War in Iraq
June 30, 2005 6:57 AM Subscribe
A serious, and for me an unanswered question: Why is the most powerful military in human history unable to control Iraq?
It's brains, not brawn, that matter.
Think of the T-Rex: destroyed by being tripped up. Or Gulliver, tied up by the Lilliputians.
posted by bonaldi at 7:03 AM on June 30, 2005
Think of the T-Rex: destroyed by being tripped up. Or Gulliver, tied up by the Lilliputians.
posted by bonaldi at 7:03 AM on June 30, 2005
Because it's difficult to do without nuking the place. Ever watch that movie "The Siege"? I usually don't take wisdom from Hollywood, but there was a good line there: "The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel." I think that applies here.
posted by BradNelson at 7:05 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by BradNelson at 7:05 AM on June 30, 2005
More: 5Ps is an old army saying: Proper Planning Prevents Piss-poor Performance. And there was no proper planning here. The Army may have warned the politicians what was coming, but they didn't listen. Now the mighty military machine is lying in the sand, tied down by millions of tiny little threads, and all the weaponry and muscle in the world won't do them any good.
Worse still, now that the elections have come and gone ... there's still no plan.
posted by bonaldi at 7:08 AM on June 30, 2005
Worse still, now that the elections have come and gone ... there's still no plan.
posted by bonaldi at 7:08 AM on June 30, 2005
Because the Iraqi people aren't the enemy. If they were, and the US decided to treat all of them accordingly, I doubt that it would be much of a problem.
It's like trying to kill a particular hornet whilst leaving the rest of the nest undisturbed.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:15 AM on June 30, 2005
It's like trying to kill a particular hornet whilst leaving the rest of the nest undisturbed.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:15 AM on June 30, 2005
When they say "most powerful ever", they really mean "the US has the best weapons for blowing up their tanks and planes and ships". And the US does. But not very useful in this case, due to lack thereof.
The WWII-era Army would probably be more effective in the current situation, since it had vastly more manpower.
posted by smackfu at 7:18 AM on June 30, 2005
The WWII-era Army would probably be more effective in the current situation, since it had vastly more manpower.
posted by smackfu at 7:18 AM on June 30, 2005
Asymmetric Warfare:
is a military term to describe warfare in which the two belligerents are mismatched in their military capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement such that the militarily disadvantaged power must press its special advantages or effectively exploit its enemy's particular weaknesses if they are to have any hope of prevailing.
One could argue the insurgency is pressing their advantage using tried and tested guerilla tactics, exploiting all the early mismanagement. There seems to be a number of holes in the information flow; revealing the routes, security and general traffic between the Green Zone (in Baghdad) and other places. I heard Patrick Cockburn allude to this recently, it's pretty clear the 'weaker side' has a hold on good information. I'm not saying this is the main reason, but it's one symptom.
Hearts and Minds, again.
posted by gsb at 7:25 AM on June 30, 2005
is a military term to describe warfare in which the two belligerents are mismatched in their military capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement such that the militarily disadvantaged power must press its special advantages or effectively exploit its enemy's particular weaknesses if they are to have any hope of prevailing.
One could argue the insurgency is pressing their advantage using tried and tested guerilla tactics, exploiting all the early mismanagement. There seems to be a number of holes in the information flow; revealing the routes, security and general traffic between the Green Zone (in Baghdad) and other places. I heard Patrick Cockburn allude to this recently, it's pretty clear the 'weaker side' has a hold on good information. I'm not saying this is the main reason, but it's one symptom.
