Execution & Concept of The Iraq War

Most people would of said it was doomed to fail. But it didn’t.

Oh, that’s a true Coke-on-the-monitor moment. Ummm, it did fail. In fact, it was the greatest military defeat in history. I wish I could turn on the snark, but faced with such complete idiocy, it seems pointless, like trying to outwit an amoeba.

Scott, Curt’s original quote was about Hitler in Europe. Which, as i recall, didn’t end too well for the Germans.

There have been no military defeats (failures) in Iraq, and so if the mission fails, it will not be the fault of those who fought.

You’re correct; there haven’t been any massive failures. I imagine that we could hold out in Iraq indefinitely, bleeding treasure and American lives. It sounds like a bad idea to me, though.

Absolutes on win and lose are premature. History and success (or failure) has no end date.

With formal surrender in previous wars, there was a definitive end to military combat. But the win or lose status was actually determined over time. i.e. the world is not speaking German, the governance of Germany became decidedly less genocidal and engaged with the western world. Yet had Hitler been replaced with another “master race” advocate, the SS revitalized, that military win would have been temporary. Only time was the marker for success in history for both Germany and Japan.

But earlier wars were against States who could surrender as an entity. Today we are combating ideology, with forces of loosely associated thugs and gangs who owe no allegience to a State, or even to each other over time. They will never be totally eliminated. One can only hope other States control the human cockroaches in their midst, and cooperate with intel.

EXECUTION? Thre’s always been blunders and missteps in wars. It is how the military strategists adjust with each event that determines efficient execution. I know of no “exit strategy” for previous wars. What kind of idiot came up with that notion anyway? I place no faith in a military that says “we’ll fight for 6 years, and if it doesn’t go our way, we’ll come home”. Talk about one for the “huh??” files…

CONCEPT? I am privvy to details to judge overall strategy. Tho laymen deem thenselves expert enough to criticise a particular battle and it’s execution, they are unaware of the overview strategy at the top level.

But this is my observation. Was the strategy to get Iraq to be a model for the rest of the region? Yes. Was part of the strategy to get all Muslim countries to reject not only the jihad movement, but the 3rd world conditions that come with Islamic/Shariah law? Yes. Was another strategy to breed infighting amongst the enemy? Nope… but that’s sure a bonus that’s happening. YES!

With those strategic goals, there is notable progress. The Iraq government, merely 22 months old, faces the task of unity between factions more extreme than our own DNC/GOP divides. Iraqis themselves took control at the local level and bond against the jihad movement within their borders. Provincial elections are coming up in Iraq, which will aid that “bottom up” structure that has been successful so far.

Universally, the decline of jihad approval amongst Muslims. Their desperate and brutal rules of engagement have played against them, and the Muslim world is slowly turning their back on their methods. And it is with Muslim intolerance for violent oppression, and rejection of Shariah/Islamic rule, that the “war” will ultimately be won.

Winning? Yes, but not won. Failure. Nope… not unless we abandon them before they ask us to go, and thwart their chances for future success in time.

The hilarity stems from the fact you used a Jonah Goldberg style argument “the fact the German eventually lost only strengthens my point”. Yes you could have (not, of, by the way, have) termed it better. Or, simply not said anything.

Though I’m warming to the inevitable path of that particular argument; should, for instance, the US decide to go to war with a huge, neighbouring country, say, oh, Iran, a la barbarossa, it’ll all end the same way. Massive, crushing, humiliating defeat for the invaders.

Also, Vietnam is also a very silly argument. France? Check. US? Check. China? Check. If there was a World Cup for wars, the black pyjama clad guys would be Brazil.

“If there was a World Cup for wars, the black pyjama clad guys would be Brazil”

I believe the death toll (Iraq and Afghanistan) is something around 50-1, their deaths vs. ours. I don’t think Brazil would want to be associated with Islamist fools. Here’s one:

http://terroristdeathwatch.com/?p=536

It’s not even close — it’s just that idiots like you buy into the terrorists’ aims: to sow chaos in order to turn the American people against the war. It almost worked — now it’s only relegated to idiots like you, and the left wing ideologues on those sites Curt lists.

At some point the U.S. government is going to have to define stabilization.

To me it looks like the security matters are gone. With Al Qaeda on the run and Muqtada al-Sadr quit there doesn’t look like a security problem the Iraqis can’t handle and more than the U.S. military. The threat of a civil war is over. If there was going to be a massive civil war it would have happened. There could be a massive civil war at any time in the future there there could be another civil war in the U.S. some time in the future. I believe the hold up is that the generals and politicans are scared how they will be viewed historically if things go wrong that they are afraid to wrap things up.

The problem now is a matter of infrastructure which can be sorted out be putting the Iraqis to work building stuff. This could be handled by thousands of advisors. In 1963, South Vietnam had 16,000 foreign advisors.

INRE the budgetary procurement status of the new Iraq govt, this is the last report I am aware of…

As CentFla mentioned in another thread, would be nice if Iraq spent some of their reconstruction cash… and spent it wisely. But there are reasons for this holdup, and related to the “stability” of Iraq.

This report was issued Jan of this year.

The World Bank found that Iraq’s procurement procedures and practices are not in line with generally accepted public procurement practices, such as effective bid protest mechanisms and transparency on final contract awards. Iraqi procurement
laws and regulations are composed of a mixture of Saddam Hussein-era rules, CPA Order 87 requirements,15 and recent Iraqi government budgetary practices. The complexity of Iraq’s contracting regulations combined with the inexperience of many new Iraqi officials has led to a pervasive lack of understanding of these laws and regulations, according to State officials.

Evidently agreeing on a Constitution is one thing, but their budgetary procurement process is still lacking.

An excerpt from the “Results in Brief” section:

The government of Iraq faces many challenges that limit its ability to spend its capital project budget. First, Treasury officials noted that violence and sectarian strife delay capital budget execution by increasing the time and cost needed to award and monitor contracts, and by reducing the number of contractors willing to bid on projects.

Second, these officials stated that recent refugee outflows and the de-Ba’athification process have reduced the number of skilled workers available and contributed to the exodus of these workers from Iraq.

Third, U.S. and foreign officials also noted that weaknesses in Iraqi procurement, budgeting, and accounting procedures impede completion of capital projects. For example, according to the State Department, Iraq’s Contracting Committee requires about a dozen signatures to approve projects exceeding $10 million, which slows the process.

There is much to go thru here that sets the brain cells a’whirl – including a section discussing US efforts to help them improve their budget execution. Not to mention the charges of corruption based on a 2006 survey by Transparency International. **Then again, it should be noted this survey was done during the interim Iraq govt, and prior to the permanent government formed mid-2006

Then again, government and corruption – even in the US – go hand in hand. I would not be surprised to see corruption from people who have based survival on opportunism under Saddam’s regime.

**NOTE: I confess no knowledge of this organization. It’s on my “to do” research list…

The point is, that isn’t not merely violence and political progress. The details of running a govt, like appropriations of Central Bank monies (neede to fund police, army, etal) must be in place. Hard to fight an interal rebellion if the paperwork for ammunition, police and army pay, tanks, etal, are held up by paperwork.

surrender
retreat forced by action
unit decimation
failure to complete objective due to enemy action
…that kinda thing

definitely a military failure. Good point Doug, but the kind I’m talking about are failures due to enemy action. I’m curious, what effect do you think AG had on the war? Isn’t any enemy gain related to AG a propaganda defeat, and if so…what is the purpose of such propaganda?

Phillie Steve, there was not a complete turnover of military employees inherited by the Bush admin from the Clinton admin. Would you not agree that many military failures may just stem from those leftover personnel? Under Clinton, they were not tested in such a war, and often you can’t weed out the inadequate until they leer their heads under pressure.

Just as FEMA, not stocked from top to bottom with Bush appointees, had never been tested to the degree of Katrina. It was a mess before Katrina, but who knew since they never had to rise to such an occasion.

I think AG was a disaster for us. It shifted Iraqi and Middle Eastern perception of us from liberators (in the sense of Operation Iraqi Freedom) to occupiers.

Prior to the scandal,

“More than half of Iraqis in a survey done primarily in March and early April said their nation will be better off in five years because of the U.S.-led invasion, but 55 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of the United States.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/29/iraq.poll/

As the CNN poll shows just over 50% was generally the norm for almost all things Iraqi and American/British. Yet after the AG scandal there was a substantial change:

92% felt the CPA were occupiers
85% wanted the CPA to leave before or after the coming elections
79% of the violence has increased because people have lost faith in the CPA
71% were surprised by AG
54% said all Americans behave as the Abu. G. guards
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2004/06iiacss.pdf

20-40 percent increases in how we are negatively perceived. These numbers have generally remained constant since the AG scandal.

To ‘win hearts and minds’ with those numbers you essentially have to let the older generation die off. The reality was that the AG scandal tore us up in Iraq and then internationally:
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/20/Columns/Poll__World_s_opinion.shtml

Then there was other consequences:
American troop casualties spike:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monthly_Troop_Deaths_in_Iraq.jpg

Even Bush himself says, just after the AG scandal (he doesn’t mention the scandal — just the concurring dates): “Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary.”`
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/index.html

Note, also, the DoD starts their increase in violence trend (see chart) concurrently with the AG scandal; and it remains generally constant for over a year, until the mosque bombing and then goes much higher:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/06/pentagon_iraq_surge_not_working_/

In the Arab world views of America hit new lows after the scandal:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0902/p06s02-wome.html?s=hns

Consequently, civil war and ethnic cleansing, CPA attacks, kidnapping, violence of all kinds and shapes edged up . Did the AG scandal cause this? I don’t know. No one can know that. However, the pattern is there, but causality is tricky. However, I think it is not unreasonable to argue that we gravely lost Iraqi respect and trust in the AG scandal and consequently lost command and control of the country after the event– and we haven’t gotten their confidence back– they think we are foreign occupiers. It was a huge military failure and effected our mission gravely.
———
There are certainly enemy gains related to AG that are propaganda.

“Isn’t any enemy gain related to the AG [scandal] a propaganda defeat” for us? I find this question to be very complex and too loose to be unpacked carefully, so until I can understand it clearly i can’t comment.

Are we winning this war? Well, I guess you could say we haven’t lost anything yet…other than the lives of our soldiers. And for what purpose? How about a little bit of domination for oil because that’s what our country’s government is looking for over there. Do you think America really has an advantage because "we are the best"? So it has become an issue of world power now, has it? If you think America is going to win with "no doubt," just think, "What have we won?"

BTW, Steve.  I apologize for my personal ire at you.  But you’re being a real yo yo.  But so you know where I’m coming from…

Civil employees and many Pentagon employees are inherited from previous admins.  I couldn’t say that the Bush admin inherited employees from Bush 41. There was 8 years inbetween.  Thus the Clinton admin inclusion.

However, had the previous admin been a Bush 42 instead of 41, my comment would have been the same.

It’s more than plausible that the things that you want to blame Bush for actually eminate from civil employees and military personnel that could have been there for years, and beyond the 15 years it would take to be hired under a different POTUS.

And none in the previous admins (so you, Mr. Hypersensitive, don’t feel I’m singling out Clinton) have been tested for the magnitude of natural disasters (i.e. FEMA/Katrina) or wars (i.e. those experienced in urban guerrilla warfare in Iraq) that we are facing now.

Sometimes a CIC just doesn’t know who’s up to the task until the task hits the fan.

However the particular admin POTUS was not my point.  My point is, you have a tendancy to think if your next door neighbor farts, it’s Bush’s fault. Or, as ChrisG says, much more distinctly,  on the passport thread:

This was entirely predictable. Once again Steve absurdly blames the Bush Administration for all of his projected woes. President Bush does not hire contractors, general employees, or virtually anyone else, for the State Dept, DoD, or any other government organization. No President does. They select the few people at the top who are there a few years. The organization is run by career GS workers.

Re: "This was entirely predictable. Once again Steve absurdly blames the Bush Administration for all of his projected woes. President Bush does not hire contractors, general employees, or virtually anyone else, for the State Dept, DoD, or any other government organization. No President does. They select the few people at the top who are there a few years. The organization is run by career GS workers. "

So the Conservative position is that "no one is accountable for anything negative consequences, ever".  Everyone can do anythihing and no one is responsible since "the systemn" is around forever.

Of course, when it comes time to hand out credit, Conservatives have been very quick to give themselves high fives every chance they get.

Does that mean that "Morning in America" was really due to Carter Administration holdovers?  (Conservative answer:  "Of course not, SaintRonald was the perfect president and everything he did was great and he never did any wrong").  The "holdover" story only applies to bad things that happen during Republican Administrations.

I do not agree with your assesment of the situation about problems being due to career government employees countering political appointments.  Afer all, the horse show judge in charge of FEMA was a political appointee.  And the Gonzalez Justice department purged quite a few career employees, in favor of Loyal Bushies.

But I appreciate your frustration with trying to implement change, and being frustrated by organizational inertia (contrary to many comments, the corporate world can be a bureaucratic as any governmental entity, it’s just that in their case the situations do not make headlines).