US Not Winning in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Somebody asked how the government expected to recoup its material expenditures, I gave an answer: “just take the oil.” Don’t think for a minute that this would be considered an original idea in Washington.

All military empires have enriched themselves using the even simpler expedient of smash-and-grab, without much regard to whose property it is, and my statement is that ours will behave no differently, if given the opportunity.[/quote]

There was a plan to get the new puppet government to make some kind of payments (back when everybody thought the war would cost merely a few tens of billions). I doubt you’re going to squeze 2 trillion out of that turnip.

But take the oil? No, not exactly. The real action is going down right now as the Iraqis struggle to frame their new Petroleum Law. This is the framework Exxon/Mobil, Unocal et al need to begin happy oil pumping.

One pundit recently suggested that the Baker plan calls out 2008 because this will be long enough to get the oil law settled.

42

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Here is what victory would have amounted to: 1) Iraqi oil contracts given to Exxon/Mobil, Unocal, etc; 2) an indefinite American military presence in Iraq to keep Iran on its toes and make sure the locals don’t nationalize the oil bidness somewhere downstream; 3) a pliable local government (see “permanent bases”); 4) enough stability to pump oil and ship it out of the country.[/quote]

So you’re happy to be losing badly, then?

Whatever a victory would’ve meant is besides the point. If the American people didn’t want that war, they should’ve mobilized to make their opposition clear. Or, even better, not vote a bunch of warmongering corporate shills to the Whitehouse in the first place.

I always wonder if all those people who hate oil so much would enjoy a world without it or where they can’t afford it anymore.

I’m not saying that “oil at any cost” makes a good basis for a valid foreign policy, but since the entirety of our modern civilization is built on oil, we can’t simply ignore the fact that anything that destabilizes the supply affects us in a big way.

It’s a lot harder to fail miserably if you have enough troop to impose martial law across the land. More troops is not a panacea; but it does make available a lot more options than when your troops are stretched paper thin.

Note also that when I say to make war using every mean necessary, I include using the NBC arsenal as needed.

War should be rare; when it becomes necessary, it should be Hell. If the war you’re waging can be lost by the enemy “waiting it out,” you’re not doing it correctly.

Then don’t go to war. You build a coalition of nations - if your cause is just, it shouldn’t be that hard to get support - until you have enough troops to get the job done.

I could agree with Rumsfeld if there truly had been an imminent threat from Iraq. Saddam wasn’t massing his armies alongside your borders; he had no WMDs; he was quite effectively contained.

The only reason Rummy was in such a hurry to go to war was to capitalize on what little of the 9/11 effect was left at that time. If he had waited a bit more, public opposition probably would’ve made going to war impossible.

43

[quote]pookie wrote:

So you’re happy to be losing badly, then?

…
I always wonder if all those people who hate oil so much would enjoy a world without it or where they can’t afford it anymore.

I’m not saying that “oil at any cost” makes a good basis for a valid foreign policy, but since the entirety of our modern civilization is built on oil, we can’t simply ignore the fact that anything that destabilizes the supply affects us in a big way.

…
It’s a lot harder to fail miserably if you have enough troop to impose martial law across the land. More troops is not a panacea; but it does make available a lot more options than when your troops are stretched paper thin.

Note also that when I say to make war using every mean necessary, I include using the NBC arsenal as needed.

War should be rare; when it becomes necessary, it should be Hell. If the war you’re waging can be lost by the enemy “waiting it out,” you’re not doing it correctly.

You build a coalition of nations - if your cause is just, it shouldn’t be that hard to get support - until you have enough troops to get the job done.

[/quote]
You keep using the wrong tense. We’ve lost. We’re not losing. Oil requires this permanent infrastructure in place. It requires civil stability. We’re not going to get those things anytime soon. That’s losing. What we’re doing is delaying a resolution. That’s making matters worse.

I’m not against having oil on the market, and I’m especially not against avoiding another major recession. We’re in violent agreement about the importance of oil. Oil price instability has damnable economnic effects. Hussein was a problem that had to be dealt with eventually, a problem that was keeping a large portion of the world’s proven reserves off-line. Also his own regime, and the sanctions imposed to keep him in check were a humanitarian problem.

We certainly had time to put together the correct army. But as I think we both agree, you cannot lie your way into a war, if you expect to summon the will to win it. They thought they saw their chance with 9/11, but they were wrong. History shows that arranged outrages are much more efficient for the purpose of starting a war. It gives better control over the timing.