Hearts and Minds, again.
posted by gsb at 7:25 AM on June 30, 2005
Define "control Iraq".
posted by devilshgrin at 7:29 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by devilshgrin at 7:29 AM on June 30, 2005
I highly recommend "What Went Wrong in Iraq?" by Larry Diamond, from the Sep/Oct 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs. It's an extremely sharp look at why the largest military in human history is in such a mess over there right now. Searching for "iraq" in the mag's archive also turns up tons of equally smart analysis from a variety of perspectives.
posted by mediareport at 7:36 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by mediareport at 7:36 AM on June 30, 2005
Just yesterday, I watched this Frontline episode on Don Rumsfeld's tenure as SecDef so far, and it addresses some of the issues that I've been having about why we're so bogged down. It presents an account of the bureaucratic infighting after 9/11 and before the war, between the DoD and the State Dept, and between the civilians at the Department of Defense and the uniformed brass.
posted by scalespace at 7:37 AM on June 30, 2005
I'm corresponding with a soldier in Iraq, and he tells me that most of the people killing American soldiers are not Iraqi but Syrian, Jordanian, etc. Those with a vendetta against America view Iraq as a prime place to strike back.
And for myself, I echo what a few people have said - poor planning, and the fact that the military isn't trained or geared for peacekeeping work.
posted by orange swan at 7:51 AM on June 30, 2005
And for myself, I echo what a few people have said - poor planning, and the fact that the military isn't trained or geared for peacekeeping work.
posted by orange swan at 7:51 AM on June 30, 2005
It might be useful to contrast Operation Enduring Freedom with Operation Desert Storm. Everything the US did right in 1991, they did wrong in 2003-05.
posted by Mekon at 7:52 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by Mekon at 7:52 AM on June 30, 2005
On preview, what gsb said - assymetrics. Unless & until a power is willing to take draconian action to suppress it, dealing with a guerilla insurgency is extremely difficult, & even then if the ruling power attempts to maintain suppression (as opposed to phasing out) more often than not the guerillas win over time. You may be interested in War in the Shadows a study of guerrilla warfare throughout history.
posted by Pressed Rat at 7:54 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by Pressed Rat at 7:54 AM on June 30, 2005
The American Army has done just what it was supposed to do. It was designed to be a fighting force to meet the threat of any army in the world. It has no equal in this regard. It will destroy any army that wants to meet it head on. However, it's strength is also a weakness when it comes to situations like Iraq. If you will recall, the army had no problem sweeping into Iraq and taking the ground. Now comes time to hold the ground, and this is something that the army was not designed to do.
The Americans were overconfident that this war would be fought on their terms, that Sadam's loyal forces would meet them on the battlefield, and after taking a serious ass kicking, would roll over and capitulate.
They did not do this however, and now continue to fight the American army on their own terms. They are choosing ground, time and tactics that are advantageous to them, and they have identified the main weaknesses of the Americans which are: dwindling public support, combined with an extended logistical tail which consumes incredible resources. They know that if they just hold on long enough, and make it painful enough, they will win this war without having won a single battle in it.
Just my 2 cents...
posted by TheFeatheredMullet at 7:58 AM on June 30, 2005
The Americans were overconfident that this war would be fought on their terms, that Sadam's loyal forces would meet them on the battlefield, and after taking a serious ass kicking, would roll over and capitulate.
They did not do this however, and now continue to fight the American army on their own terms. They are choosing ground, time and tactics that are advantageous to them, and they have identified the main weaknesses of the Americans which are: dwindling public support, combined with an extended logistical tail which consumes incredible resources. They know that if they just hold on long enough, and make it painful enough, they will win this war without having won a single battle in it.
Just my 2 cents...
posted by TheFeatheredMullet at 7:58 AM on June 30, 2005
The "information dominance" of guerilla factions historically plays a role in their success against larger and better equipped armies.
From the lowest soldier up to Wolfowitz, our leaders did not and did not want to understand Middle Eastern culture, and therefore doomed our efforts from the start.
The enemy remains capable and formidable because we don't care to understand it properly. However, our enemy understands us and how our culture operates — and from there can manipulate our procedural weaknesses against us.
posted by Rothko at 8:00 AM on June 30, 2005
From the lowest soldier up to Wolfowitz, our leaders did not and did not want to understand Middle Eastern culture, and therefore doomed our efforts from the start.
