Iraq: Victory Impossible

In the SST forum, users are free to discuss philosophy, music, art, religion, sock colour, whatever. It's a haven from the madness of Bulldrek; alternately intellectual and mundane, this is where the controversy takes place.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ghotty
Bulldrekker
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 5:12 pm

Iraq: Victory Impossible

Post by Ghotty »

It is impossible for the United States to "win" in Iraq. There is no possiblity that we can destroy the insurgency and triumph.

Why do I say this?

Sun-Tzu wrote:
Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

4. Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it.
We are unable to effect victory, because the guerrillas have not given us the oppurtunity for victory. Our victory resides in their actions, and not our own.

Does this imply that we should leave Iraq, as we cannot win? NO. For the insurgents are in the same shoes as us. They cannot win, but can only make themselves unable to be conquered.

Call it a waiting game. The guerrillas are waiting for their attacks to cause enough pain through low-intensity conflict that our populace will be disgusted with this war, and force our soldiers to withdraw. At that point, the guerrillas will emerges, become a conventional force and re-take Iraq.

What can we do to prevent this? Alot. As citizens of this country, we can stand behind the war, and not waver in our conviction. We are unable to be defeated, yet we cannot defeat our enemy. We must wait for them to expose themselves and then we will strike.

Militarily, what can be done? Not anything which isn't already being done. Sweeps of areas suspected of harbouring insurgents. Goodwill missions where we build schools and hospitals. And keeping morale up. That's why support from the people at home is imperitive. Increasing intelligence.

The insurgents have come across a particularly effective means of combating our troops in the roadside bomb. It's not something that is easily countered, and the risk to the insurgents is small. Much smaller than performing ambushes and storming police stations. Just blow things up.

The greatest ally of the insurgent is fear and doubt. Without a definiteive enemy, everyone becomes an enemy to our soldiers. When there is no protection of law, then there is no reason for the common Iraqi to have faith in their government. And this is what the insurgents require to live. The require a distrust between Iraqi and Occupation forces. Without that, they would be defeated.

Now, I still believe that Saddam Hussein's governement is conducting the majority of these operations. Why? It's part of the tactics they were taught by the Soviet military. A combination of conventional and unconventional warfare. In addition, many Ba'aath party regional leaders remain uncaptured. These are the men who were in charge of orginizing the resistance.

Where did the republican guard go? Expecially the Special Republican Guard? These soldiers were loyal to saddam, and recieved training in conducint both insurgent and ocunter-insurgent operations. Where did the 100,000+ soldiers that made up the Republican Guard GO?
Allahu Akbar
User avatar
Paul
Tasty Human
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by Paul »

Ghotty wrote:There is no possiblity that we can destroy the insurgency and triumph.
Well that seems like a bad way to start off a discussion. "It can't happen." wouldn't it be more accurate to say " I don't see it happening, and I think the possibilities are remote." ?

Especially given that you go on to describe just how you think we could win.
Kick Rocks
User avatar
Salvation122
Grand Marshall of the Imperium
Posts: 3776
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Post by Salvation122 »

Sun Tzu doesn't really apply here. Machiavelli is probably closer.
Image
User avatar
Ghotty
Bulldrekker
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 5:12 pm

Post by Ghotty »

The point is that there isn't anything the united states can do to cause the insurgents to lose. We can only make our position stronger so that we may not lose. Hence the qouteing of Sun-Tzu.

We can't make use of our military strength to destroy the insurgents, because they are vacous and we are substantial. You clear a town of insurgents? They move somewhere different. Defeat will only occur when the insurgents place themselves in a position to be defeated.

Which is why the United States must make it's position unassailable.

So Sal, why is Sun-Tzu not applicable, and why is Machivelli applicable? I see both as offering advice that is valid and useful.
Allahu Akbar
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

I'm going with Sal here, since The Prince specifically deals with ruling an area, while Sun Tzu is primarily concerned with military campaigning. Sun Tzu didn't address this sort of issue nearly as directly as Machiavelli did.

