07 pm 33. Phoenix48:

10. goy:

An incisive analysis of what became a tragic wreck of what should have been. But isn’t this exactly what Michael implied?

What galls me, besides Goy’s excellent summation of how the Dem’s wontonly politizied the effort for partisan domestic advantage – and the media’s disgraceful assistance – is that if Bush had Sarkozy & Merkel to go with Tony Blair in 2002 – instead of two key European allies intent on undermining anything we did – in all likelihood the failure to jettison the Clintonian view wouldn’t have been so disastrous.

Because it wouldn’t have mattered. The inevitable mistakes that happen wouldn’t have been happening in real time in a shooting theater. It would have still been expensive – but it wouldn’t have been BLOODY expensive. For us or Iraqi’s.

Would there have been an insurgency without pourous borders to the West in Syria or the East in Iran if France and Germany more closely resembled it’s current leadership in 2002? Not only wouldn’t the region have remained a magnet for foreign fighters – they wouldn’t have been so well funded.

What if the Europeans had embraced Turkey (Into the Union AND NATO) and our forces could have pursued the original invasion strategy? Or if as a condition for such a coveted alliance – which Turkey has been pursuing ever since Kennedy pulled out missles to placate Kruschev – Condi Rice worked overtime to broker an independent Kurdish state?

If there was no insurgency – then rather than the immediate destruction of American rebuilding efforts more of the population would have easily bought into working (and earning a living) to rebuild rather than choosing to fight – either for survival or ambitiously hoping to seize power. Would Runsfeld and Bremmer look so idiotic then?

Two things; No Iraqi with vision emerged to seize the oppertunity America’s courage and sacrifice presented to command a political solution. Even worse no ally besides Blair risked anything but a press release critical of Bush.

It is as easy to blame the world-wide financial meltdown entirely on a handful of greedy American bankers today as it was to crucify Bush by ‘05-’06. Neither was inevitable. Neither was EVEN NECESSARY. Nor is either independent of each other. Irregardless of where one’s loyalties lay, somewhere between 1-2 trillion was invested over these past six years, not to mention quite a bit of attention.

But Europe was determined to assit laying America low – aiding enemies determined to destroy us. And to what end?

It seems now that these same allies no longer have Bush to kick around, having had a further taste of the deepening infiltration of Islamic Radicals into their own countries,and the ressurgent strong arming coming from Russia and Iran, for all their moo mooing about Obama being the one – watching their actions one gets the distinct impression they have re-appraised their disdain for W and the American Military.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:16 pm 34. sherlock:

I hope I am not being too immodest by suggesting that my comment at #23 kicked off a frank discussion of the role of the domestic political opposition and media that had not yet featured in this discussion. I am not bragging, merely driving home the point that our national conversation about the Iraq war has been so thoroughly managed by the media that even otherwise well-informed people will spend hours debating Bush’s and Rummy’s strategies as if they played out on some fair playing field, without influence from those of the other powerful domestic forces which strove to thwart them.

Our conversation about these things must get un-managed! Who has not listened to the endless media commentary that belaboring the unpopularity and ineffectuality of Bush, never hearing a mention of the even dimmer public opinion of Congress, and certainly never the fact that the majority of people prefer the company of used car salesmen to that of journalists.

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:43 am 35. RPB:

How about a follow up in which you detail how/why the situation went downhill when the momentum was most promising? The brave, courageous, intelligent Bremmer completely mishandled the situation: (1) dumping the Iraq army (insuring Al Qaeda recruits)(2) giving contracts to non-Iraq multinational corporations (insuring massive unemployment) (3) completely underestimating the threat of radical cleric Al Sadr (4) completely underestimating the threat of Al Qaeda. He might as well have thought he was in Bermuda. His first order of business was giving sensitivity training to the police force!

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:18 am 36. MikeD:

This is an absolute waste of an article. In case the author of this worthless article hasn’t noticed, and I hate to break this but, George Bush IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT!! We went through a long and hard Presidential process and, as usual, we now have a NEW President! GET OVER IT! It’s time to press.

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:26 am 37. Bilgeman:

#18 Michael Rappaport:

“If one honors General Petraeus, then one must also criticize General Casey and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for most part, President Bush. On the other hand, Bush finally did get it in the end. And we should be thankful for that. But that does mean the errors did not have big consequences, which was the point of the essay.”