The enemy remains capable and formidable because we don't care to understand it properly. However, our enemy understands us and how our culture operates — and from there can manipulate our procedural weaknesses against us.
posted by Rothko at 8:00 AM on June 30, 2005
Because we don't have enough people. We can temporarily concentrate some forces in troublesome location, but that opens up vulnerabilities somewhere else. We re-conquered Fallujah last November, and trouble flared up in Mosul, which had been described several times as the safest city in Iraq. We launched a big operation to secure Baghdad in late May, and within a couple of weeks there was a 100-person assault on the largest police station in the city and a string of car bombings.
The US government has consistently exaggerated the involvement of foreign fighters (Major General Joseph Taluto, commander of the US 42nd Infantry Division, which an area including Baquba and Samarra recently said 99.9 per cent of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis), but with 400 soldiers trying to cover 10,000 square miles, we can't secure the borders.
One especially damaging example of the lack of planning is the complete failure to prepare American troops for interacting with the Iraqi culture. For example, US troops use "haji" as a slang term for the insurgents when it's an honorific for people who've made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:12 AM on June 30, 2005
The US government has consistently exaggerated the involvement of foreign fighters (Major General Joseph Taluto, commander of the US 42nd Infantry Division, which an area including Baquba and Samarra recently said 99.9 per cent of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis), but with 400 soldiers trying to cover 10,000 square miles, we can't secure the borders.
One especially damaging example of the lack of planning is the complete failure to prepare American troops for interacting with the Iraqi culture. For example, US troops use "haji" as a slang term for the insurgents when it's an honorific for people who've made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:12 AM on June 30, 2005
They can't keep the borders closed like they did in Kosovo, meaning any yahoo who wants can bring over a bundle of explosive to wreck havoc for a day or so. When you have a really, really large border it is hard to control what comes in and out. If they can lock down the borders the insurgency will stop.
posted by geoff. at 8:13 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by geoff. at 8:13 AM on June 30, 2005
From the blue: Let our cities be our swamps and our buildings our jungles.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 8:13 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by Zed_Lopez at 8:13 AM on June 30, 2005
because they don't have control of the ground ... if they had 500,000 troops and orders to be utterly ruthless, they'd have it ... but such a thing would be politically and diplomatically disasterous
posted by pyramid termite at 8:27 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 8:27 AM on June 30, 2005
Because we're not willing to kill every last Iraqi.
Seriously. We don't have the will to be as brutal as is necessary.
Part of that is that we don't have the support of the world, another part is that we don't have the support of about 49% of the US population. We're impotent imperialists, unwilling to line the roads with crucifictions and salt the earth.
Which is why this was probably a poor adventure to engage in.
posted by klangklangston at 8:29 AM on June 30, 2005
Seriously. We don't have the will to be as brutal as is necessary.
Part of that is that we don't have the support of the world, another part is that we don't have the support of about 49% of the US population. We're impotent imperialists, unwilling to line the roads with crucifictions and salt the earth.
Which is why this was probably a poor adventure to engage in.
posted by klangklangston at 8:29 AM on June 30, 2005
The reason is, quite simply, that the terrorists have nothing to lose, and the US has everything. The foreign terrorists, and to a much lesser extent the Iraqi insurgency (Two completely different groups - Iraqi insurgents aren't suicidal fundamentalists), are willing to use unlimited means to get the US out of Iraq. The US, on the other hand, is only willing to use partial means to meet it's limited goal, a democratic Iraq.
If the United States was willing to use unlimited means to control Iraq, we'd draft 5 million people and have the country under control in 3 months. But politically and economically, the United States can't afford to do this, so the war goes forth as a politically tolerable means to a limited end.
It's also difficult to compete with terrorists because, from a cost-benefits standpoint, terrorism is the most cost effective form of warfare. Sept 11th was planned and executed for about ~200,000 dollars, and cost the US billions. It's simply hard to compete with that, especially when Trident cruise missiles (which we lob by the dozens) are two million a pop.