Could there have been a coalition? Well, no. You remember how France and Russia behaved during the big run up to the invasion? That was because Hussein had already granted eventual production rights to certain French and Russian petroleum concerns, among others. Hussein did a marvelous job of playing us off against each other.

The war was and is hellish. Your demand has been fully met. NBC? You should look at what White Phosphorous does to a human being. Your ideas about counter-insurgency are incorrect, more of what we had available to put on-line is not better. You grow the insurgency faster. You delay any political resolution.

Given present conditions, the sooner we get out of Iraq, the sooner Iraqi crude is going to reach the market, helping to stabilize it and cut the chance of a massive economic downturn. Do I care if Exxon/Mobil or Unocal gets to pump that oil, instead of ELF or LukOil? Nada.

44

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

(text)[/quote]

Well you’re still there, that’s why I’m using “losing” as opposed to “lost.” When your current occupation is relegated to the past, I’ll use “lost.”

If the cause had really been justifiable, I’m sure you could’ve gotten France, Germany and many other nations to back you up. Russia might have been harder, but with enough of a coalition going, exerting political and diplomatic pressure becomes easier.

Your main problem was that most of the world saw right through Bush & Co.'s bullshit.

And the war is not hellish enough. There is no way that a country like Iraq can stand against the full might of the U.S. But because western nations are too afraid of the public repercussions when the media images of an all out war hit the TVs, they fight timidly.

I’m fully aware of the effect of white phosphorus, FAEs, radiation and various chemical agents have on human beings. That’s my point: The simple threat of war should be enough to convince the roguest of nations to think twice before thumbing its nose at the global community.

Let one nation call your bluff and be hit with the full brunt once and I guarantee you all future diplomatic advances will be taken quite seriously.

It’s too late for that now in Iraq (although I’ve argued for it in a previous post, I’ve since reconsidered.) But doing wars the way the Iraq war was done is ridiculous and simply squanders away most of the goodwill and credibility the US had post 9/11.

45

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Iraq has been the worst kind of bad news for everyone who has ever tried to grab a piece of it. I say we just give the bloody country back to the goddamned Turks, wash our hands and be done with it.[/quote]

I sincerely doubt they’re dumb enough to want it.

46

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Good to see you, Makkun - you should drop in more often.

I will say this: I don’t think Iraq was a strategic mistake, but I think their have been tactical mistakes. Big ones.
[/quote]

No, more troops is a strategic or at least an operational decision, and anyway, the entire issue stems from the abiding theory of “we don’t do nation-building,” which flowed from the top down. The idea that we could stabilize a country with a light force built for quick, firepower-intensive conventional warfare is a strategic mistake of the highest magnitude, and indeed goes far beyond just Iraq.

[quote]
Broadly stated, in my view, more troops should have been on the ground, more equipment, and we should have been more ruthless in taming the country.

Since we didn’t, and order was never established, we now have pockets of chaos that are threatening civil war.

The Iraqis - Sunnis, Shi’ites, Kurds, anyone - needed to be unconditionally defeated. And more than that, they needed to know it. That never happened - there never was unconditional victory because we let our politically correct impulses take over and we ignored human nature.[/quote]

I see this argument a lot, often in some of the dumber right-wing corners of the net, and I’m not entirely sure what you would retroactively propose. Levelling Baghdad? Using airpower and artillery in the Sunni Triangle (we already do that)? Some of the most ruthless counter-insurgencies in history have been some of the least successful (Germans in Yugoslavia, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the French in Algeria spring to mind immediately). Some, notably Bill Lind, would propose that we tighten ROE even more. Example:

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_03_06.htm

Thoughts?

47

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We did it again — started a war and didn’t try to win. Instead, we dicked around, bleeding America’s finest, when we should have been going all out to win.

But, the soccer moms and latte-drinker libs would object to that.

So would US Special Forces, who understand counter-insurgency warfare requires limiting the toll paid by the civilian population, and making political solutions possible.
[/quote]

Smartest thing said on here.

I’d argue we basically went 50/50, which is the worst possible place to be.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We did it again — started a war and didn’t try to win. Instead, we dicked around, bleeding America’s finest, when we should have been going all out to win.
[/quote]

Can you explain what that means and entails, or are you just spouting talking points?