Not that it means you're wrong, Ghotty-- Machiavelli did have something to say on this very topic:
For this reason the best possible fortress is — not to be hated by the people, because, although you may hold the fortresses, yet they will not save you if the people hate you, for there will never be wanting foreigners to assist a people who have taken arms against you.
I agree that the situation, as it stands, is unwinnable by us. (I think it's winnable by the insurgents, though-- if they drive us off, they win.) Right now, it's clear that a good number of the populace of Iraq does not like us. Continuing to attack them will not solve the problem-- rather, it may make things worse, as we create more and more martyrs to the cause.

The only solution is to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This is a departure from the current stance-- Bush seems to think that we've already won their support, and that the insurgents are merely a tiny minority with a lot of foreign agitators. This is clearly not the case, since guerillas cannot succeed without a friendly populace to hide them. We need to openly admit that we've made a botch of things, back off from the military actions, focus on rebuilding the economy and civil structures, and make a *massive* goodwill effort.
Crazy Elf
Footman of the Imperium
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Oz
Contact:

Post by Crazy Elf »

Ghotty wrote:So Sal, why is Sun-Tzu not applicable, and why is Machivelli applicable? I see both as offering advice that is valid and useful.
Damn straight. Sun-Tzu's concept of victory is highly aplicable. You can't destroy an idea. They're bullet proof. The more you shoot at an idea, the more you simply polarise people.
User avatar
ak404
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedonia

Post by ak404 »

So what's the idea, Elf?
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

The idea is "the US is the Great Satan and deserves to be terrorized", I think. Or something like that.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

post+1
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
ak404
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedonia

Post by ak404 »

Anguirel wrote:The idea is "the US is the Great Satan and deserves to be terrorized", I think. Or something like that.
Two years later, and it's still on. It'd be comedy if it wasn't so damned true.

BTW, I think the idea is "get the fuck out of my house, yo."
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

I was certainly a person who had greater hopes for the situation in Iraq than it has turned out to be.

I wish there was a way to go back in time and change things, but there isn't. So now the question becomes what next? (To me anyways.)
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

The only sane thing to do is back off and reconsider our options heavily.
User avatar
Ampere
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:02 am
Location: Mount Horeb, Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Ampere »

Honestly, I'd say start the withdrawal, and try and make it as fast as efficiently and safely possible.
User avatar
FlameBlade
SMITE!™ Master
Posts: 8644
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
Contact:

Post by FlameBlade »

wait wait...are we having the same kind of debate for two years now?
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Why withdrawal? (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm also not saying you're right. I'd like to hear why you believe that is the best option.)
User avatar
Ampere
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:02 am
Location: Mount Horeb, Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Ampere »

FlameBlade wrote:wait wait...are we having the same kind of debate for two years now?
Yeah. Weird huh.
Pick up on the same debate after two years of nothing.
User avatar
TLM
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Norway

Post by TLM »

Serious Paul wrote:Why withdrawal? (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm also not saying you're right. I'd like to hear why you believe that is the best option.)
For my part, it's pretty much because the US' situation in Iraq is both a catalyst for the conflict and a dampener. With the US troops there, holding the three factions together (well, two, really, since the Kurds are happy enough in the North), they all have a common target that encourages more fighting. On the other hand, though, the shi'a and sunni extremists are held just a little in check since they have to factor the US presence into their plans, and so they don't go all out on each other. Kind of like an inadequate bandage on a bleeding wound. All it does is slow the loss of blood down.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
User avatar
Ampere
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:02 am
Location: Mount Horeb, Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Ampere »

Withdrawal:

Well. Looking at the numbers required to police a nation, looking back to WW2, we are woefuly short on manpower. We'd need men stationed in every single town and city, and controlling pretty much everything, much like a police force. We have enough troops for an assault and maybe hold some area...but not enough to hold the entire nation of Iraq.

What happens is that the bad guys, insurgents are able to strike and slip away. It's a giant net...with giant holes. And the locals...are not as friendly as when we first liberated them from Saddam's rule.

We're pushing the boundaries of what we can call up on reserves and the active FT Military is strapped from (now even longer) extended deployments.