Sun Tzu wrote that the goal of war is to win battles without fighting, and that people are the oxygen the military breathes; Terrorists need only to keep the people on their side, and outlast the will of their enemy. If they can achieve that, they'll win every time. It's easy to kill people, it's much harder to kill ideas.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:33 AM on June 30, 2005
If the United States was willing to use unlimited means to control Iraq, we'd draft 5 million people and have the country under control in 3 months. But politically and economically, the United States can't afford to do this, so the war goes forth as a politically tolerable means to a limited end.
It's also difficult to compete with terrorists because, from a cost-benefits standpoint, terrorism is the most cost effective form of warfare. Sept 11th was planned and executed for about ~200,000 dollars, and cost the US billions. It's simply hard to compete with that, especially when Trident cruise missiles (which we lob by the dozens) are two million a pop.
Sun Tzu wrote that the goal of war is to win battles without fighting, and that people are the oxygen the military breathes; Terrorists need only to keep the people on their side, and outlast the will of their enemy. If they can achieve that, they'll win every time. It's easy to kill people, it's much harder to kill ideas.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:33 AM on June 30, 2005
After winning the initial military conflict, the US had just a few options to avoid the current situation:
- gain the respect of Iraqis
- terrorise them into submission
- leave
It hasn't pursued any of them with any singlemindedness, the third has been ruled out, and current policy seems to be a botched synthesis of the first two.
posted by carter at 8:36 AM on June 30, 2005
- gain the respect of Iraqis
- terrorise them into submission
- leave
It hasn't pursued any of them with any singlemindedness, the third has been ruled out, and current policy seems to be a botched synthesis of the first two.
posted by carter at 8:36 AM on June 30, 2005
I think carter is both succinct and right.
I'm corresponding with a soldier in Iraq, and he tells me that most of the people killing American soldiers are not Iraqi but Syrian, Jordanian, etc.
How the hell would he know?
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on June 30, 2005
I'm corresponding with a soldier in Iraq, and he tells me that most of the people killing American soldiers are not Iraqi but Syrian, Jordanian, etc.
How the hell would he know?
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on June 30, 2005
First, defeat army and take out leader. (Check)
Second, put down any subsequent resistance with fire and sword. Harrow them remorselessly.
Third, marry their daughters.
William knew how to do it.
posted by TimothyMason at 8:58 AM on June 30, 2005
Second, put down any subsequent resistance with fire and sword. Harrow them remorselessly.
Third, marry their daughters.
William knew how to do it.
posted by TimothyMason at 8:58 AM on June 30, 2005
Not that I'm saying anything new here, but just to rephrase...
The question makes it sound like the more powerful military should win. And under the sort of war for which the US military was designed and intended, it probably would.
Power isn't everything, and in this case, it isn't enough.
posted by Aknaton at 9:05 AM on June 30, 2005
The question makes it sound like the more powerful military should win. And under the sort of war for which the US military was designed and intended, it probably would.
Power isn't everything, and in this case, it isn't enough.
posted by Aknaton at 9:05 AM on June 30, 2005
I'm assuming that they find out when they identify the aggressor in the aftermath of the attack, languagehat. There's no way to tell by just looking at the person, certainly.
posted by orange swan at 9:11 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by orange swan at 9:11 AM on June 30, 2005
The English Army was the most powerful army in the world in the mid 1700s and yet the American Revolution went our way. "Powerful" is relevant. How did David beat Goliath?
posted by spicynuts at 9:15 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by spicynuts at 9:15 AM on June 30, 2005
It's very hard for a formal military to combat guerrilla warfare. The Boer War, the American Revolution, Vietnam - it's always ugly. You can't tell the difference between the civilians and the enemies.
posted by orange swan at 9:40 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by orange swan at 9:40 AM on June 30, 2005
Why was the most powerful military in human history unable to control Vietnam? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
posted by timeistight at 9:43 AM on June 30, 2005
posted by timeistight at 9:43 AM on June 30, 2005
If "control Iraq" means "seize control of vast energy resources regardless of the human cost", then klangklangston has the answer.
