The Iraq War v.4

[Alastor]

Tone down this squabble now, both of you. It certainly doesn't bring the discussion forward.

What if we could have a discussion without constant references to this or that propaganda about what there is to win or lose by leaving now and what there is to win or lose by staying.

[Eileithyia]

Originally Posted by Alastor

Tone down this squabble now, both of you. It certainly doesn't bring the discussion forward.

What if we could have a discussion without constant references to this or that propaganda about what there is to win or lose by leaving now and what there is to win or lose by staying.

That's a tricky question, isn't it? Guess that's partly why this thread is on version four!

That said, I think it's really difficult to say. None of us is a professional prognosticator, so to speak, and while we can learn a lot from previous history, this situation is fairly unique, and so the possible outcomes are much more in question.

There is so much that can only be guessed at. We could do everything perfectly, and Iraq could still end up a mess. We can continue making mistakes, and Iraq could turn out just fine.

Much of the outcome really depends on the Iraqi government and people themselves. We can help or hinder them, but I really think at this point, it's for them to say what will be of help, and what will not.

[purplehawk]

I think both sides of the debate believe fervently that their way is the right way to go - or not go - in Iraq. Nothing I've seen, heard, or read has given me any confidence whatsoever that the war should be continued. I think we need to cut our losses and bring our kids home at the earliest opportunity. That's just my opinion, though. Others obviously don't agree.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

All war is started, threatened, and ended as political end game. The important distinction is that when it comes to strategy in war, it is something the unskilled and untrained should avoid and/or be prohibited from engaging in.

I agree with this 100%. However all the evidence of recently retired officers both in Britain and the US suggests that the strategy for this war was devised by politicians who completely ignored professional military advice as to what was or was not achievable with the resources made available. Sadly the evidence suggests that very little has changed

Here for example is a link to the views of the recently retired head of the British Army. (The Daily Telegraph is an openly right wing paper so there is no 'liberal media bias' here)

[purplehawk]

Common Dreams has the Op-Ed written for the New York Times by seven U.S. soldiers in Iraq: The Iraq War As We See It. It was powerful enough for the military to respond.

A simple Google search brings up hundreds of links on what the retired U.S. generals think of what's going on, what has gone on, in Iraq.

Good to see you again, Dung!

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Mundungus Fletc

I agree with this 100%. However all the evidence of recently retired officers both in Britain and the US suggests that the strategy for this war was devised by politicians who completely ignored professional military advice as to what was or was not achievable with the resources made available. Sadly the evidence suggests that very little has changed

Here for example is a link to the views of the recently retired head of the British Army. (The Daily Telegraph is an openly right wing paper so there is no 'liberal media bias' here)

On this point I think we will find a general agreement on both sides. Both that politicians shouldn't make strategy and that so far politicians have made typical poorly designed politically driven strategy. I will agree completely that the hand of non-military influence in conducting military operations is the root of most mistakes and has happened way too often. It is indeed the source of poorly planned goals, unachieved objectives and restrictive engagement policies that both disadvantage our troops and create a set of unrealistic mission goals based solely on desired outcome and not based in any way on realisticly reachable logistical possibilities. Another lesson not learned from previous engagements I fear.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

On this point I think we will find a general agreement on both sides. Both that politicians shouldn't make strategy and that so far politicians have made typical poorly designed politically driven strategy. I will agree completely that the hand of non-military influence in conducting military operations is the root of most mistakes and has happened way too often. It is indeed the source of poorly planned goals, unachieved objectives and restrictive engagement policies that both disadvantage our troops and create a set of unrealistic mission goals based solely on desired outcome and not based in any way on realisticly reachable logistical possibilities. Another lesson not learned from previous engagements I fear.

But that has been the case since this war began, hasn't it? And Petraeus is probably the most political of all the generals who've been involved in Iraq. When have you ever heard of a general serving in a war zone writing Op-Eds for an incumbent president in an election year?

