quote: For ten years we built our Iraq occupation plan and with minor corrections we have implemented it.
quote:An expatriate Government was built in Europe and America, economic structures were hashed out, mock constitutions meant to provide civil rights for minorities..
...wait, are you referring to chalabi?
quote:A case of good preparation meeting opportunity.
quote: Ireland : Again, the UK could certainly have stayed, in 1921. They pulled out because they didn't feel like spilling more blood, not because they had to.
KoM, you gave some good examples--I don't know much about the Boer Wars and some of the others, so I can't argue about them. But as far as Ireland and Vietnam go, it's a common tactic of guerilla warriors fighting against occupation by foreign powers to make it too expensive for the occupier to stay. Mass media in the 20th century only accelerated this trend, and is considered main reasons why America left Vietnam-- it became too morally,politically,and materially expensive. So when you say the Brits could have stayed but chose to pull out, your missing the point, which is that they lost. Similarly for the U.S. in Vietnam, the French pullouts in Vietnam and Algiers, etc. It brings to mind an exchange between an American officer who later wrote a history of the Vietnam War and a viet cong officer:
quote: American:You never defeated us in a stand-up, pitched battle. Vietcong: That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.
posted
BC, I share Kerinin's laughter at your post. Rumsfeld and others in the Pentagon threw out the existing war plan for invading Iraq, mainly because it involved approximately 500,000 US soldiers--it was basically Gulf War I with minor revisions. This conflicted with Rumsfeld's force projection and limited force doctrines, so he had General Franks and staff come up with new plans after 9/11 (the Pentagon was already in the process of reviewing all hypothetical war plans on the shelf, at Rumsfeld's urging.) Then Rumsfeld and his people parsed and cut Frank's plan to the bone, forcing Franks to repeatedly revise downward his manpower estimates for the plan. This is well documented in Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, and other books and articles. The plan that remained worked very well during major combat (although it was risky and light in armor in my opinion), leading to the fall of Baghdad in what, 3 weeks? However, it left US forces undermanned to sustain an occupation of any duration and fight a counterinsurgency. Leading to today's problems, which the DoD has countered with "stop-loss" and "drag-back" policies to get more warm bodies on the ground in Iraq.
quote: The fact is that the hearts and minds issue that seems so up for grabs is resolved in our favor. We sell hope, the insurgents sell fear, for repeat custom hope wins every time
Don't forget pride and nationalism, they are powerful forces that the insurgents are selling sucessfully.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The war plans were changed, so what, the new one worked, what we had in place were individuals that could return to home towns and act as contacts for us, translate our intentions to locals and pinpoint problems for us. Top to bottom a temporary Iraqi govenment.
This is what George senior lacked, not firepower or resolve. It is not the first time in history we have ended up with real estate we did not want and given it back. Mexico comes to mind.
That you do not believe this is the case is mearly ignorance on your part as well as a predisposition to belive Bush is stupid. I suggest a project on your part to find the truth. Much on the subject is public domain.
posted
Boer War, The British defeated the Dutch Boers and their "commandos" of South Africa. Of course they did throw most of the civilian populace into concentration ( not the death type) camps to keep the commandos away from their support. Also in case you're curious the British Commandos are named after the South Africans .
Also the Roman empire is an excellent example that guerilla tactics often do not work.Do you think most provinces just fell down and took Roman rule without a long standing incident. The Romans often simply enslaved the populace or dealt with the issues in a rather bold manner.
That and in all honesty the reason guerilla war occurs so often is that it is the only last resort, its rather hard to create a standing military from scratch. Guerilla fighters generally suceed well against "humane" occupiers due to the fact that the mass populace tends to never get punished in a complete manner. That and all solutions that dont' solve the problem simply create more recruits.
An excellent modern example of a way to end Guerilla conflict is in the Albanians in Kosovo attempting to get into Macedonia. Nato forces in Kosovo confiscated so many weapons and supplies from the Guerillas attempting to smuggle them that they forced the Kosovar Albanians to the negotation table and stopped a much larger conflict from breaking out.
The American victory over the native populace is an excellent example on how to defeat small armed bands. It is always best to defeat an enemy at his source, they figured out rather quickly hey the plains Indians like to eat Buffalo so if we hunt them into near extinction they won't have food. No food source sitting around for the Natives to eat and all of a sudden they are forcesd to the table. That and I do believe the British smashed some Guerilla insurgency in the 60s.
I know the Mongolians never had any major issues with Guerillas.. but then they did build a pyramid of skulls in Baghdad out of all the Imans, poets, etc.
Mostly when you are all talking about Guerilla warfare you speak of a war of attrition. That being who is willing to sit there and grind the longest. The problem is that I personally find it nearly impossible for an "ethical" and "moral" society to win a war of attrition in this manner. Mainly people don't care and they won't pay more taxes. Heck people complain now a days when all their vehicles aren't armor plated etc. etc. ARe these people kidding me? You know what the average dead insurgent I've seen had? An Rpg or AK, maybe 2 mags of ammo. Heck some of the guys didn't have shoes. Yes some of them are better armed, but mostly they simply hit soft targets. Something that a large military is never short of.
The thing is why fear an American soldier. I can go scout out his compound without being shot, heck in most engagements the Insurgent is allowed to gain fire superiority due to Rules of engagement etc. That and our military is not designed to hold large swaths of territory. They are good at taking that territory, but we are talking about 25 million people. That and our military is slowly but surely becoming very top heavy due to the way that we fight. That meaning we have lots of support guys, but not so many people who are actually delivering death per say.