If "control Iraq" means "control the Iraqis by force" then it's worth reading a little about the history of the country. The British have been squabbling with and suppressing the indigenous population for about 100 years. Now the US have taken over. The place has suffered sporadic aerial bombardment since 1920. Imagine how pissed off you'd be if your family lived there. How are 180,000 militia meant to control a nation of millions of people like that? An entire army could be trained in desert and town warfare for as long as you want, but as long as army and natives consider each other to be in the wrong, there will be violence on both sides. And anyway, the situation will be inflammatory, and encourage opportunist intervention from other countries, organisations and individuals.
If "control Iraq" means "bring peace to suffering millions", I sincerely doubt that sending in troops is the best way. Sure, there are "peace keeping" forces that tackle the bad guys of the world (although not all the bad guys are hunted down) and they do so by enforcing peace through overwhelming firepower, miltary strategy, etc. But this approach fixes the symptom rather than the cause. When can the troops leave? Usually when the supposed cause is solved to the satisfaction of the country that sent the occupying force. In other words, it's morality-driven empire building. The empire may not be one in name, but it is one in ideology. (The UN doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, follow this morailty- or ideology-based approach to troop withdrawal, but tries to encourage home-grown solutions. I'm not going to comment on the UN's effectiveness, or how it is hobbled by veto voting and funding/troop supply squabbles between member states).
The "hearts and minds" approach mentioned by gsb is nearer to addressing the underlying cause, but there's something insidious about it. It may not be physically aggressive, but it still assumes there is something "wrong" that needs to be fixed. That something is the attitude of the civilians toward the occupying force.
All the above make the assumption that one nation can be "wrong" about something, and needs to be re-educated, or forced to change its ways. Of course, the more powerful and paranoid any particular nation is, the more "wrong-minded" nations it will see out there.
So, yeah. What some of the others have said :-)
posted by ajp at 9:47 AM on June 30, 2005
If "control Iraq" means "control the Iraqis by force" then it's worth reading a little about the history of the country. The British have been squabbling with and suppressing the indigenous population for about 100 years. Now the US have taken over. The place has suffered sporadic aerial bombardment since 1920. Imagine how pissed off you'd be if your family lived there. How are 180,000 militia meant to control a nation of millions of people like that? An entire army could be trained in desert and town warfare for as long as you want, but as long as army and natives consider each other to be in the wrong, there will be violence on both sides. And anyway, the situation will be inflammatory, and encourage opportunist intervention from other countries, organisations and individuals.
If "control Iraq" means "bring peace to suffering millions", I sincerely doubt that sending in troops is the best way. Sure, there are "peace keeping" forces that tackle the bad guys of the world (although not all the bad guys are hunted down) and they do so by enforcing peace through overwhelming firepower, miltary strategy, etc. But this approach fixes the symptom rather than the cause. When can the troops leave? Usually when the supposed cause is solved to the satisfaction of the country that sent the occupying force. In other words, it's morality-driven empire building. The empire may not be one in name, but it is one in ideology. (The UN doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, follow this morailty- or ideology-based approach to troop withdrawal, but tries to encourage home-grown solutions. I'm not going to comment on the UN's effectiveness, or how it is hobbled by veto voting and funding/troop supply squabbles between member states).
The "hearts and minds" approach mentioned by gsb is nearer to addressing the underlying cause, but there's something insidious about it. It may not be physically aggressive, but it still assumes there is something "wrong" that needs to be fixed. That something is the attitude of the civilians toward the occupying force.
All the above make the assumption that one nation can be "wrong" about something, and needs to be re-educated, or forced to change its ways. Of course, the more powerful and paranoid any particular nation is, the more "wrong-minded" nations it will see out there.