I’m not sure the criticism of of Rummy and Casey, (and by extension, W), is entirely warranted, though.

Let’s be clear, Iraq presented two essential challenges. First, there was the Operational problem…how to defeat Sadaam’s forces, including his “Volksturrm”, the Fedayeen.

I’d observe that this was accomplished rather handily in three weeks’ time. Even despite the non-acquiesence of our good chums the Turks, who didn’t let us transit their territory to bring in the Northern Force, even when it became apparent that every Iraqi tanker with two brain cells to rub together was getting the heck away from his T-72 as fast his feets could carry him.

The second problem was the Occupation, which is as much a political enterprise as a military one.

I s’pose that W’s strategerists could have brought any number of ready-made templates with them to try imposing, (and I’m sure there were oodles of them sitting in think tank hard-drives back in DC, including a tri-partition), but even more so than a battle plan, such would rapidly be useless when the reality on the ground hove to and sat on our heads.

So it seems that BushCo opted for a more flexible, reactive approach…seeing what developed from te Iraqis themselves, and then reinforcing what was found desirable, and shooting what was found to be undesireable.

The elections, the internecine warfare against the Shiite miltias, and the Anbar Awakening were all mile-markers on the road to where we are today.

If you’ve ever been to the battlefield at Cold Harbor VA, (and I recommend that you do so), it is hard to imagine that over 7000 men fell in what is a very pleasant clearing in 40 minutes.

One could be forgiven, had one been there when the sun rose that morning, in believing that these men were lost in a doomed cause.

And while we’ve suffered nothing near a Cold Harbor in Iraq, victories can be obscured in that way.

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:52 am 38. Wally Lind:

Well, I guess we will just have live with the success we actually have. I will be fascinated with how quickly Obama turns Bush’s success around in Iraq. He is a great morale booster to the enemy, as the recent spike in suicide bombing attests to. He is another Clinton weak sister.

Also, in war being a winner usually means there has to be a loser, even on your own side. So praise General Petreaus, if that means General Casey and Rumsfield didn’t do so well, so be it. General Petreaus and his team got it right in Iraq, and we should listen to him about the rest of the Global War on Islamic Terror, as well.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:33 am 39. Anonymous:

It seems the pefect is always the enemy of the good. Look at your own list:

Saddam Hussein removed from power and replaced with a democratic government.
Libya giving up it’s nuclear program.
Syria scared out of Lebanon.
A.Q Khan’s network exposed and dismantled.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the war bled thousands of terrorist wanna be’s out of the region and into Iraq, where they ran into the maw of the USMC.

I can’t wait for your speculations on the state of the region if Bush had done nothing at all.

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:03 pm 40. Michael Rappaport:

Anonymous — Can you read? Do you think I am arguing that Bush should have done nothing? I said it was a net plus as it was. If Bush had been more competent, however, we would have achieved a Reaganite — that is, big — victory.

Feb 15, 2009 - 6:49 pm 41. Terry Gain:

If you were competent and could think better Rappoport you wouldn’t write such facile nonsense. Considering the ferocity and quantum of opposition and undermining of the mission Bush faced in his own country the outcome is remarkable.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:02 pm 42. Marian Kechlibar:

7. MarkD: Actually, Saddam’s mother allegedly tried to abort him by ingestion of some traditional medicine, but he survived that, and so got his name “Saddam” (= the tough one). However, this may be just Iraqi street gossip.

32. cedarford: the 2009 provincial elections in Iraq seem to indicate that Iraqis are tired of Sharia and clerics in power. The Iranian protege Hakim was sent to political wilderness and Maliki’s party actually won on a program of non-religious nationalism.

In Pakistan, the hardliners never got more than 12% of the vote, and in the last elections, about 4%. True enough, some of their voters boycotted the elections.

I wonder how would a really free elections turn up in Iran.

Feb 16, 2009 - 2:23 am 43. Terry Gain:

Don’t confuse cedarford with facts. Someone who could write what I have copied below – as he did at comment 16 above – is ineducable. In his mind, it was the neocons i.e the jooos who screwed up. Why, with their sabre rattling, they even caused Syria to support the insurgency. In fact the only reason why it was suggested that Syria be attacked was because it was supporting the insurgency. But people like cedarford have no qualms about getting things backwards so long as they can blame the jooos. Suggesting that Syria only supported the insurgency because of American sabre rattling makes cedarford naive enough to be an Obama cabinet secretary.

