Article

2004-12-14 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-14 01:56|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Viet Nam! Quagmire!!!!!!!

Posted by trailing wife 2004-12-14 7:50:52 AM|| 2004-12-14 7:50:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Thanks to Mike O'Hanlon, we now have a template for future undertakings of a similar nature.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-14 9:49:43 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-14 9:49:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The standard explanation for this lack of preparedness among most defense and foreign policy specialists, and the U.S. military as well, is that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and much of the rest of the Bush administration insisted on fighting the war with too few troops and too Polyannaish a view of what would happen inside Iraq once Saddam was overthrown. This explanation is largely right.

Oh? How about that the Umited States military was designed to win conflicts involving defending countries, not conquering them. Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be in the business of occupying enemy countries before we utterly destroy them. It seems to me the subjugation of Germany and Japan made the subsequent occupation and rehabilitation of those countries run more smoothly than Iraq. We should anounce now that if we go to war again, we will engage in total warfare and achieve the utter destruction of our enemy. Anything less will lead to quagmires like Iraq.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-14 10:06:50 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:06:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The satisfaction of quality remains, long after the pain of price is forgotten

History will treat authors like these in much the same way that it treats those who whined about the details in our war with Hitler. It will provide their works with a prominent place in the rubbish bin.

BTW, loser, another mass grave was found in Iraq today.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 10:16:10 AM|| 2004-12-14 10:16:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 MD: Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be in the business of occupying enemy countries before we utterly destroy them. It seems to me the subjugation of Germany and Japan made the subsequent occupation and rehabilitation of those countries run more smoothly than Iraq.

This is the one thing that the experts ~~opponents~~ on strategic bombing never write about. The shibboleth of the day is that killing large numbers of enemy civilians is supposed to make them stronger. But the evidence on the ground is quite different. Everywhere that such attacks have happened, the population has been thoroughly cowed, in most cases for generations.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-14 11:47:34 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-14 11:47:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be in the business of occupying enemy countries before we utterly destroy them. It seems to me the subjugation of Germany and Japan made the subsequent occupation and rehabilitation of those countries run more smoothly than Iraq.

The old "we shoulda spotted them Guderian and 20 panzer divisions strategy". Look, Rummy KNEW that wasnt gonna be what happened. It was his job to plan for Iraq, not WW2. He also knew what army we had (and indeed, hes opposed developing a force for nation building). He should have planned accordingly. If he thought we were still going to have this on our hands 20 months post invasion, and that it was worth doing anyway, he should have given more sense of what we were up against (though in all fairness, most of the polyanash comments came from Cheney, and Rummy sometimes gets tarred with Cheneys misstatements)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 11:58:28 AM|| 2004-12-14 11:58:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 im currently reading Churchills history of WW2. Churchill certainly whined when somebody screwed up the details. When somebody screwed up enough, he fired them.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 12:00:04 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:00:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 So LH, I'm curious. Who do you think could have done a better job in his position?

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 12:04:01 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 by the way, hanlons report is worth reading in full.

2b - I dont have a list of names. Im sure Bush can find someone.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 12:07:35 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:07:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Im sure Bush can find someone.

That's a bit of a cop out. I'd wager that it's not easy to find a qualified individual willing to make the tough decisions and who is willing to endure the constant public harping, polticial backstabbing and personal threats to saftery.

What exactly do you hope to gain by going over what went wrong? I don't understand why you think that is so helpful, especially if you don't have any idea who could do/have done it better.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-14 12:19:09 PM|| 2004-12-14 12:19:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ok, i'll bite (but i DONT have time for an extended discussion)

1. I have long thought that the WOT needed broader political support, and should not be run exclusively by Bush loyalists. That would lead to a Dem, like Lieberman, or to a McCain. BUT - the issue here is technical competence, specifically on planning. While an argument can be made that you fire someone for gross incompetence even if you dont know the successor will be better (at least the successor now knows you hold people accountable) not all agree with that, and i wont make it. I also realize that it sounds self serving (since im a dem) and so i will limit myself to admin loyalists
2. One would like to think theres SOMEONE in DoD whos BOTH Bush loyal, and NOT implicated in the planning screwup, as both Feith and Rummy seem to be. Wolfie? I very much admire the man, and hope against hope that he spoke out for better planning and more troops - but not being privy to inside communications, I dont know that. So I will limit my list to people not currently in the DoD.

3. On the other hand it needs to be someone with nat security expertise, and capable of handling an org like DoD (clearly condi was better pick for State, than DoD) So, a bush loyalist, with nat. security creds, not now at DoD. Who does that leave? Two names come up - A. John Bolton B. Jim Baker Im not sure what role Bolton had in Iraqi planning, but i assume hes not implicated in the mistakes. Baker, for all that i personally dislike him (for his role wrt Israel in the elder Bush admin, and his role in Florida 2000) might be the right person for DoD.

So I have some idea - but i cant vouch that they would have done better - in particular i dont know what they were saying to Bush in private, prewar.

I really dont have time to discuss this matter further. It is wholly academic, as theres no indication that the admin is thinking of replacing Rummy.

There is another reason why its important to over this, aside from holding individuals, and the admin in general, accountable. There are many individuals, who are not going to blame this on poor planning, but are going to judge that ANY US intervention of this kind is doomed to the same problems, and who will use that argument when future interventions are debated, whether in Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere. It is essential, when we judge policy in those cases, that we recognize to what extent our problems in Iraq were intrinsic to this kind of intervention, and to what extent they could have been avoided with better planning.

It is also essential, to the extent that we have encountered problems because of limits on the force we had availbale, that we take that into account in what we do with our future force structure.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-12-14 2:02:07 PM|| 2004-12-14 2:02:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 We should anounce now that if we go to war again, we will engage in total warfare and achieve the utter destruction of our enemy.

Don't count on it. Too many people seem to have this peculiar notion that such things aren't supposed to happen in war.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-14 6:17:16 PM|| 2004-12-14 6:17:16 PM|| Front Page Top

12:50 2b
12:50 2b
00:40 Pholuns Threresing2158
00:10 Angash Flinelet3775
23:49 Mike Sylwester
23:46 Dcreeper
23:40 mojo
23:38 Steve White
23:36 lex
23:25 phil_b
23:07 Robert Crawford
23:04 Frank G
22:57 dubois
22:54 Asedwich
22:52 John Q. Citizen
22:44 John Q. Citizen
22:36 Desert Blondie
22:31 Desert Blondie
22:20 Desert Blondie
21:52 .com
21:52 Frank G
21:50 RWV
21:50 Frank G
21:43 Frank G