NationStates Jolt Archive

I worry that the longer things remain unstable in Iraq, the greater a chance of a wildcard popping up. It could be many things. War happening somewhere else, a terrorist attack, someone big leaving the coalition, civil war, a very good strategist/leader rising in Iraq.

MY real worry involves the last the most. By the law of probablities, the greatest minds do not often get involved in a fight for their very survival. When you involve a greater percentage of the population in that struggle, you increase the odd of that happening by many fold. A beaurocratically organized military, by it's nature, does not as often get inspired by necessity.

This is the great mistake I think the Bush administration has made. This is only an observation I have made based on what I have seen thus far. Feel free to disagree, but please try to do so in a rational manner.

I think the Bush administration underestimated their opposition greatly. I think because they were so convinced of their own strength and the strength of their argument that they failed to do enough planning for contingencies. They did not, often enough, have a plan "B." Also, Bush is the administrative type who generally, even according to people who have worked with him, doesn't agonize over his own decisions. He generally listens to his advisors, who genrally are very ideologically lockstepped, and tells them to proceed without much further consideration. This means that the number of alternatives Bush is presented with are going to be rather limited.

If someone rises out of Iraq that really steps things up, I fear for the balance of the war. The longer things go on, the more chance there is that it will happen. Everyone on all sides knows this thing won't be resolved quickly. WHo ever is in charge the next few years is going to have a hard time.

I think the Bush administration underestimated their
opposition greatly.
They misunderestimated the opposition!

They failed to do enough planning for contingencies. They did not, often enough, have a plan "B."
Definitely

Its going to turn into a civil war there, the question is whether we will withdraw when the serious shooting starts.

I'm most worried about Iraq turning into another Afghanistan, a theocratic oligarchy with terrorist ties. We may have to invade Iraq AGAIN after they get their government up.

If our dumb fuck president had listened to his advisors and sent the amount of troops we needed, we wouldn't be in this shithole we are now.

If our dumb fuck president had listened to his advisors and sent the amount of troops we needed, we wouldn't be in this shithole we are now.

Or better yet, we wouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

If our dumb fuck president had listened to his advisors and sent the amount of troops we needed, we wouldn't be in this shithole we are now.

Well, he listened to his advisors, but only those in low orbit. Those who were not part of the inner circle were often excluded or ignored.

does the ayatollah khomeini mean anything to any of you?

THATS what we got when iran rose up and tossed out the dictator "shah" we propped up for many years.

very good chance of it happening in iraq too.

and only those advisors the agreed with him. :headbang:

Well, the reality of the situation is that we're stuck there now, and we have to see it through. If coalition forces just up and leave, then what little stability there is will certainly disintegrate, leaving a nation in an uncontrolled civil war. Which is going to be much worse for us in the long run. We should never have gone there. But we have, and we have to deal with that now.

I just feel sorry for the men in the black watch being pulled up north to Fallujah. (sp?) They're being promised that they'll "be home by christmas." Where have we heard that line before?

Well, the reality of the situation is that we're stuck there now, and we have to see it through. If coalition forces just up and leave, then what little stability there is will certainly disintegrate, leaving a nation in an uncontrolled civil war. Which is going to be much worse for us in the long run. We should never have gone there. But we have, and we have to deal with that now.

I just feel sorry for the men in the black watch being pulled up north to Fallujah. (sp?) They're being promised that they'll "be home by christmas." Where have we heard that line before?
It'll be a civil war regardless of how long the US stays. Democracy cannot be bombed into a people with rivaling religious movements. Try to convince yourself that staying in Iraq will do anything else than produce more anti-US hatred in the middle east. It helps the terrorists to grow and prosper.

I don't believe so. Look at basra, where the British control. Barely any British troops have been killed in the area, which, compared to the rest of Iraq, is utterly quiet. Perhaps a change of tactic is needed for the American troops, maybe change to British ROE?

The last I heard, which wasn't too long ago, but not exactly recently, 68 British troops have been killed. (I expect that number is now out of date, but not by much.)

It suggests to me that civil war is not inevitable.

If our dumb fuck president had listened to his advisors and sent the amount of troops we needed, we wouldn't be in this shithole we are now.