49

[quote]pookie wrote:
There is no way that a country like Iraq can stand against the full might of the U.S.
[/quote]

They didn’t. They surrendered. All according to script. Mission accomplished. Fallujah was devastated. Mission accomplished. There’s nobody left to surrender, anymore. Just a puppet government that can’t govern. And a bunch of very pissed, scared people with Kalashnikovs.

Now I have to admit you’re the first I’ve heard suggest nuking the poor blighters. But it seems to me we’re already killing them in sufficient numbers. The problem lately is that they are killing each other.

Despite the fact that ruthless use of force demonstrably doesn’t work very well in these situations, it never seems at a lack for adherents. Despite Viet Nam, Afghanistan, four years of Iraq, somebody seems always ready to suggest using a larger hammer.

50

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
And a bunch of very pissed, scared people with Kalashnikovs.[/quote]

They’re not scared enough to put down the Kalashnikovs

It’s too late to adopt a ‘Total War’ doctrine now; it would only come off as desperation on the part of the U.S.

I’m saying that future wars might turn out to be quite similar if they aren’t fought differently from the get go.

51

[quote]pookie wrote:
They’re not scared enough to put down the Kalashnikovs
[/quote]
OK, 9 for “esprit” but zero for realism. You only put those down when you’re not scared anymore. That’s the whole point of counter-insurgency tactics.

Turning the place into a series of green glass craters would have been bad for oil production, definitely not good for “victory.”

It reminds me of that old New Yorker cartoon where a hun is being dressed down by his sergeant: “How many times do I have to tell you? First rape, then pillage, then burn.”

52

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
OK, 9 for “esprit” but zero for realism. You only put those down when you’re not scared anymore. That’s the whole point of counter-insurgency tactics.[/quote]

What about having enough troops to impose martial law, and then going house to house to pick up all the Kalashnikovs?

Temporarily disarming the populace would make it a lot easier to restore order to the place.

Once you’ve secured the country, managed to put in place working institutions (government, police, schools, etc.) Then you can pull out and hope it keeps running.

53

[quote]pookie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
OK, 9 for “esprit” but zero for realism. You only put those down when you’re not scared anymore. That’s the whole point of counter-insurgency tactics.

What about having enough troops to impose martial law, and then going house to house to pick up all the Kalashnikovs?

Temporarily disarming the populace would make it a lot easier to restore order to the place.

Once you’ve secured the country, managed to put in place working institutions (government, police, schools, etc.) Then you can pull out and hope it keeps running.
[/quote]

"The recipe for victory in Iraq is simple. Establish that we are in charge there by killing a great many more people. This may take more troops. It might just take a shift in emphasis from politics to fighting. Try hard to ensure that the dead are enemies bearing arms, but remember that trying too hard to avoid collateral damage will only guarantee futility and frustration. Stop worrying about hearts and minds. As the old saying goes: “when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Get a good grip and hang on.

Make it clear by word and deed that we anticipate remaining in Iraq until the jihad burns out and the oil runs dry and that, in the mean time, there are strict limits on Iraqi sovereignty."

54

[quote]pookie wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
OK, 9 for “esprit” but zero for realism. You only put those down when you’re not scared anymore. That’s the whole point of counter-insurgency tactics.

What about having enough troops to impose martial law, and then going house to house to pick up all the Kalashnikovs?

Temporarily disarming the populace would make it a lot easier to restore order to the place.

Once you’ve secured the country, managed to put in place working institutions (government, police, schools, etc.) Then you can pull out and hope it keeps running.
[/quote]

You still have to get them to give you the weapons, not bury them someplace. Also, they will wind up hating your guts and ready to shoot your ass. This house to house stuff is killing us.

The bottom line is, you can’t just pacify people, you have to get them on your side. Otherwise, everything you do is of purely temporary benefit.

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Make it clear by word and deed that we anticipate remaining in Iraq until the jihad burns out and the oil runs dry and that, in the mean time, there are strict limits on Iraqi sovereignty."[/quote]

You keep forgetting this is not an us vs. them kind of problem we have here. It is a them vs. them problem at this point.

If we could ever get back to mere colonial exploitation, the British did everything you suggest, and they were out and out bastards, not above giving the fuzzy wuzzies a proper whacking. They found it unsatisfying and uneconomic. Hong Kong, check. Indian sub-continent, check. Mesopotamia, er, we have a problem here.

One practical problem with what you suggest is that its effects are too disgusting for anybody but a complete slimeball asshole to tolerate. Even you yourself would become dismayed after a while.