That and you honestly don't hear about guerillas losing much in history as back then it wasn't something to really be written about. Who cares much about the little insurgency crushed after the big glorious war and what not.
Not that I condone inhumane tactics or the vast extermination of the Iraqi people. I personally have some views on how to do it well, but all involve a time. Something the American public can't take.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That you do not believe this is the case is mearly [sic]ignorance on your part as well as a predisposition to belive [sic] Bush is stupid. I suggest a project on your part to find the truth. Much on the subject is public domain
BC, a little advice:when accusing someone of ignorance, try not to make multiple spelling errors in that sentence (it tends to drown out your message.)
As far as your suggestion of a "research project", let's see what a few little web searchs turn up.
quote: Tue Sep 2,2003 By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer WASHINGTON - Thomas E. White, forced to resign as Army secretary in May, has fired back in a book that describes the Bush administration's postwar effort in Iraq as "anemic" and "totally inadequate." The book, which presents a blueprint for revitalizing Iraq, asserts that the administration underestimated the difficulty of putting that country back on its feet after the fall of Saddam Hussein . "Clearly the view that the war to `liberate' Iraq would instantly produce a pro-United States citizenry ready for economic and political rebirth ignored the harsh realities on the ground," White wrote in a preface to "Reconstructing Eden," which is to be published Thursday. In a letter to news organizations announcing the book's release, White was even tougher on the administration. "Unbelievably, American lives are being lost daily," he wrote. White said the administration lacks a cohesive, integrated plan to stabilize and rebuild the country.
"We did not conduct the war this way and we should not continue rebuilding the country in a haphazard manner," he wrote. "The result will be a financial disaster, more lives lost, chaos in Iraq and squandered American goodwill."
White, who as a civilian service secretary was not in the military chain of command, served as Army secretary from May 2001 to May 2003. [section cut]
In the book, White noted the postwar spasms of violence in Iraq.
"It is quite clear in the immediate aftermath of hostilities that the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate," he wrote.
White wrote that the administration's Iraq policy "threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster." The administration's "anemic attempts at nation building" will be viewed with disdain by other countries, he said.
quote: Rumsfeld is convinced of the need to use far fewer soldiers than Franks, who says 300,000 will eventually be needed to stabilize the country
3)Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki is sandbagged in the press in April 2002, partly for arguing for more troops, same pbs link as above:
quote:Rumsfeld picks a replacement for Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, an adversary since the battles over Crusader. The news is leaked to The Washington Times, making Shinseki a lame duck 14 months before his retirement. Rumsfeld feels the Army is not in line with his transformation plans. Shinseki has also privately argued that Rumsfeld will not be sending enough troops to Iraq.
Shinseki also later tells congress in public that several hundred thousand troops will be needed.
4)July 2002,Rice warns the president, Bush Sr. and former NSA Scowcroft against war, same pbs link
quote: But she warns the president that his own father appears to be against an invasion, and her mentor, Brent Scowcroft, takes to the op-ed pages telling Bush to hold off
5)On Meet the Press today, Sen. Lindsay Graham [R] says that Ambassador Bremer asked for 50,000 additional troops to stabilize Iraq and for counterinsurgency--request denied.
Note that aside from a couple of generals of unknown political party everyone I quoted is Republican, and they all support my argument: the post-war plan was ill-concieved and enough troops were not in place after major combat ended to stabilize the country and fight an insurgency.
posted
As far as our "contacts" who were supposed to help govern post-Saddam Iraq, as you claim, the most prominent was Chalabi, who was useless.
quote: After years of lobbying Wolfowitz and others, Chalabi's wish is finally granted -- he and his 700-man army are airlifted into Iraq. He is greeted not as a hero but as an imposter. Despite his promises to the U.S. government, he has no significant support inside the country
same pbs link as above.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, that frontline link is really making my case: summer 2003
quote: Rumsfeld puts Wolfowitz in charge of military operations in Iraq. Wolfowitz turns around and publicly disagrees with Rumsfeld, saying the U.S.'s initial planning had been inadequate. The situation on the ground seems to support his claim; generals are now concerned an insurgency is brewing
Note that this is Rumsfeld's own deputy saying this! How much clearer does it get?? Post-war planning was screwed, mainly because it did not anticipate a significant insurgency.
posted
Awww, you're no fun BC. I wanted you to stick to your guns. Bully for you for admitting I was right. I hate to do that. I was surprised at the amount of Republican critics of war planning and post-war Iraq. I wing it too, I just have read up on the war a lot. But sometimes I bluff or BS a little when arguing. I recommend Plan of Attack, and also Chain of Command. Also a history of the Iraq war by a british guy, I think it was just called The Iraq War, I'll have to check . CofC is very critical of Bush's handling of the leadup to war and the post war period, PofA is more balanced. The history book had a lot of pre-war history. We'll argue again sometime, I hope--arguing is a weakness of mine. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, I am leaving to make it work. I have two weeks to get ready to go, pack my toothbrush, get married, get her pregnant so I do not have to put up with that crappy first year of child rearing or worry about being cuckolded while gone, work out two hours a day and do Christmas and New Years, I am swamped.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
