Nation Building 101
 

The US will pull out of Iraq this June no matter what. Even more disturbing are the details. No one outside the administration even knows what those details might be.

We occupied Iraq with too few troops leaving acres of ammunition dumps even today unguarded. So few troops that nationwide looting and infrastructure destruction occured as Rumsfeld denied it was happening. US foolishly disbanned both Iraqi Police and Army - providing insurgents with even more and smarter recruits and allies. We treated Iraq (even keeping the UN out) as if Iraq were some kind of prize; rather than implement immediate political solutions. No after-action plan meant no political solutions. The administration's 'no plans' is why things got so bad after military actions ended and why so many Americans have since died or been permanently maimed.

To promote the George Jr political agenda (with elections upcoming), we will arbitrarily leave Iraq? As the Joint Chiefs said was necessary before the Iraq invasion even began - 200,000 troops for at least two years - minimum. Due to no 'after action' planning, that time period may now be 10 years - worst case. Iraqi civil war remains a possibility.

The worst case nightmare is if violence erupts in the Kurdish, northwest corner, or southern Iraq - all outside the Sunni triangle. That includes a region that Tobias last reported to be stationed. Latest news should make all worry:
But Iraq is ready for self rule? What does that mean? Many in Washington are now asking that question since details should have long been planned and understood. Some insiders are saying the George Jr administration still may have no such plans - plans like those for the original occupation. Apparently we are going to leave power in the hands of choosen Iraqis and all will be well?

82nd Airborne choose to stay outside of Fallujah. Fallujah has long been independent of US military control because it was too violent even for the elite 82nd Airborne. Current violence in Fallujah is due, in part, because US Marines who replaced 82nd Airborne decided to take control of Fallujah. What does that say about Iraq once George Jr declares victory and pulls out all US troops? Either one must say George Jr is a very smart man with a secret plan to end the war .... or he is as bad a president. Both options described Richard Nixon.

GETOUT stay in GETOUT stay in GETOUT shouldaneverbeentheretostart stay in ...

would someone please make up their mind, and advise me of the end result?

I'm still waiting for your secret plan which would have kept the Tutsi and Hutu from killing each other. It was horrifying, but did we have the manpower and the national will to kill those folks until they stopped killing. You're thinking like Bush now, insert some thousands of troops and all the old problems will magically disappear.

Welcome right back to the lessons of VietNam - another war created by no smoking gun and outright lies from the president. Your confusion is repeatedly demonstrated in history and why educated people oppose 'war without the smokng gun'. No smoking gun is just one reason why we have no strategic objective and no exit strategy. An administration was lying so much about our reasons for invading Iraq as to even believe their own rhetoric: that all Iraqis would welcome liberation and then move on to democracy.

They so believed the world would fix itself if we only captured Saddam - rather than even plan for a post-Saddam Iraq or an exit strategy - political or military. Now we are the occupation army liberating people who did not want to be liberated. A military victory undermined by political leaders who failed to plan the political solution - as those same persons also failed to do after the Kuwait liberation. These are damning accusations.

How does one fight a war without a strategic objective? Again and exactly the lessons of VietNam. There are no simple answers until the adminstration first comes clean - so a realistic strategic objective can then be planned for. Instead they all go on TV to even attack Richard Clarke.

Right now you don't care how many Americans are massacred in Iraq because 30 daily attacks on your Army are symptoms of what happens when an administration lies. Those deaths are secondary symptoms that will continue, maybe for years, because the real problem is not solved. You care first and foremost whether your president is being honest. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. An honest president can then create a clear strategic objective (ie. WWII) - or will pull out (ie. Somolia).

When the Joint Cheifs say what will be required to complete a war, then a smart president says (like George Sr did) give them what they need.

Scary when Paul Bremmer gives his hardline speech. There stands a ghost image of Gen William Westmoreland and Henry Cabot Lodge who said same. Your question is a classic: when will we see light at the end of the tunnel. Exactly what happens when war has no smoking gun and the leadership lies about it. Keep posting as you have because this president has no real world plan to end the Iraqi invasion. Your confusion are symptoms directly traceable to top management.

You know, I had written half of a post (from the standpoint of a disgruntled young man) complaining that, although we have the right to vote, it doesn't do all that much for us. We still get people like Bush.

Yet -- this shows me that I was wrong. There is great benefit to our political system. Without having the elections in November, it's quite possible that we wouldn't be pulling out of an unpopular war. Since we've spent so much time screwing everything up, I don't see how staying would help us much -- and I think that Bush would have kept us there.

There are times for nation building, but we've shown that we can't do it. If we can't bring peaceful, stable democracy to Haiti, whatinthehell are we doing trying to install it in Iraq?