My opinion is that we're not going to accomplish much more and the longer we stay, the more caustic it becomes. In time, I feel it'll turn in to the same things for us as Afganistan was for the Russians.

If we can't move forward and accomplish more, then we should get out. Control in this area I believe isn't something we can realistically maintain. I don't think it should even be a goal. I think the right goal is to get rid of Saddam, and maybe set up a new election, get their government back together after the damage we caused...then get the fuck out. But it's looking too much like trying to make them dark-skinned americans, which'll never happen. They need to be able to do it on their own...or with help from their neighbors and the international community...not simply with a shitload of Americans (while the other Nations withdraw).

Withdrawal is a dangerous task. As soon as they start...insurgency could easily go on the rise.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

wait wait...are we having the same kind of debate for two years now?
why not? Congress has been doing it longer.
User avatar
FlameBlade
SMITE!™ Master
Posts: 8644
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
Contact:

Post by FlameBlade »

point is, we talked about this so much, and as a result, little has changed.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

FlameBlade wrote:point is, we talked about this so much, and as a result, little has changed.
Huh? Aren't you supposed to be some sort of smart Flame? And you say this with a straight face?

Frankly I'm pretty disappointed.
User avatar
FlameBlade
SMITE!™ Master
Posts: 8644
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
Contact:

Post by FlameBlade »

Point is, we know, but we don't realize it.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Okay if this is some sort of play to show me that you're so much smarter than me as to be unintelligible Flame, you've won. I am now more confused than I was. Just what are you saying?
User avatar
TLM
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Norway

Post by TLM »

My gods some of the old, old, pre-war discussion threads are a savage trip down memory lane. I am sorely tempted to get out my shovel and do some good old-fashioned thread-necromancy.

However, I'm joining Paul on this Flame. What on earth are you on about?
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
User avatar
FlameBlade
SMITE!™ Master
Posts: 8644
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
Contact:

Post by FlameBlade »

Just that, looking back, the framing of the debate is exactly same before as it is right now.

Nothing has changed. A lot of things are changing in Iraq, but at the same time, we're talking here as if nothing has ever changed.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

Once again, if governments are still debating the issue after four years, why should we be any different? The situation might have changed, but the core issues are still there.
User avatar
ak404
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedonia

Post by ak404 »

FlameBlade wrote:Just that, looking back, the framing of the debate is exactly same before as it is right now.

Nothing has changed. A lot of things are changing in Iraq, but at the same time, we're talking here as if nothing has ever changed.
Things are changing a lot in Iraq, yes, but fundamentally, the situation has not changed; the changes (at least the ones I am thinking of) aren't changing the overall situation. Your argument, as I understand it (and please forgive me for using me for using this comparison), is along the lines of 'ricing up' the debate. Basically, you start with something, you add a bunch of shit that does nothing to change the situation at all, and declare that these little things make all the difference in the world. "But see? It's changed! If I add this 'surge' decal to the fender, the war will be over much, much faster!"

If these changes were taking place during a state of peace, they might have made a difference, but Iraq is definitely under a state of war, and a state of war = a state of exception, which means that 'normal' operations are suspended. (What is 'normal' in post-invasion Iraq? Got me.)

Every war follows a certain narrative, the 'script' if you want to be less wordy; you remember how it went during those first days, right? Every single news station was reading from the same script, just as they did the first time around, with little or nor room given to dissidence. The problem is, this time around, the war's dragged on longer than the script, and as it turns out, Iraqis, like all other people, tend not to like it when their home is used as the set for a glorified action movie and political dick-waving contest.

(Oh yeah, on an off-note, the insurgents that're fighting the troops? They belong in Iraq. For the most part, they're the native population there, and they want US out. Under the banner of the War on Terror, insurgents are classified as terrorists. What makes them a terrorist? When shot upon by coalition troops, they fire back. What endlessly amuses me, because it's so tragically stupid that you either laugh or cry, is this idea that if you kill off these insurgents, the rest of Iraq (who are not insurgents) will capitulate, not realizing that insurgents have families too...very very vengeful families that are not at all kindly predisposed to hostile occupying forces. In other words, they fucking hate Americans but they're not insurgents, but if the Americans pop daddy in the head because he's a patriot, then they're probably going to want revenge and become insurgents.)