—-

“Not just the Bremer decisions, but triumphant Neocon saber-rattling about how wonderful it would be for their Special Friend if America then took down it’s other two big enemies – Iran and Syria – right after we “finished” in Iraq. This created the Sunnis with nothing to lose and committed almost to a man to defending Sunni neighborhoods & killing Americans in the Insurgency with Syria and other nations sympathetic to their co-religionists allowing Iraqis to muster men and material on their soil….which the Neocons had said was the next target.”
—–
Ceadarford is inadvertenltly right when he claims that what happened on American soil prolonged the insurgency. But it was the message of weakness and lack of resolve sent by the other party that voted for the war(and then used it for partisan purposes when it proved difficult) and their propaganda arm aka the MSM which encouraged the insurgents to hang in their even as they lost every single battle to the courageous American forces.

Feb 16, 2009 - 6:18 am 44. Bilgeman:

#16 cedarford:
“This created the Sunnis with nothing to lose and committed almost to a man to defending Sunni neighborhoods & killing Americans in the Insurgency with Syria and other nations sympathetic to their co-religionists allowing Iraqis to muster men and material on their soil….which the Neocons had said was the next target.”

Actually, we missed a Golden Opportunity to knock Syria out of the box in ‘06, when the IDF had pushed Hezbollah up against the Litani River…they had effectively flanked Syrian defenses on the Golan Heights.

Had we massed mechanized and armored forces and launched them out of Anbar Province…it’s about 200 miles to Damascus, and tank country all the way.

Israel through the front door, US through the back door, and Iran’s “Bitch” Assad is no more.

Side benefit: Lebanon gets to free itself from Syria AND Hezbollah.

Feb 16, 2009 - 3:50 pm 45. typos_R_us:

There are so many facts wrong here that it is hard to pick a place to start Fisking.
First the Myth that Iraq would have become a client state of Iran. Where is your evidence? The People that make up those two nations have been at war for approx. 3,000 years, with interludes of non-war lasting centuries. In the middle east, pausing for a few hundred years to get your breath back and breed more fighters is normal. That doesn’t mean peace has broken out.
Second, there is an even smaller chance of Iraq growing into a democracy ( consensual government) then there is of Iraq and Iran becoming bosom buddies. The age of Democracy as a major form of government is drawing to a close. The Usurper, by finding a back door to the Oval Office, has ended consensual government in the USA. Putin went the Hitler route in Russia and Old Europe is on shaky footing. Eventually ( a decade at the most), the EU Constitution will be rammed down the throats of Europeans and Europe will be governed by faceless bureaucrats while sham elections are held to sooth the masses.
Third, the Taliban HAS NOT been toppled. They were pushed out of parts of Afghanistan, but that wasn’t such a big deal. Remember, Islam is rooted in Arabic culture, which is nomadic herding, not settled agricultural. That means that they don’t place the same value on land ownership as western civilization does. Western Civilization will fight over dirt, Arabic civilization is more concerned with keeping the herds intact. Relocating the herds to a different bit of dirt when threatened is normal for Arabs. One of the major reasons why they have such poor armies.
President Bush’s notion that Democracy can be vectored like a flu virus is completely in5an3.

The American way of war is to gather power and strike at the strongest part of your enemy (center of gravity), the theory being that if you beat their best, you can deal with the rest. Attrition war, which works well when you are the biggest, baddest bird in the flock. Useless against an enemy that doesn’t have a center of gravity. The closest thing radical Islam has to a center of gravity is Iran.
From a geo-poltical POV the ONLY reason to invade Iraq was to establish a logistics base for invading Iran. Iran doesn’t have any beach suitable for a seaborn invasion. The US Navy doesn’t have enough specialized transport ships to mount a seaborne invasion on the scale needed.
So the Bush effort is a complete and total failure. Not because of Iraq, but because he stopped there.

For an anology, I’m turning to the first modern war, the War of Secession (AKA Civil War) here in the states. Grant didn’t win the war, Sherman did. Grant made Sherman’s march possible by pinning Lee to Virginia, but without Sherman, they would still be fighting in front of Richmond.
If Sherman had stopped half way thru his march to the sea, they would still be fighting in front of Richmond. If Lee had refused battle at Gettysburg and created a path of destruction thru Pennsylvania and New York, like Sherman did thru Georgia, the South would have won.