So, yeah. What some of the others have said :-)
posted by ajp at 9:47 AM on June 30, 2005
kirkaracha nails it
I also remember a Cordesman piece linked on MeFi's front page a few months ago, maybe last year, by karl (I think), that made excellent points about how hard it can be to beat the insurgents in such complicated circumstances
posted by matteo at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2005
I also remember a Cordesman piece linked on MeFi's front page a few months ago, maybe last year, by karl (I think), that made excellent points about how hard it can be to beat the insurgents in such complicated circumstances
posted by matteo at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2005
True, the US Military is unmatched in lethality. That is what it was designed for (i.e. break stuff and kill people). However, the task at hand requires an entirely different repertoire. It's no longer about laying waste, it's about promoting a peaceful and stable democracy that is connected to the global community and does not require our continued presence militarily. Obviously, that goal has not been reached yet.
More to the point, without a clear definition of what "control Iraq" means it's a very loaded question indeed. It's difficult to draw a clear line between having complete chaos and complete control? Depending on your political views you might say that the US controls Iraq politically and militarily right now. On the other hand, you might say that the situation is entirely hopeless (as well as immoral).
posted by devilshgrin at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2005
More to the point, without a clear definition of what "control Iraq" means it's a very loaded question indeed. It's difficult to draw a clear line between having complete chaos and complete control? Depending on your political views you might say that the US controls Iraq politically and militarily right now. On the other hand, you might say that the situation is entirely hopeless (as well as immoral).
posted by devilshgrin at 12:12 PM on June 30, 2005
Because they (the chickenhawk leaders, not the grunts) haven't brought out the super-weapon of reality television and infotainment to pacify the people the way they do it at home. I cannot understand why *masters* of propaganda at home haven't come close to a serious effort in Iraq to make the case for our agenda there. But it's a pretty steep hill to climb, since they even stopped convincing Americans lately, and that has been child's play since 9-11.
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:45 PM on June 30, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:45 PM on June 30, 2005
Because we're not willing to kill every last Iraqi.
Seriously. We don't have the will to be as brutal as is necessary.
Part of that is that we don't have the support of the world, another part is that we don't have the support of about 49% of the US population. We're impotent imperialists, unwilling to line the roads with crucifictions and salt the earth.
Which is why this was probably a poor adventure to engage in.
Sorry, but no, that wouldn't work either. "Lining the roads with crucifixtions" didn't work for the Romans anywhere they tried it - Gaul, Palestine, modern-day Germany, etc. Being brutal didn't work for the British in America, Palestine, Afghanistan or India. It didn't work for the Spanish in Mexico, or for the Mexicans in Texas. It didn't work for the Nazis in Europe or Russia, or for the Japanese in China. It didn't work for the Soviets in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan. It didn't work for the US in Vietnam.
(BTW, the latest polls show that support for the war is down in the mid-30's, so it would be more accurate to say that "we don't have the support of 60+% of the population", although of course one has to question who "we" is in that case.)
As hard as it is for a lot of folks to realize, sheer force has never and will never be the answer to subjugating a native population. You have to ask yourself - if a foreign power came here, conquered us, destroyed our infrastructure, imposed puppet regimes, and utterly failed to make us safe, is there anything that would make you stop fighting them? Would you give up if they simply started executing people? If they bombed enough cities, would you just decide to stop fighting and surrender? Or would that brutality in fact only serve to make you fight harder?
The Iraqis have been conquered, they have been lied to for 3 years, and they have been brutally bombed. They have had their houses destroyed. They have had their basic services - electricity, sewage, water - destroyed. Of course they are still fighting, and they will continue fighting until we are gone.