NUMBER of troops, not amount. Secondly, we're not in a "shithole" as you call it, and GWB is no "dumb fuck" president. (Stupid people don't fly fighter jets or have MBAs from Harvard.) Not when compared to Clinton. By your (and many other liberals') standard, we shouldn't have gone into Germany in WWII, because they never directly attacked us. Bush did what his generals advised. He let them make major decisions because he knows they know more about how to run a war than he does. The people in Iraq are much better off now than they have been for the past 30 years.

I see it as a military problem. For years, we've run a Cold War military with post Cold War missions that it wasn't designed for. It's not just the technology, but also the military culture in both the Pentagon and the White House. Fortunatly, the GWOT is forcing it to change.

It'll be a civil war regardless of how long the US stays. Democracy cannot be bombed into a people with rivaling religious movements. Try to convince yourself that staying in Iraq will do anything else than produce more anti-US hatred in the middle east. It helps the terrorists to grow and prosper.
But it happened in Germany.

Democracy cannot be bombed into a people with rivaling religious movements.

No, it cannot. However, it is a natural tendency of human beings to want freedom. Look at Afghanistan.(sp?)

Ask the Brits. What has happened before will happen again.
The longer we stay, the quicker we will be seen as a non-muslim occupying force. Once the general opinion in Iraq turns to seeing Americans as christian occupiers, it will go to hell quickly. Civil war is essentially inevitable in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't believe so. Look at basra, where the British control. Barely any British troops have been killed in the area, which, compared to the rest of Iraq, is utterly quiet. Perhaps a change of tactic is needed for the American troops, maybe change to British ROE?

The last I heard, which wasn't too long ago, but not exactly recently, 68 British troops have been killed. (I expect that number is now out of date, but not by much.)

It suggests to me that civil war is not inevitable.

Basra has always (since the 20's) been essentially a British-friendly area. It was where their diplomatic and military mission was based following WWI, and their center of arabic intrigue for generations. That's why the Brits have that sector. It's just sound strategic thinking.

NUMBER of troops, not amount. Secondly, we're not in a "shithole" as you call it, and GWB is no "dumb fuck" president. (Stupid people don't fly fighter jets or have MBAs from Harvard.) Not when compared to Clinton. By your (and many other liberals') standard, we shouldn't have gone into Germany in WWII, because they never directly attacked us. Bush did what his generals advised. He let them make major decisions because he knows they know more about how to run a war than he does. The people in Iraq are much better off now than they have been for the past 30 years.
WWI is an unfair analogy, the Germans didn't respect our neutral position and attacked our allies... admittedly the MBA program at Harvard is tough, but he did poorly in it if he did pass, and there's no way in any stretch of the imagination Bush would have gotten in had he not been so well connected. Anyway, surprising to you that a lot of the Generals are now critisizing Bush for not listening to him, then? And I wonder how you can think such unstability and general upset, where recruits that were supposed to help the situation get coldly murdered and the murderers escape retribution, where the numbers of murdered have to be that massive or no one even pays them any attention, where the only industry you can enter is the security force, and we've seen how safe that is, where the one thing people want to do is leave the country, how can you think all this is positive? It turns my stomach, frankly, and I think we're doing a decidedly poor job in bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the place.

But it happened in Germany.

And the fact that Germany was literally torn in two for 50 years had nothing to do with that I assure you ;) . There was a power vaccum in Germany after the war, but it was filled so quickly by the Russians and the US that Germans had little choice but to pick sides (or have their sides picked for them). Any opposition groups that formed in occupied Germany soon answered to one side of the Iron Curtain or the other.

Now look at Iraq, instead of two balanced but exhausted nacent superpowers, you have a Hegemon competitng with an extremist movement and the large numbers of the old regime still kicking around. Those who would chose sides either join the new Iraqi government or join those best suited to resist it.

It is no surprise then that a good number of former Baathist officers laid aside their chain smoking and old uniforms for the strict morals and dress code of the foriegn extremists pouring in to combat the US. The Jihad groups in Iraq have on the low end of estimates a composition of 30% foreigners and 70% locals; why then are the 70% acting more and more like the 30%? Simple; because the Jihadi are the "other" power in the region, the other side of the power vaccum that the US filled when it kicked out Saddam. They bring in money and expertise, the locals provide the men and material.

