Who Won Iraq?

by confuzzled dude Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:51 pm

As events unfold increasingly chaotically across the region that officials of the Bush years liked to call the Greater Middle East, consider the eerie accuracy of that statement. The president, his vice president Dick Cheney, his defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, among others, were indeed “history’s actors.” They did create “new realities” and, just as Rove suggested, the rest of us are now left to “study” what they did.

And oh, what they did! Their geopolitical dreams couldn’t have been grander or more global. (Let’s avoid the word "megalomaniacal.") They expected to pacify the Greater Middle East,garrison Iraq for generations, make Syria and Iran bow down before American power, "drain" the global "swamp" of terrorists, and create a global Pax Americana based on a military so dominant that no other country or bloc of countries would ever challenge it.

They lacked nothing when it came to confidence. Among the first moves of L. Paul Bremer III, the proconsul they appointed to run their occupation, was an order demobilizing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein’s 350,000-man army and the rest of his military as well. Their plan: to replace it with a lightly armed border protection force —initially of 12,000 troops and in the end perhaps 40,000 —armed and trained by Washington. Given their vision of the world, it made total sense. Why would Iraq need more than that with the U.S. military hanging around for, well, ever, on a series of permanent bases the Pentagon's contractors were building? What dangers could there be in the neighborhood with that kind of force on hand? Soon enough, it became clear that what they had really done was turn the Iraqi officer corps and most of the country’s troops out onto unemployment lines, creating the basis for a militarily skilled Sunni insurgency. A brilliant start!

Note that these days the news is filled with commentary on the lack of a functional Iraqi air force. That’s why, in recent months, Prime Minister Maliki has been calling on the Obama administration to send American air power back into the breach. Saddam Hussein did have an air force. Once it had been one of the biggest in the Middle East. The Bush administration, however, came to the conclusion that the new Iraqi military would have no need for fighter planes, helicopters, or much of anything else, not when the U.S. Air Force would be in the neighborhood on bases like Balad in Central Iraq. Who needed two air forces?

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Who-Won-Iraq/291123

by Kris Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:59 pm

I would say the broader question that needs to be probed is why America continues to lose the middle east. It is very much due to a naïve belief that overthrowing dictators will somehow usher in democracy. Ain't gonna happen, unless the local culture has the wherewithal to accommodate it, which is does not.

Specifically, in this case, if the neocon aim was to get a foothold in the area, they went about it the wrong way wasting money the country does not have and a tremendous number of lives. That objective would have been better served if some west-friendly strongman had been identified and promoted to displace Saddam, rather than the weird hope that self-rule would kick in and result in a peaceful, pro-western Iraq. The immediate focus post 9-11 should have been the af-pak theater to wipe out the al-queda thugs and their sponsors. Conflating the two objectives and not executing either one properly is what got us into this mess.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:23 pm

Kris wrote:I would say the broader question that needs to be probed is why America continues to lose the middle east. It is very much due to a naïve belief that overthrowing dictators will somehow usher in democracy. Ain't gonna happen, unless the local culture has the wherewithal to accommodate it, which is does not.

Specifically, in this case, if the neocon aim was to get a foothold in the area, they went about it the wrong way wasting money the country does not have and a tremendous number of lives. That objective would have been better served if some west-friendly strongman had been identified and promoted to displace Saddam, rather than the weird hope that self-rule would kick in and result in a peaceful, pro-western Iraq. The immediate focus post 9-11 should have been the af-pak theater to wipe out the al-queda thugs and their sponsors. Conflating the two objectives and not executing either one properly is what got us into this mess.

The US administration is full of "white experts" of Eastern peoples and hire ABCDs from respective countries as consultants or IVY League Elites from those countries.

US will never read any culture right except Europe. It did not even read Nicaragua, and still does not read Mexico correctly.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:39 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:I would say the broader question that needs to be probed is why America continues to lose the middle east. It is very much due to a naïve belief that overthrowing dictators will somehow usher in democracy. Ain't gonna happen, unless the local culture has the wherewithal to accommodate it, which is does not.

Specifically, in this case, if the neocon aim was to get a foothold in the area, they went about it the wrong way wasting money the country does not have and a tremendous number of lives. That objective would have been better served if some west-friendly strongman had been identified and promoted to displace Saddam, rather than the weird hope that self-rule would kick in and result in a peaceful, pro-western Iraq. The immediate focus post 9-11 should have been the af-pak theater to wipe out the al-queda thugs and their sponsors. Conflating the two objectives and not executing either one properly is what got us into this mess.

The US administration is full of "white experts" of Eastern peoples and hire ABCDs from respective countries as consultants or IVY League Elites from those countries.

US will never read any culture right except Europe. It did not even read Nicaragua, and still does not read Mexico correctly.

I don't think reduction of Iraqi military & air force has got anything to do with reading cultures, it's has everything to do with plain arrogance & selfish motives of Dick & Dubya.

by truthbetold Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:58 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:I would say the broader question that needs to be probed is why America continues to lose the middle east. It is very much due to a naïve belief that overthrowing dictators will somehow usher in democracy. Ain't gonna happen, unless the local culture has the wherewithal to accommodate it, which is does not.

Specifically, in this case, if the neocon aim was to get a foothold in the area, they went about it the wrong way wasting money the country does not have and a tremendous number of lives. That objective would have been better served if some west-friendly strongman had been identified and promoted to displace Saddam, rather than the weird hope that self-rule would kick in and result in a peaceful, pro-western Iraq. The immediate focus post 9-11 should have been the af-pak theater to wipe out the al-queda thugs and their sponsors. Conflating the two objectives and not executing either one properly is what got us into this mess.

The US administration is full of "white experts" of Eastern peoples and hire ABCDs from respective countries as consultants or IVY League Elites from those countries.

US will never read any culture right except Europe. It did not even read Nicaragua, and still does not read Mexico correctly.
I don't think reduction of Iraqi military & air force has got anything to do with reading cultures, it's has everything to do with plain arrogance & selfish motives of Dick & Dubya.

MY two cents: CD was right. it is GW and DC who ordered the army to be disbanded. It was a bad move and lot of people said the same at that time.
Uppili is right that US state dept has experts who know lot of facts but do not understand the emotions. Any person with minimal knowledge of islam would have told Bush that (a) shits would win Iraq election (b) they will then oppress sunnis and (c) Iraq would move closer to Iran. It took ten years and a human disaster for state dept to learn.

Even now why is kerry trying to form a national govt? hasn't that ship sailed already? Kurds have opened their own tent and sunnis are tasting victory. Why would they come and join govt and give power back to shits.

by nevada Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:50 pm

Not the Iraqi people, that's for sure. It is more than 10 years ago I still remember Colin "Uncle Tom" Powell giving a power point presentation about Iraq's alleged weapons and convincing the world that war is the only solution. What a pathetic sell out this guy is.

by Sponsored content

Who Won Iraq?

Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?

Re: Who Won Iraq?