[Mundungus Fletc]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

On this point I think we will find a general agreement on both sides. Both that politicians shouldn't make strategy and that so far politicians have made typical poorly designed politically driven strategy. I will agree completely that the hand of non-military influence in conducting military operations is the root of most mistakes and has happened way too often. It is indeed the source of poorly planned goals, unachieved objectives and restrictive engagement policies that both disadvantage our troops and create a set of unrealistic mission goals based solely on desired outcome and not based in any way on realisticly reachable logistical possibilities. Another lesson not learned from previous engagements I fear.

The key question now is to what extent politicians are still trying to 'run the war.' Of course they have to have control of the overall objectives though I hope their decisions are being affected by professional advice - the 'surge' has more than a whiff of political spin about it.

The problem as I see it is that if the US objective of a Democratic Iraq was ever to have been achieved then a much greater number of boots should have been deployed from the start. The ' we don't do nation building' quote is very revealing - it seems that politicians made huge and unwarranted assumptions about the likelihood of democracy just arising in a spontaneous manner - as you have noted above it didn't happen in Germany or Japan so why did they expect it to happen in Iraq?

In the past when Churchill (for example) tried to 'run the war' he was listened to attentively and then usually ignored - the military master at this was Montgomery who simply refused to obey orders in North Africa until he had sufficient resources. It is sad that our present day generals only seem to develop a backbone when they have retired

[purplehawk]

Bush is going to win this go 'round, as inconceivable as that seemed just last spring. Petraeus may be disappointed at the "political state" of Iraq, and involved in dissent and infighting with his peers and superiors, but he and Crocker are going to come through for Team Bush.

After last year's electoral rout and the Iraq Study Group, we were talking about how soon to end the war. Now debate has devolved into how long the surge should be maintained - with no reference whatsoever about ending the war. In May, September was considered a decisive deadline and Republicans in Congress were threatening to join Democrats in pushing for withdrawal.

The American public, according to the polls hasn't wavered one bit and still wants an immediate or gradual withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. The public has wanted this for more than a year.

It makes my head spin to think that reality is going to take a back seat yet again.

[WarriorEowyn]

Hmm. The polls make me more dubious as to whether Iraq will be a decisive election issue. About a third of Americans (31-36%) believe that the surge is improving things (CBS/NYT), Bush is handling the war well, Republicans would do a better job in Iraq than Democrats, and the Iraq War was worth fighting(ABC/WP).

Nearly all of these people are likely to vote Republican. Considering only about 50% of the population votes... well, draw your own conclusions.

54% of the population think the war can be won, which suggest that Democratic candidates may actually harm their chances by suggesting it is unwinnable rather than suggesting alterations to current policy. People are roughly equally divided on whether withdrawing troops would make a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely. However, about 60% of people think the US should decrease (30%) or remove all (30%) forces from Iraq (CBC and CNN polls, mid-August).

I'd say public opinion is largely up in the air and will shift based on the perception of what is happening in Iraq.

Even adjusting for the margins of error, it appears there are people who think the war in Iraq can be won and withdrawing will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, but who still want to leave. ????

I don't particuarly trust Petraeus' report at this point. Either because he wants to support the Administration or because he thinks a little whitewashing is the only way to get the change to built on progress he feels he's making, he will probably portray things as better than they are. And both parties will latch onto whatever he says that favours their PoV.

On another topic: There was a man on The Daily Show a few weeks back (I saw a rerun) who wrote the current counterinsurgency manual for the forces in Iraq. It was quite funny: Jon asked him if he could give an estimate on what proportion of the insurgents were al-Qaeda and the guy, completely deadpan, says "7.3 percent". Jon actually bought it for a second.

Then the guy said no, it was classified. Really too bad. The one piece of information that would give the best idea of whether or not it's worth it to stay, and we aren't allowed to know.

[guinevere_wood]

I think that the public opinion will not change any time soon. War, especially a war that doesn't seem to be progressing or doing any visible good, is something the public dislikes.

For some strange reason, this smells slightly of Vietnam.

[Wab]

Some interesting results from the latest BBC/ABC poll of Iraqis.

Although a majority see the violence as worse fewer blame the occupation forces but an increasing number want a immediate withdrawal.

September poll

[guinevere_wood]

Well, it wasn't anything we didn't really know.

