Iraq - time to admit it's a disaster?

[Lanesra]

One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.

The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners.

The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow.

Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government.

[Larry_OHF]

We started out good with the toppling of the statue and all that...but then things went downhill and we've not seen a good day since.

Yes, we've lost our effectiveness and the vision has slipped away, and I do not think we'll get it back with the way we're going.

[johnny]

Ah well....better luck next time in Iran.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Lanesra: One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners. The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow. Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government.

As frightening as it may sound, I'm actually going to agree with you. Having spoken to soldiers, read blogs by them, and reading posts on other forums I think the "failure" is a bit overblown, but I don't think the Iraqi infrastructure is going to hold up to long or short term use the way "insurgents" keep trying to bring it down. The warlords that democracy was supposed to keep powerless and reigned in have been brought to greater power by legitimate looking elections (Muqtada Al Sadr has tremedous influence over the Shiite elected officials, not surprising because his followers at the mosques and on the street essentially told the people who to vote for to be "good muslims")

Iran has publicly made threats against the US if we take action against them (which being bogged down in Iraq seems unlikely), and has even started up schools to train students how to become successful human bombs in the event that the US tries to directly oppose Iran's nuclear agenda, basically saying that they'll come streaming across the borders targetting US troops on a constant basis. (I can't help but wonder at the live demonstration labs at that school, "OK class, pay attention cause I'm only gonna do this once.")

Iraq did have some terrorist ties and alot of sympathy, Saddam offered donations between $1000 and $5000 to the families of each suicide bomber in Israel, Iraq harbored several high ranking Al Qaeda members, but not to the extent that the administration tried to make it seem, nor has Iraq been proven to have had functional current WMD to the extent we were led to believe (there was and is WMD there, usually removed covertly, and shuffled off to the 4th page if even mentioned there in papers, I saw a news article I posted in another thread some time ago mentioning mustard gas placed in a warhead that insurgents tried to remotely detonate, they failed, and the IED team learned that it was long past the point of being dangerous as a chemical weapon (although the bomb itself was still a danger) (of course conspiracy theorists believe that the WMD was shipped to Syria to damage US credibility in their justification for the invasion)).

As soon as the US stops being the glue holding Iraq together it will erupt into full blown civil war (and some argue that it already is), eventually it may fragment into 2 or 3 nations, a kurdish state, a shiite state, and a sunni state or a sunni state and a shiite state (I don't think Turkey or Iran would tolerate a kurdish state as their own kurdish populations would then want to secede into that kurdistan), the other realistic possibility is that it would become a proxy persian/arab conflict as Iran and Saudi Arabia send troops/money/weapons/etc to try and gain control of the population. (The current government already has very strong ties to Iran). Frankly I see a civil war as a good thing for western coutries even as it will make it a hell on earth for the average people in Iraq that just want to live their lives.


What would be the best option? IMO either a complete withdrawl, of aid, troops, equipment, etc until such time as Iraq is stable and actually desires to be rebuilt, or loading all that equipment up, and driving northeast to topple an Iranian Government that seems hellbent on aquiring nukes (it would seem for the purpose of wiping Israel literally off the map, or perhpaps just to flex their muscles and try and be thought of as more than a bunch of psycho backwater yokels)

Of course once Iran is toppled we should get the frick out and let them decide who will sit on top of the pile.

[ 03-09-2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

Hmmmm....

That's a familiar story. The U.S. walks in, screws things up, and leaves.

Like it or not, we have a responsibility to keep on keeping on there. If Iraq tanks and becomes a crazy mess, we should be right along with them through it. We're the captain, and the captain's honor is tied to the duty to go down with the ship.

[shamrock_uk]

Funnily enough, John Simpson - the BBC World Affairs Correspondent - posted an unusually pessimistic column on Iraq a few days back so you're obviously not the only two thinking about this.

When the dust settles, I hope Blair & Bush lie awake at night thinking of the >100,000 people that have been killed as a direct result of their actions. Three years on and the capital still doesn't have the running water, petrol, electricity and security it had under Saddam. It's a joke.

But I think to leave now would be tragic and a horrible repetition of our complicity during the massacre of the Shia immediately following the first Gulf War.

They should have stayed and fixed Afghanistan, but they moved to Iraq. They should stay in Iraq, but already the tentacles are pointing to Iran.

I really hope things are being learnt here by certain foreign policy-makers, because their lessons are carrying a terrible price.

[Timber Loftis]

If we do Iran, then we get 3 countries in a row...

TIC TAC TOE WE WIN!!!!

[shamrock_uk]

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] I'll have a whip-round and see if I can rustle up a prize

[Luvian]

This acutally remind me of vietnam.

You can't take over a country by avoiding losses. The people are revolting, but our goal is "to pretect the people".

The way I see it, we have 3 choices, either we take over the place by force against the people, blow the whole place up, or just admit defeat and leave.

You can't conquer a country by being the good guy, it's impossible.

Attacking Iran would be really stupid. Would we do the same thing as Iraq? Defeat their army and leave? If we do, those country will be rebuilt and we'll just gain ennemies. We could stay and control the place, but I don't think the Middle East will stand iddle for long watching the US taking over their contry one after the others.

[Chewbacca]

Disaster? More like a windfall if you are a defense contractor lucky enough to avoid the rampant fraud and mis-managment.