We had the chance to make this right. After Saddam was driven from power, the United States could have spent the $87 billion Congress appropriated and actually rebuilt the country. It's worth noting that the serious fighting didn't start for close to a year after Saddam's fall. The Iraqis gave us the chance to make it right, but instead we squandered the money on grossly overpaid contractors and corruption. Instead we ignored the borders and allowed the terrorists free passage into the country. Our administration consistently delayed efforts to hold free elections in the country, instead installing our own foreign governor to impose his will and give the contractors free reign. So now of course they are fighting back. Now of course they are unwilling to believe any promises this country makes to them.
posted by robhuddles at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2005
Seriously. We don't have the will to be as brutal as is necessary.
Part of that is that we don't have the support of the world, another part is that we don't have the support of about 49% of the US population. We're impotent imperialists, unwilling to line the roads with crucifictions and salt the earth.
Which is why this was probably a poor adventure to engage in.
Sorry, but no, that wouldn't work either. "Lining the roads with crucifixtions" didn't work for the Romans anywhere they tried it - Gaul, Palestine, modern-day Germany, etc. Being brutal didn't work for the British in America, Palestine, Afghanistan or India. It didn't work for the Spanish in Mexico, or for the Mexicans in Texas. It didn't work for the Nazis in Europe or Russia, or for the Japanese in China. It didn't work for the Soviets in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan. It didn't work for the US in Vietnam.
(BTW, the latest polls show that support for the war is down in the mid-30's, so it would be more accurate to say that "we don't have the support of 60+% of the population", although of course one has to question who "we" is in that case.)
As hard as it is for a lot of folks to realize, sheer force has never and will never be the answer to subjugating a native population. You have to ask yourself - if a foreign power came here, conquered us, destroyed our infrastructure, imposed puppet regimes, and utterly failed to make us safe, is there anything that would make you stop fighting them? Would you give up if they simply started executing people? If they bombed enough cities, would you just decide to stop fighting and surrender? Or would that brutality in fact only serve to make you fight harder?
The Iraqis have been conquered, they have been lied to for 3 years, and they have been brutally bombed. They have had their houses destroyed. They have had their basic services - electricity, sewage, water - destroyed. Of course they are still fighting, and they will continue fighting until we are gone.
We had the chance to make this right. After Saddam was driven from power, the United States could have spent the $87 billion Congress appropriated and actually rebuilt the country. It's worth noting that the serious fighting didn't start for close to a year after Saddam's fall. The Iraqis gave us the chance to make it right, but instead we squandered the money on grossly overpaid contractors and corruption. Instead we ignored the borders and allowed the terrorists free passage into the country. Our administration consistently delayed efforts to hold free elections in the country, instead installing our own foreign governor to impose his will and give the contractors free reign. So now of course they are fighting back. Now of course they are unwilling to believe any promises this country makes to them.
posted by robhuddles at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2005
Spending that $87 billion in a place that, first chance it got, looted everything not nailed down?
I guess nobody knows the answer. Perhaps there's just something about LIVING in Iraq that breeds this kind of unrest. Is it poverty? Is it just tradition?
Maybe they just need something to distract them.
We should have built SOCCER STADIUMS.
posted by catkins at 1:17 PM on June 30, 2005
I guess nobody knows the answer. Perhaps there's just something about LIVING in Iraq that breeds this kind of unrest. Is it poverty? Is it just tradition?
Maybe they just need something to distract them.
We should have built SOCCER STADIUMS.
posted by catkins at 1:17 PM on June 30, 2005
USA hardly has the most powerful army in human history. It probably has more technology and destructive capability at its disposal, and US Navy could probably sink the Spanish Armada in a day, but it's not optimized for conquering and subjugating. That's because US armed forces are geared towards defense and quick devastating strikes and empire-building is not on the map of acceptable mission objectives.
Robhuddles is off the mark about the Roman Republic/Empire - they had a 1000 year run, and then they went under for reasons totally unrelated to their military might. I'd point to their army, and the 19th century British army, as examples of success stories in empire-building. Most of the standard techniques used by these armies wouldn't pass an Amnesty International review.