It doesn't matter how many elections they hold, how much ground the US (and by extension, the British, as this is very important) takes and loses, how many people the US loses, what kind of justifications, goals, or titles the US give their operations, the situation remains the same: the US finds itself in possession of a country whose population does not trust nor welcome them with open arms, and eventually, the US is going to have to set that country free, but it can't until Iraq and US are on friendly terms.

The only thing both countries can agree on is that America doesn't belong in Iraq. The problem for Americans is how to get out while saving face; the Iraqis can care less how Americans feel, they just want them gone.

How the fuck does the US expect Iraq to be nice to them when Iraqis so clearly remember the history of Iraq in relation to British and American history? They've pretty much been conquered, colonized, manipulated, and used by either power since WW1, and unlike Americans, they remember history pretty damned well, and they don't like Americans. People can argue that this dislike isn't logical, or that America isn't the same as Britain, or that we can forget history, but it's somewhat hard to argue with an armed populace training its guns on you while you're slowly taking over their backyard...for them.

This current situation is like happily beating up on somebody continuously for 50 years, then breaking into their house with a big fucking grin on your face, demanding that they be nice but definitely submissive to you, then hearing a click as the deadbolt slides into place, and finding out that your 'friend' has a fuckton of relatives who'd just love to pound the living shit out of you.

"But wait, what did I do wrong?"

Sorry, Flame, absolutely nothing has changed; a lot has changed on the surface, yes, but the fundamental situation has not.

Jesus fuck, I still talk a lot.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
User avatar
FlameBlade
SMITE!™ Master
Posts: 8644
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
Contact:

Post by FlameBlade »

Ak, you said it very well, and said it much better than I could have.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
User avatar
TLM
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Norway

Post by TLM »

Damn, Ak, but I've missed you. And very well said, too. So, to move on a step, what do you think will be the result if/when the US withdraws?
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
User avatar
ak404
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedonia

Post by ak404 »

TLM wrote:Damn, Ak, but I've missed you. And very well said, too. So, to move on a step, what do you think will be the result if/when the US withdraws?
They pay smarter people tons of money to mull over and question for days on end, TLM. I can comment what has happened in the past all I want, but I don't feel I'm qualified to give a reasonable prediction.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
User avatar
Toryu
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:31 pm
Location: Quite far away from Tubuai Island.

Post by Toryu »

Serious Paul wrote:I was certainly a person who had greater hopes for the situation in Iraq than it has turned out to be.

I wish there was a way to go back in time and change things, but there isn't. So now the question becomes what next? (To me anyways.)
Hmmm...if you were in charge Paul, and could turn back time, what would you do differently?
"What is it about blogs, forums and LiveJournal that just invite stupid fights, Davan? Is acting like an ass a clause in the user agreement?"
User avatar
ak404
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedonia

Post by ak404 »

Toryu wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I was certainly a person who had greater hopes for the situation in Iraq than it has turned out to be.

I wish there was a way to go back in time and change things, but there isn't. So now the question becomes what next? (To me anyways.)
Hmmm...if you were in charge Paul, and could turn back time, what would you do differently?
Aside from not invading at all, you mean?
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
User avatar
Toryu
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:31 pm
Location: Quite far away from Tubuai Island.

Post by Toryu »

ak404 wrote:
Toryu wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I was certainly a person who had greater hopes for the situation in Iraq than it has turned out to be.

I wish there was a way to go back in time and change things, but there isn't. So now the question becomes what next? (To me anyways.)
Hmmm...if you were in charge Paul, and could turn back time, what would you do differently?
Aside from not invading at all, you mean?
Well, yes, that being one of the many thinkable options, and perhaps one of the few reasonable ones. :cute
"What is it about blogs, forums and LiveJournal that just invite stupid fights, Davan? Is acting like an ass a clause in the user agreement?"
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Toryu wrote:Hmmm...if you were in charge Paul, and could turn back time, what would you do differently?
Assuming I am able to know what I know now? (Which is admittedly very little in the big scheme of things...) And I could prove it?
Crazy Elf
Footman of the Imperium
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Oz
Contact:

Post by Crazy Elf »

Split the country up. The borders were drawn up by Churchill when he couldn't be bothered doing his research into the area, and as such he put three ethnic groups that hated one another in the same place. This led to constant civil war until Saddam took the reins.