We all know that the general public wants either a gradual or immediate withdrawl.

And that the violence is getting worse.

Which is why we need to get out.

[WarriorEowyn]

And we know that despite comparatively low levels of violence in northern and southern Iraq, there has been a failure to restore the electrical supply in both regions, and a failure to provide clear water supplies in the south. Despite the Bush Administration throwing money at foreign contractors.

A majority of Shias, or very close to a majority, still support a unified state, and that's what really matters given that they make up about 2/3 of the population. Some federal arrangement may have to be worked out with the Kurds, as a compromise.

A majority of Iraqis, and the vast majority of Sunnis (Shias are evenly split) approve of attacks on coalition forces. Few approve of attacks on Iraqi forces.

[guinevere_wood]

But consider this: do you believe civil war is inevitable in Iraq, regardless of the American troops?

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by guinevere_wood

But consider this: do you believe civil war is inevitable in Iraq, regardless of the American troops?

No, not inevitable. A high level of civil strife, yes, but "civil war" presumes that the situation is far more structured than it really is. Civil wars occur between two defined groups; Iraq has a large number of different groups (Shias who want a unitary state, Shias who don't, anti-government Sunnis, Sunnis willing to work with the government, Kurd, different Shia blocs) that allow for a variety of coalitions. The insurgency is also made up of a lot of different groups that don't necessarily have anything in common.

Civil wars tend to be about one group or another gaining power. The question here is whether some kind of power structure endures or if the whole thing falls apart.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

Hmm. The polls make me more dubious as to whether Iraq will be a decisive election issue. About a third of Americans (31-36%) believe that the surge is improving things (CBS/NYT), Bush is handling the war well, Republicans would do a better job in Iraq than Democrats, and the Iraq War was worth fighting(ABC/WP).

Nearly all of these people are likely to vote Republican. Considering only about 50% of the population votes... well, draw your own conclusions.

54% of the population think the war can be won, which suggest that Democratic candidates may actually harm their chances by suggesting it is unwinnable rather than suggesting alterations to current policy. People are roughly equally divided on whether withdrawing troops would make a terrorist attack on the US more or less likely. However, about 60% of people think the US should decrease (30%) or remove all (30%) forces from Iraq (CBC and CNN polls, mid-August).

I'd say public opinion is largely up in the air and will shift based on the perception of what is happening in Iraq.

See, here is what I don't understand. Why aren't the Democrats screaming about the improved situation in Iraq at the top of their lungs?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but the President made all his changes and adopted the new strategy after the November elections because the Democrats said that "stay the course" was not and would not work. They were right! The Democrats demanded that the President change tactics and we ended up with the surge and it seems to have had some success. Why aren't the Democrats celebrating? They forced the President to change tactics, he did, and now things may actually be getting better. This is a huge success of the Democratic Congress! Does anyone honestly believe that the President would have changed tactics if the Democrats hadn't won in November?

What am I getting wrong?

There was a man on The Daily Show a few weeks back (I saw a rerun) who wrote the current counterinsurgency manual for the forces in Iraq. It was quite funny: Jon asked him if he could give an estimate on what proportion of the insurgents were al-Qaeda and the guy, completely deadpan, says "7.3 percent". Jon actually bought it for a second.

Then the guy said no, it was classified. Really too bad. The one piece of information that would give the best idea of whether or not it's worth it to stay, and we aren't allowed to know.

I saw that one and it was sooooooo funny, and ironic!

[Wab]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

we ended up with the surge and it seems to have had some success.

The death toll in August was higher than in February when the surge was launched and, after a dip in May the death toll started to rise in July after we were told that we would have to wait for an improvement; as the surge went on, things got worse.

"At least 1,771 civilians were killed in Iraq in August, up seven percent on the previous month, according to figures compiled by three Iraqi ministries and seen by AFP."

[purplehawk]

I read something recently that said the reduced number of civilian deaths in Baghdad is due more to ethnic cleansing. The Shia have violently evicted just about all the Sunni there.

[Wab]

Possibly. The once vibrant Chaldean Christian community has more or less been driven out of the country.