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:48 AM on July 1, 2005
Robhuddles is off the mark about the Roman Republic/Empire - they had a 1000 year run, and then they went under for reasons totally unrelated to their military might. I'd point to their army, and the 19th century British army, as examples of success stories in empire-building. Most of the standard techniques used by these armies wouldn't pass an Amnesty International review.
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:48 AM on July 1, 2005
In addition to the Diamond piece and the many good reccomendations here, I would also like to suggest reading Blind Into Baghdad. Fallows shows how the blunders are the result of civilian military planners and not the uniformed military which was deeply skeptical of the need for a war in Iraq and vociferously argued for more troops.
Blind Into Baghdad
By James Fallows
The Atlantic Monthly
January/February 2004
(A civilian adviser who went to Baghdad early in the occupation recalls looking at his fellow passengers on the military transport plane. The ones who weren't asleep or flipping through magazines were reading books about Japan or Germany, not about the Arab world. "That was not a good sign," he told me.)
Consider the following article which shows the impact that the lack of planning for additional troops (by Pentagon civilians) from the beginnning has had on innovative programs designed to teach US military personnel about Iraq.
Army Trainers to Become Fighters in Iraq
The elite Black Horse Regiment, a California fixture for 10 years, will hand over its duties at Ft. Irwin to National Guard troops
LA Times
October 17, 2004
"No one ever thought the Black Horse would be taken out of the National Training Center; they are just too valuable here," said Maj. John Clearwater. "But the Army is stretched too thin, and Iraq is a big mission."
. . .
Capt. Mick Mineni, 36, has played the role of an Iraqi mayor at least 60 times over the last two years. In one recent exercise, the beefy soldier with a buzz cut pretended to be a mayor overseeing a plan to have American soldiers fix a broken water system.
"Unfortunately, a female American major walked into my office, crossed her legs and started shaking her foot. Not a good deal. We were deeply offended," he recalled. "Before long, rumors of her arrogant behavior spread like wildfire across town. After that, nothing went right for the Americans."
Memo for the President-Elect
By David H. Hackworth (Col. US Army Ret.)
October 18, 2004
Make every military leader from buck sergeant to four-star memorize Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and Imperial Hubris, by “Anonymous.”
posted by mlis at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2005
Blind Into Baghdad
By James Fallows
The Atlantic Monthly
January/February 2004
(A civilian adviser who went to Baghdad early in the occupation recalls looking at his fellow passengers on the military transport plane. The ones who weren't asleep or flipping through magazines were reading books about Japan or Germany, not about the Arab world. "That was not a good sign," he told me.)
Consider the following article which shows the impact that the lack of planning for additional troops (by Pentagon civilians) from the beginnning has had on innovative programs designed to teach US military personnel about Iraq.
Army Trainers to Become Fighters in Iraq
The elite Black Horse Regiment, a California fixture for 10 years, will hand over its duties at Ft. Irwin to National Guard troops
LA Times
October 17, 2004
"No one ever thought the Black Horse would be taken out of the National Training Center; they are just too valuable here," said Maj. John Clearwater. "But the Army is stretched too thin, and Iraq is a big mission."
. . .
Capt. Mick Mineni, 36, has played the role of an Iraqi mayor at least 60 times over the last two years. In one recent exercise, the beefy soldier with a buzz cut pretended to be a mayor overseeing a plan to have American soldiers fix a broken water system.
"Unfortunately, a female American major walked into my office, crossed her legs and started shaking her foot. Not a good deal. We were deeply offended," he recalled. "Before long, rumors of her arrogant behavior spread like wildfire across town. After that, nothing went right for the Americans."
Memo for the President-Elect
By David H. Hackworth (Col. US Army Ret.)
October 18, 2004
Make every military leader from buck sergeant to four-star memorize Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and Imperial Hubris, by “Anonymous.”
posted by mlis at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:01 AM on June 30, 2005