You can't make the completely Western defined state of Iraq work as a nation state without being bloody fisted. As such, split the country into three, and the US can defend the Kurds. The Saudis will be happy to support the Sunni faction, and Iran will support the Shi'as. Limits the military expenditure, and limits the number of lives lost. Many people will have to be moved around, but it's better than them dying.

This is unlikely to happen, though, as it would have the oil fall into non-US hands.
User avatar
Toryu
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 3:31 pm
Location: Quite far away from Tubuai Island.

Post by Toryu »

Serious Paul wrote:
Toryu wrote:Hmmm...if you were in charge Paul, and could turn back time, what would you do differently?
Assuming I am able to know what I know now? (Which is admittedly very little in the big scheme of things...) And I could prove it?
Yes.
"What is it about blogs, forums and LiveJournal that just invite stupid fights, Davan? Is acting like an ass a clause in the user agreement?"
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Then there would have been no invasion of Iraq. I think that answers it pretty well.
User avatar
DV8
Evil Incarnate
Posts: 5986
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:49 am
Location: .nl
Contact:

Post by DV8 »

Serious Paul wrote:Then there would have been no invasion of Iraq. I think that answers it pretty well.
Orbital bombardement instead?
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

DV8 wrote:Orbital bombardment instead?
Tempting.... :)
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

I don't think there's any reasonable solution which would be accepted by the majority of persons worldwide other than not invading. There are certainly ways to have removed Saddam from power and left Iraq in a condition better than it is, but the only truly acceptable thing is to simply not invade at all. Invasions from first-world countries aren't acceptable anymore, and certainly not from "the last superpower," if we can even be said to be either of those things.
User avatar
TLM
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Norway

Post by TLM »

Personally, I wouldn't have invaded.

That having been said, if I were to invade I would have made sure to do a few things very differently, such as;

1 - Get UN sanction. Love it or hate it, it would've given the venture legitimacy. If it meant having to wait for another six months, so be it.

2 - Open the reconstructiong bidding completely. That way, even if settling on US companies exclusively, it would give other developed nations an incentive to come on-board.

3 - Invade with enough troops to hold the major metropolitan areas securely. 300.000 would've been nice, 400.000 even better. Also not an unrealistic number with UN backing. Oh, no Israelis involved. Not that they are now, but not even if they wanted to.

4 - No de-baathification. A civil service and an Iraqi army still on government payroll would have severely limited grudges.This actually sails up as one of the biggest mistakes made during the whole venture.

5 - Get Al-Sistani as an ally right fucking quick. Sure, he has no power now, but back then he had tremendous influence.

6 - Keep track of where all the fucking money goes. Especially the oil-for-food money.

And that's pretty much it. This supposes that I was president of the US at the time, of course. But the very best option would still be to not invade.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
Crazy Elf
Footman of the Imperium
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Oz
Contact:

Post by Crazy Elf »

TLM wrote:4 - No de-baathification. A civil service and an Iraqi army still on government payroll would have severely limited grudges.This actually sails up as one of the biggest mistakes made during the whole venture.
Damn fucking straight. One of the major problems with this is that in order to hold a high position with any civil service, you had to be a member of the Baath party. It didn't mean you supported it, necessarily, but you did have to be a member. As such, one of the things that ended up getting shut down as a result were schools, where headmasters would be fired, and the students would threaten to kill the new headmaster, who would typically be from one of the other factions. Sunni headmaster? That's no good, have a Kurd instead.

This didn't work out well, as you can imagine, and as such the schooling system stopped in many cases. This led to a whole bunch of idle youths that were angry at the system. Someone offers them guns, and you get what you have today.
User avatar
DrunkenMaster
Bulldrekker
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:43 am
Location: Pineland

Post by DrunkenMaster »

A few points I'd like to back.

TLM wrote:
3 - Invade with enough troops to hold the major metropolitan areas securely. 300.000 would've been nice, 400.000 even better. Also not an unrealistic number with UN backing. Oh, no Israelis involved. Not that they are now, but not even if they wanted to.
When Colin Powell walks out of your cabinet because of doctrinal issues, you've got problems. Manpower was and is definitely an issue. Another is troop rotation and localization. When a unit is rotating in with another leaving, you must make certain that everyone is reading the same playbook. Every organization has their own method of doing things but you can't jump from cold to hot to cold again, especially when troops are consistently dealing with foreign civilians.

4 - No de-baathification. A civil service and an Iraqi army still on government payroll would have severely limited grudges.This actually sails up as one of the biggest mistakes made during the whole venture.
This is a difficult choice to make. Ultimately you would like to start fresh, but the main factor you have working against you is time. If you had a passive population, which for some reason, the non-military higher ups invisioned, this might work. I would have disarmed the military, kept paying them and then started a training program immediately with the former Iraqi military as the starter seed. This would allow us to evaluate who's who, give them something to do, and ultimately keep them paid and out of mischief. My memory of the situation is that many people pointed out the failings of disarming the military and sending the home, but it fell on deaf ears from the administration.

Crazy Elf said:
Split the country up. The borders were drawn up by Churchill when he couldn't be bothered doing his research into the area, and as such he put three ethnic groups that hated one another in the same place. This led to constant civil war until Saddam took the reins.
I heart this idea, but it has its problems as well. By splitting the country up, you place the majority of oil in Kurdish and Shia hands, leaving the Sunnis not much(I've got to look at a map to verify this, but I'll edit if this is wrong). Also, any sign of Kurdish independence will set off other problems in the region, namely Turkey, Iran(well, fuck their problems), and some of the other locals. While the Kurds are more 'Western', everyone in that region has long memories and sharp knives, especially when it comes to territorial issues. Ultimately, I believe that a territorial split would happen naturally, as few in the region define themselves as Iraqi outside of the major cities.

I'd like to see a softer approach, ala the one we had in the beginning of Afghanistan. A small force, trained to be aware of local customs and values, interacting with local leaders to accomplish tasks. With a fucking huge group of monkey stompers in a remote area ready to bail them out if things go south.

So:
*Respect local leaders, customs, values
*Keep contact b/w military small and positive as much as possible. (Build schools, wells, deliver babies)
*Trust your military leadership enough to let the guys on the ground develop the mission tempo, they know what is going on.
*Have several bases in isolated areas yet close enough to respond as needed. Keep your monkey stompers here. They will be necessary occasionally, but after a few applications of monkey stomping the anticipation of retaliation will make bad guys hesitate. Which means less direct b/w hard force and civilians. Which leads to better relationship b/w mil and civ populations and also gives enemies less of a chance to learn your tactics and hurt your men.
*Oh, and find leaders in the community who you like/support and guard/grow them as much as possible. There were many brave individuals who early on in the political process were assassinated. I expect those were Iraq's potential MLKs, Ghandis, JFKs etc. This is an issue which makes me extremely angry at our policies.

Problems with this:

*Well, you are turning over a lot of power to the locals, who are certain to have different goals than you. This can backfire in creative and exciting ways.
*You need a chain of military and civilian leadership who you can trust and who are willing to support one another.
*You need to have some very intelligent people who are able to think objectively and are sensitive to other cultures/religions/politics. They need to be in positions where their voices are heard and respected.
*You need to develop trust between your civilian and military population.

The greatest pacifiers in recent history are Great Britain during its Empire Building years. Numerically small, technologically advanced, and overall diplomatically savvy.

Edit: I forgot our greatest potential ally in this situation and it comprises about 50% of the population. Reach out to the women. This is very touchy in this region but can have a viral effect on other regions. If you can improve the quality of life of the women, start getting them educated, having fundamental rights etc. then you are way ahead in the points department. Then they will have a vested interest in staying in power/control and you have a new market for designer shoes.
Post Reply