Regime change in Iran won’t stop the Islamic fundamentalists. In the past (history) Jihads have always burned out. History, as it always does will repeat. The question is ‘How much damage will they do before they burn out? Removing the Mad Dog Mullahs from power will reduce the capabilities of the Jihadists to the point where the criminal justice system can deal with them.
We cannot win a “war on terror”. What we can do is reduce the effects of terrorism to the point where it’s not a big deal, with thousands dying. Millions if they go nuclear, which they will given the capability.

Feb 17, 2009 - 8:17 am 46. Marie Claude:

“Would there have been an insurgency without pourous borders to the West in Syria or the East in Iran if France and Germany more closely resembled it’s current leadership in 2002? Not only wouldn’t the region have remained a magnet for foreign fighters – they wouldn’t have been so well funded.”

Germany never wanted to be really involved into a war, ie Afghanistan, Germaney wants a “neutral” statut ! so that she can pursue business anywhere , as her language compatriots, Austria, Zwitzerland.

It is different for France, that had played a part for centuries in Magreb and ME.

Now, her non participation to the 2nd war in Irak was more motivated by a great connaissance of the populations there and they reactions.

In particularity that you can’t win a war there if you don’t remove the people, this was the case in Algeria, it’s better to buy their mind, ie their imams, but have we the time for it ? and money for the herd !

Actually that is what Bin Laden is doing for our enemi camp !!!

typos_R_us:

very interesting analyse

Feb 17, 2009 - 12:41 pm 47. Bilgeman:

#45 typos r us:

“If Lee had refused battle at Gettysburg and created a path of destruction thru Pennsylvania and New York, like Sherman did thru Georgia, the South would have won.”

Not a poular pasttime hereabouts, observing that Lee was incapable of executing a succesful operational offensive.

“Western Civilization will fight over dirt, Arabic civilization is more concerned with keeping the herds intact. Relocating the herds to a different bit of dirt when threatened is normal for Arabs. One of the major reasons why they have such poor armies.”

Read your Keegan too, I see.

Feb 18, 2009 - 6:55 am 48. Bilgeman:

#45 typos:

“From a geo-poltical POV the ONLY reason to invade Iraq was to establish a logistics base for invading Iran.”

No, you’re being unfair. The status quo ante was intolerable, whatever he may or may not have been up to, no one can credibly say that Sadaam was not a threat to us and his neighbors.

And there IS all that oil…

“So the Bush effort is a complete and total failure. Not because of Iraq, but because he stopped there.”

Agreed that there’s still work to be done, but there IS such a thing as consolidating one’s gains.

IF, (and it’s a big one, admittedly), we can get the Iraqis aboard and in some semblance of functional order, we can harness that 3000 year old Arab-Persian antipathy to our own ends.

And in the meantime, we can always use the Kurds to foment mischief against the Mullahs, since historical Kurdistan encompassed parts of what is now Iranian territory.
By all accounts, the Peshmerga are very good at being pains in the ass.

“Attrition war, which works well when you are the biggest, baddest bird in the flock. Useless against an enemy that doesn’t have a center of gravity.”

Again, I disagree. An Army in Being is STILL an Army…and when it comprises a few US Army Armored and US Marine Corps Divisions, with all their goodies, is not to be sneezed at.

Take a page from General Grant and imagine being in the OTHER fellows sandals.

Yeah…he wishes that he had such problems.

“The closest thing radical Islam has to a center of gravity is Iran.”

For the moment, yes, although Riyadh would seem to be the favorite horse to place in that race.

“President Bush’s notion that Democracy can be vectored like a flu virus is completely in5an3. ”

Maybe not so much as you’d like to believe.

Despite wooly-headed academic notions to the contrary, Democracy was born in the No-Man’s Land between phalanxes of heavily-armed helots.

Isn’t that why we have elections…to determine who has mustered the bigger army?

If those No-man’s lands can be created in the middle east, wouldn’t that at least recreate the conditions that favored the adoption of democracy in our own culture?

It seems to have worked in Iraq…the people have apparently grown tired of the internecine warfare and opted for a more peaceful way.

Feb 18, 2009 - 7:12 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: