Did We Win the Iraq War (or even the Surge)
 

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University and a retired Army officer, wrote an interesting article on whether or not history will view our incursion in Iraq as a victory. Seemingly not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...65a_story.html

Well that last paragraph is a thought provoker, ain't it?

Dang you, Pat. Another book goes on the "To Read" list......................

Only time will tell if we won the Iraq War. And right now, it isn't looking so good. And, I believe that once our presence in Afghanistan wanes radical Islamism will return there even more quickly, just as it did after Soviet withdrawl. It does not please me to say this, at all, I just believe it to be true. As ugly as it was there was a reason why Saddam Hussein had to maintain such a brutal regime......It's called radical religion. There is just something about the depth of religious brainwashing that makes it extremely hard to break. That being said, I do not support maintaining a permanent presence in such places. In places such as Afghanistan, permanent occupation is nothing but a colossal money pit.

Personally, I believe that Americans are seduced by war so easily because it's been almost 150 years since one was fought on our soil. If massive death and destruction was as fresh in the memories of Americans as it is in the minds of Europeans and Asians our attitude might be substantially closer to theirs. I also believe, sadly, that many Americans still cling to the silly notion of American invincibility and the idea that we can remain a superpower forever. When this country starts to exist solely to maintain it's military, (and I fear we are dangerously close to that if we aren't already there), it will no longer be a place worth fighting for. (IMHO.)

Regards,
Dave

I spent my 42nd birthday in Iraq. I imagine if I would have died there it would have of course been bad but at least I would have lived a little over half a life. Many Americans who died there were just out of high school, basically not even started on their lives. The average age of killed in action was 27.

In my heart of hearts I think Dick Chaney had always wanted to invade Iraq since the first Gulf War and perhaps masterminded the whole thing. Who knows. I also think sometimes George Bush is one of these guys who believe because they are born again they have some sort of approval from God to engage in things after "praying about it" for awhile. For most people you pray about not getting sick or what kind of car to buy, or what to do in a family crisis. Not start wars or invade countries. Now to cut him some slack we were all recovering from 9-11, and the President did have sort of a blank check to fight the war on terrorism. Unfortunately good judgement was not one of W's strong points. He made a huge mistake. And I believe if he had to do all over again he would never had invaded Iraq.

I hope someday that Iraq will be a nice place with a representative democracy and that the people who live there are able to enjoy the wealth of their oil. I know I am optimistic but it would be nice to think that all those who died there did not sacrifice their lives in vain. I do not think they will become a client state of Iran.

Yeah and I think the surge was sort of bullshit too. I think what really made the difference was that the Sunni insurgents were paid off by Petraeus in hard American cash. The people in Anbar were sick of Al Queda in Iraq and the civil war with the Shites. I think that is what really ended the main conflict. However today the same Sunnis are not at all happy with Shite government that has been installed in Baghdad.

Well at least Obama got us of that mess. Hopefully he gets us out of Afghanistan. Guess what...throwing your weight around is one thing. Invading countries and burning down cities is easy if you have the resources we do. Now getting the people whose country you just destroyed do what you want? Impossible....

I do not blame the MIC...it is just a resource. The Commander in Chief and the American people are the ones who decide to go to war or not.

ice,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. What is MIC? I'm slow with TLAs ( Three Letter Acronymns ) :D

Military Industrial Complex

Ahhh. Thanks.

thanks!

Many people have forgotten one thing about the Surge...it was a recognition that the previous military strategy of the Bush Administration was a failure. We had invaded the country with too few troops and not provided enough security. So the Surge was really Bush saying I have prosecuted the war badly and not provided security to Iraq, now I am going to put some more troops in because we need it. Sort of odd that today it is seen as some sort of great military strategy. Sort of like calling the Fire Department after most of the house has burnt down because you were using a garden hose to fight an out of control fire.

Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were the chief instigators for invading Iraq. Frankly our military commanders were inept, General Franks had Bin Laden at Tora Bora and he should have called in bunker busters from Diego Suarez, but he was runing the war from Florida and you do not fight wars with a remote. But as long as multi-national corporations run the government we will still maintain the military and all those overseas bases, just to protect their greedy arses.

I found the article too wide ranging.

It was a big picture op ed piece, not a master's thesis going into great detail over a narrow aspect of history. The historian was being expansive.

I am going to give the article a serious 2nd read.

My first impression: it was diffused and out of focus.

He is all over time and space making a lot of claims, coming to arguable conclusions and without investing sufficient effort on Iraq itself.

The surge worked because we were getting our ass kicked and it caused the kicking to cease so that we could withdraw with some dignity.

Did we win the war in Iraq.

First lets us define winning clearly.

IF we cannot, can we have a compromised definition?

Was the enemy completely vanquished/pacified; did the resulting government adopt a secular, plural democracy; and did this government become steadfast, long-term dependable allies of ours (and not an ally of another regional adversary)?

If you accept this definition, we struck out on three straight strikes.

I first got worried when the Iraqi army put down their arms and uniforms and vanished. We went to the heart of the beast like a .700 Nitro Express and stopped the heart. Ever since, the carcass has been rotting and there are still pockets of corruption and stink. Our military performed like a well oiled machine. The leadership from back home... not so much. It became a game of Wack-a-Mole and throwing money around. If you have to buy a friend you don't have a very dependable friend.

If you have to use the military, they weren't a friend to begin with.

True

And

True.

Dave

Reasonable!

However I have a personal unsubstantiated view of why we went into Iraq.

Israel, its diaspora and friends always wanted to defang, cripple any powerful entity in the ME region which is an enemy or potential one.

They knew the dislike of son Bush for Saddam and worked on Bush accordingly.
Not only did they worked on Bush but they worked on the America public.

From that perspective the war is a winner.

Nathanyou recent behaviour sort of add some weight to my belief.

Injecting himself in our election when he perceived that the president was not amenable to pressure.

Moreover the daily pressure being placed on the president by the friends of Israeli for the president to fall in line with the point of view and time table of Israel re Iran.

The public thrashing of any nominee who it is felt is not overtly sympathetic to Israeli.

More to come, please just watch the ever increasing PR and propaganda.:D

Israel had nothing to do with it.

It was the intersection of 9-11 and old fashioned jingoism more apt for the 19th Century British Empire than 2003. It was Bush's version of Kipling's White Man's Burden applied to a nation that was not nearly as strong as Saddam's successful propaganda machine made it look to be.Bush was trying to make Iraq into a sort of Canada of the Middle East. We did not even get an India out of it.

I am not saying Saddam was good. But he had nothing to do with 9-11. Whether Bush knew about the non-existence of WMDs or sincerely believed Saddam had them is the big question. I hope the latter was true.

We will know in about 20 years whether anything good came out of it. Unfortunately those who died there in the war will not have the satisfaction of being around to see how it went. That is the terrible thing about it all.

Israel is much more afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood being thrust into power by populations who have a sincere dislike of Israels' existence than the old system of despotic dictators who used the Israeli's as a bogeyman to keep their own downtrodden and poor citizens under wraps. I am sure Israel would prefer to have Assad and Mubarak to deal with right now than crusading democracies who may actually want to really destroy them.

If the state is splintered, weakened and many factions fighting each other who cares about the brotherhood. The brotherhood can be proxied.

What is feared is a cohesive vibrant state.

Yeah a cohesive state being run by an idealistic (to themselves anyway) Muslim Brotherhood who are true believers when it comes to defeating Israel. We may have to send troops to Israel someday to protect that nation's existence. Israel has two nations on her borders that are far from stable( Egypt and Syria) and where we can quote Mr. Strummer and say "the future is unwritten." Then we have Iraq...will they follow are lead or will they join the anti-Israel coalition?

I am fairly conventional I do support Israel although I am against the far right wing there.

I'm not sure I'd yet consider any of the Arab Spring countries to be crusading democracies or cohesive vibrant states, either of which Israel would probably be thrilled to have as a neighbor. I'm not sure how I would characterize Egypt, Syria, Libya or Yemen, but democracies or vibrant states would be close to my last choices.

I am making the point that should these states become democracies Israel will still face challenges. I am not calling them that yet. The situation is very fluid. My larger point is that the Arab Spring is not necessarily a good thing for stability in the region vis-a-vis Israel.

None of the states you mention Finnbow are anything like they were two years ago.

I agree completely. What exactly were we disagreeing upon exactly?:confused::cool:

:oSorry lol

My point is Israel greater fear|: an anti Israeli state which is not under the US thumb but is functionally together and with the potential to challenge Israel.

Iraq was once such a state. Israel bombed their nuclear aspiration and America took care of the rest.

Syria was once such a state. Israel also bombed its nuclear ambition. It is now eating itself.

As to Egypt. This state is bought by the USA. The Brotherhood is compromised :D and has enough opposition to keep it off balance.

The real challenge now is Iran. Just listen to the pressure!

Or a government-less Syria with Al-Queda elements doing all sorts of bad things; a new Somalia is not a good thing in the Middle East right now.

Not a big problem for Israel.

A very nice thread, thanks everyone.

I tend to agree with Dond that it covers too much. Still ok though.

My take, there's some really really big things missed. Forget that Korea even at the 38th parellel 'contained' the Reds. What about having US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - infidels in the Holy Land?

Yes 'we' wanted Saddam gone. I have no doubt that this was as true in the 90s as 2001. He was a destabilizing influence on the whole region!

I just don't see the 'loss'. Did we want Iraq to become a prosperous democracy, friend of the US? Of course. But just because it isn't doesn't mean certain important objectives weren't met.

Btw, I agree with the author on one certain observation, that it's not that big of a deal over time, with thes caveat, that it's influence may have at least helped jumpstart the Arab Spring.

Pete

It seems to me that these are contradictory statements. As big a murderous douchebag as Saddam was, his presence actually stabilized the Mideast (as Tito did in Yugoslavia, FWIW).

The images of Iraqi women stepping over dead bodies to vote was extremely powerful.

Pete

Wait a sec - Saddam = stability? Maybe once upon a time....

Pete

Absolutely. He kept Iran in check. By ousting Saddam, we put out the red carpet for the Iranians to exert their influence over the Shia majority. And we paid $ 1 Trillion, 4,300 dead, and ~32,000 wounded for this outcome? Brilliant.

It seems the same thing is occurring in Afghanistan now with Karzai accusing us of colluding with the Taliban against him.:confused:

Agreed he did way more than keep Iran in check, a while back. After the gulf war he was a lot broke-er than he used to be, the UN aside ;)

So, war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, threatened SA - as well as paid cash rewards to families of suicide bombers re: Israel ($25k!) - unsure how that adds up to stability.

Pete

So, can I assume that you think that the $1 Trillion was well spent, along with the 4,300 dead and ~32,000 wounded?

Jury's still out imo. However it wasn't the incredibly stupid thing it's often made out to be.

If we knew 'our' original plan wouldn't have worked I doubt we would've done the same thing.

Pete

Is that what Blacks and Latinos are going to have to resort to in the next election cycle, Pete?;)

Dave