Ukraninians were driven out of Al Kut. British were attacked in Basara. Nasiriyah has also suffered attacks. These are Shiite regions. Marines are having difficulty getting into Fallujah and were suprised in Ramadi - Sunni Triangle regions north and northwest of Baghdad. These are serious problems. But by themselves, they do not yet indicate a complete collapse of Iraq / American resolution. The heart of Shiite country is where we 'take the temperature' of these people.

Towns to watch are An Hindiyah, Al Hillah, Al Kufah (or Kufa), Shamiyah, Diwanihyah, and the town where Jessica was rescued - An Najaf. These areas are under control of a moderate Ayatolla Sistani whom Americans have never met and who still calls for peaceful settlement. If violence advocated by young Turk clerics (Sadr is not yet an Ayatolla) expands beyond simple convoy attacks, then all has gone to hell. Kufa is reported entirely controlled by Mr. Sadr's militia.

One major reason to be concerned for this region. Tobiasly is stationed somewhere in here. The fact that Bulgarians at the northern end of the critical region have called for help is a major blow to any peaceful American withdrawl - the so called George Jr exit strategy. Current news is not good. But these towns on the Eupharates, south of Baghdad and north of Samawah and Nasiriyah, are critical to where the Iraq invasion and occupation will go.

Tone has changed in Iraqi newspapers. They are not calling the undeclared American war a liberation. More are using words such as occupation. Today, the word intafada began appearing in Iraqi newspapers. Events in these weeks will be as significant as the battle for the Karbala gap and at Saddam International airport.

Watch both for violence in those towns and for how widespread the inevitable violence is. Complicating the issue is an Islam festival, the holiday of Arbaeen, which starts on Friday in Najaf - where Sadr is rumored to be hiding.

So where are all these Iraqis who would welcome American occupation for years - as was posted in The Cellar about last Oct 2003? Iraq now sounds more like Somolia to me. At least in Somolia, we had an American president more interested in the facts than in a political agenda. A president who was willing to make a tough decision based upon facts rather than a political agenda. What is worse, we have installed a dictator in Iraq (Bremmer) who stupidly fired all the smart people. People without jobs and constant electric blackouts are now ripe for fighting the common enemy. (Yes rolling blackouts across some entire towns were still common in Iraq - despite the administration's rhetoric.)Only two critical Shi'ite cities are fighting Americans. Karbala and Najaf. But each day the fighting continues is one more day for Iraqis to more hate Americans. It is nonsense to believe that 80% of Iraqis are pro-American or neutral as this administration was saying even 3 months ago. At what point do we admit Rumsfeld does not tell the truth?

Many Iraqis do not want to fight. But there is very little appreciation for Americans. Dislike for Americans in Iraq is widespread and almost universal in both Shi'ite and Sunni regions. Even worse, their anti-American comments are getting bolder and more public.

After one year, this administration created jobs in Iraq about as fast as it did in America. Too many people without work means Americans are the problem - from the Iraqi perspective. Then there is another reason for rising tempers. Summer is coming. Its about time those UT posts about how Iraqis love Americans are acknowledged as mostly fiction or propaganda. Sooner or later, the public is going to have to come to grips with administration propaganda and start demanding a real solution. Things are deteriorating quickly. Things will only get worse with each day of battle.

Currently it would take very little to make things fall apart. One Ayatolla reversing himself on American cooperation could be a disaster.

Always read the entire article. All those damning facts and testimonies at the end of the above NY Times article represent the real situation. But much worse, the George Jr administration is in denial - and without a realistic exit strategy or a realistic solution to a deteriorating situation. Apache gunships don't win hearts and minds - no matter what George Jr's resolve may be.

(Anyone notice the resemblence between Rumsfeld and McNamara?)

To get the true story I do not read the NYT. I read the words of Iraqis. The words are MIXED, some positive some negative.

Make no mistake, running from Somalia is the cause of the current violence. I am absolutely convinced of that.

Look no further for why those bodies were defiled in Fallujah. They are very aware of Somalia, they want it repeated. If you do not want it repeated again and again and again in the next decade, you want us to respond completely to the current mess, and not cut and run once again.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the country, things are kinda...ok:

http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/

Where is this shit REALLY coming from, and what does it mean (bold mine):

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

But does this resistance represent the majority? Bold mine:

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

Likeks today writes straight at tw:

Even with many many peaceful Iraqis staying at home, a new deck (or two or three) of playing cards is being printed up.

No this isnt Vietnam. But that war is what taught many of us to question the official story and note where is doesnt add up -it has that in common.