But the clincher is the economics of the thing. They will make you pay for every drop you pump. We have already paid a trillion dollars, with zip to see so far. In the end you will find it better business to give up. Ideologues get very excitable, but wars are basically business carried on by other means.

56

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
You still have to get them to give you the weapons, not bury them someplace. Also, they will wind up hating your guts and ready to shoot your ass. This house to house stuff is killing us.[/quote]

Because you don’t have enough people to do it right. While you’re searching house A, they’re hiding the weapons in house B, C, D and E. If you had enough troops to impose martial law, you could search the house and also make sure that the weapons don’t come back into the house later, when you’ve exited.

You could spot people digging caches, or moving around at night. You’re the high-tech army, remember? You’ve got night vision and metal detectors; unmanned drones, etc. You just don’t have the personnel to use it effectively.

If you impose peace, and make it so people can get to and from work; kid can go to school and families can go get food and water without worrying about a car blowing up and killing them, don’t you think they’d come around eventually?

Right now, they’re sick and tired of having you there because instead of preventing violence, you’re a magnet for it. Every day, tens and even hundreds of Iraqis die in bombings, attacks, and various other violence. It’s at a point where your presence is only prolonging the suffering for all involved.

That’s why they want you out; you can’t do anything to help them at this point. Go home and let them settle it so that they can get back to some sort of peace.

57

[quote]pookie wrote:
You could spot people digging caches, or moving around at night. You’re the high-tech army, remember? You’ve got night vision and metal detectors; unmanned drones, etc. You just don’t have the personnel to use it effectively.
[/quote]

Pookie, let’s just say it was Canada we were talking about, not Iraq. Canada’s bigger, but the populations are sort of comparable. Let’s say America invaded Canada and practically wiped out a couple of mid-scale cities, men women and children.

But the US sends enough troops to pacify the country. So it’s pacified.

Then what happens?

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
If you impose peace, and make it so people can get to and from work; kid can go to school and families can go get food and water without worrying about a car blowing up and killing them, don’t you think they’d come around eventually?
[/quote]

If Iraq were Canada, that would be the case. Everybody would be relieved and would try to hang together as a nation. But this is Iraq, so … well, it depends on your definition of eventually, I suppose.

Iraq has a really terrible history of a minority subjugating two majority factions by force of arms. Even if you don’t consider the current carnage of civil war, too much blood has been shed. The Iraqi people seem to have a much more visceral approach to history than we do. You could have waited fifty years and the thing would never have come together is my hunch.

Considering what’s gone on since the invasion, you could wait until hell freezes over. We’re going to be damned lucky if this thing doesn’t spread.

59

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Pookie, let’s just say it was Canada we were talking about, not Iraq. Canada’s bigger, but the populations are sort of comparable. Let’s say America invaded Canada and practically wiped out a couple of mid-scale cities, men women and children.

But the US sends enough troops to pacify the country. So it’s pacified.

Then what happens?[/quote]

It depends on how far you push the analogy. Is it current day Canada, or an alternate-history Canada where a dictator is in power and keeps order using brutal methods?

Of course a present day Canada would resist. Toppling a democratic government in a peaceful nation would cause world wide outrage.

Helping us get rid of a dictator is something else. And, as you noted, Canada, even with it’s linguistics differences, is still composed of mostly similar cultures. There is a bit of “forcing two cultures to cohabit” going on, but nothing like the Kurds-Shi’ites-Sunnis trifecta of Iraq. It’s very hard to make valid comparisons.

60

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Iraq has a really terrible history of a minority subjugating two majority factions by force of arms. Even if you don’t consider the current carnage of civil war, too much blood has been shed. The Iraqi people seem to have a much more visceral approach to history than we do. You could have waited fifty years and the thing would never have come together is my hunch.[/quote]

You may well be correct. Although I still think you’d have a better chance at establishing a lasting peace if you could drastically reduce the violence. That might make talks and negotiations possible. Whether they’d manage to arrive at a working compromise for all involved is another thing, but at least they’d have a chance. Right now, as soon as you pull out, you’ll get an all out civil war, possibly with bordering nations jumping in to try and position themselves better in the region.

The current situation is probably unsalvageable. It’s been going wrong for too long. My point was that had you gone in with more troops, you could’ve secured an imposed peace soon after “Shock & Awe” and the whole post-war effort could’ve gone a lot better.