By your (and many other liberals') standard, we shouldn't have gone into Germany in WWII, because they never directly attacked us. Bush did what his generals advised. He let them make major decisions because he knows they know more about how to run a war than he does. The people in Iraq are much better off now than they have been for the past 30 years.
But Germany did attack several other countries, Iraq didn't.
Why the generals then keep saying that the president did not listen their advices. He insisted the war would be easy and over in few weeks. Bush sees things in a such black and white scale that he don't understand why they should have plan B's.
The last sentence, well what could I say, read newspapers, watch news, get information and learn.

NUMBER of troops, not amount. Secondly, we're not in a "shithole" as you call it, and GWB is no "dumb fuck" president. (Stupid people don't fly fighter jets or have MBAs from Harvard.) Not when compared to Clinton. By your (and many other liberals') standard, we shouldn't have gone into Germany in WWII, because they never directly attacked us. Bush did what his generals advised. He let them make major decisions because he knows they know more about how to run a war than he does. The people in Iraq are much better off now than they have been for the past 30 years.


A. Bush was grounded in the Air National Guard for failing to take submit to a drug test. Technicallly, becuase of his Father, it was listed as failing to pass a physical.
Either way, he was grounded, and not allowed to fly, becuase he was a drunk, and a cokehead.
Its all true.

B. Bush went to Yale.

C. Iraq did not directly attack the United States. Nor, was Saddam responsible for 9/11 in any way, shape, or form.
Osama Bin Laden was.

Hes still on the loose, and Bush has said that he doesnt really think about him much.

I don't believe so. Look at basra, where the British control. Barely any British troops have been killed in the area, which, compared to the rest of Iraq, is utterly quiet. Perhaps a change of tactic is needed for the American troops, maybe change to British ROE?

The last I heard, which wasn't too long ago, but not exactly recently, 68 British troops have been killed. (I expect that number is now out of date, but not by much.)

It suggests to me that civil war is not inevitable.
We'll see soon enough how Brits will manage in other parts as they are moving north to the most hostile area in the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3957455.stm

And why it's so different in Basra
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3944741.stm

(Stupid people don't have MBAs from Harvard.)

Actually it was Yale. Kerry went to Yale and Harvard. Bush only went to Yale. But since you're so smart, I guess you knew that, oh wait...

NUMBER of troops, not amount. Secondly, we're not in a "shithole" as you call it, and GWB is no "dumb fuck" president. (Stupid people don't fly fighter jets or have MBAs from Harvard.) Not when compared to Clinton. By your (and many other liberals') standard, we shouldn't have gone into Germany in WWII, because they never directly attacked us. Bush did what his generals advised. He let them make major decisions because he knows they know more about how to run a war than he does. The people in Iraq are much better off now than they have been for the past 30 years.

Ummm... wow.. the factaul errors here are astounding...

#1. George Bush cant fly fighter jets... He spent all of his time in the "Champaigne squadron" 'cause his daddy paid to keep his son out of the war.

#2. It was a LIBERAL President who took us into Germany... and perhaps the single most Liberal president in American History. (FDR... You know... the guy with the alphabet soup things... And Social Security? Yeah... Him...)

#3. Bush's generals told him he would need 3x as many troops, he said "Duhhhh.... But We' re.... um whatsitcalled? Um!" (Rove whispers in his ear), "Oh yeah... A high tech military!"

#4. The people of Iraq are better off... But they could be MUCH better off... Thousands of them are dead or severly wounded. (thousands more than even Sadam would have killed) They are occupied by Western invaders, which brings back the pain of many years of opression. Every day they have to live with the same fears as many Israelis do, which a competant president could have stopped before they started...

Better off or not, we should NEVER have gone to Iraq. George Bush purposefully lied to us, whether or not his doctored records and reports say so. He was waiting for a report that would let him sway the American people, fact or no fact. You know what the worst part was? I beleived him. I feel betrayed and horrified by what that bastard caused.

I've mentioned it before, but a Republican run polling company polled Iraqis not too long ago, and the majority said they thought their country was going down the wrong track. That simply speaks volumes.