We charged into Iraq and we now we have to do what we can to leave the place better than when we came in. So it has already been decided that we'll be occupying their country for quite a while. And it will continue to be messy, costly and deadly. And meanwhile, the folks of little Mooselake, MN lost another recent highschool graduate fighting in a war that is heavily debated and seemingly endless. It has that in common too.

I think "Iraq" has the "holding power" for today's golden youths to set a new standard for really really bad, nouveau war. Give it a few years. Again, I hope I am so wrong.

Where did that quote come from? I'd like to read the article/thread.

There is the bare thread of a half-truth in the statement that Iraq is not like Vietnam.

In Vietnam you had thick vegetation and insufficient technology to penetrate it. In Iraq, except for canyons and caves, the landscape does not provide the same kind of cover. There will probably not be the equivalent of the HO CHI MINH TRAIL , although a lot of smuggling does take place.

In Vietnam you had a hostile nation backed by a superpower as the aggressor. In Iraq no nation is visibly backing the insurgents.

And now for the bad news.

In Iraq you have three major competing ethnic groups, two of which were the oppressed under the Sunni leadership. At this point elements of the Sunnis and the Shiites are both fighting US troops, and possibly even cooperating at some level.

I'm trying to find another recent example in history when peacekeepers or occupying forces came under fire from two competing groups. I would guess theBalkans , but I don't remember any large-scale resistant from any two of the sides at the same time. Even in Nothern Ireland, I don't remember ever hearing the Nationalists and Unionists (Catholics and Protestants) getting together and coordinating an uprising against the British.

When members of two opposing sides stop shooting at each other and shooting at us, it means trouble.

Destroying Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq left a very large power vacuum, and everyone is trying to fill it at once. Peacekeeping is not having as much of an effect because most of the world ties the efforts in Iraq to US-George W. Bush prestige (or face-saving). The overwhelming majority of the troops in Iraq are US. We have alienated our potential allies to the point where noone wants to sign on and commit their sons and daughters to pull GWB's fat out of the fire. The chances of a UNPROFOR mission in Iraq while Bush is in office are slim at best.

That being said, we cannot withdraw from Iraq and leave another mess like Afghanistan in place to become another terrorist recruiting office, training ground, and supply depot. We are stuck there, and the new terrorism directed against our allies, who have much less of a will to be there since no WMD's were ever found and the official justification for the war changed, might serve to isolate us further.

The hawks now want to change the mission from nation-building to pacification. Doing so will play into the hands of the terrorists who do not want a stable government in place, and who would probably hope to see some sort of theocracy develop. Of course the Sunnis and Shiites will be back at each others throats as soon as they deal with us. For now, they appear happy to join forces. I guess GWB really is a uniter after all.

lileks.com/bleats

How many times must lessons of history be repeated before UT acknowledges it. Where is the smoking gun? UT - you knowthat will be the first thing you must answer. Why not save us time and answer the question up front. Where is the smoking gun to justify that war? Please answer that question that you keep ducking. No smoking gun in Vietnam. None in Iraq. Both wars started because a President and his administration outrightly lied. That alone is enough to make Iraq and VietNam equivalent.

Obviously Afghanistan was not a VietNam. There was - so bluntly obvious - the smoking gun. Which again makes Likeks post flawed by his preliminary assumptions. His assumptions are wrong. Therefore his entire post is irrelevant if not completely flawed.

What is being used as primary sources of information. Blogs? People who often post because they have a political agenda? What kind of reliable source is that? Even Rush Limbaugh might be more reliable. According to those blogs, most everyone in Iraq loves having the Americans. Remember when Saddam's statue was toppled with US Marine equipment? Streets were mostly deserted. If people were welcoming Americans, then you should not have seen the pavement - just like citied liberated in WWII. There was no crowd in those streets because most people did not want to be liberated. Where were the celebrating liverations crowds? All we saw were the street ruffians which is why the street were so empty of crowds welcoming the Americans.

In fact those same Marine comments were rather accurate. One neighborhood would welcome us. The next one would jeer. Not from a blog. From reporters embedded with those troops - people not out to promote a political agenda - and a blog.

Where is the money coming from? Iran? Using same logic, US government also financed the IRA against Britian. How many times need that stupid straw man about Iran be burned before UT stops posting it.

The show is called CSI. How do they reach conclusions? They follow the facts; see where the facts lead. This administration has a long habit of defining the conclusion - then seeking or inventing the facts. They even violate basic principles demonstrated by CSI! And still some believe this administration; even its drug addict pundit Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, many here did not witness the lies from Richard Nixon. Therefore many have no idea how identical Nixon's lies are to George Jr administration lies. There was no looting in Iraq? How could anyone ever again trust what this administration says? But then Nixon did same repeatedly. He even got caught lying about a Cambodian invasion - and still most Americans believed that liar. Tin soldiers and Nixons coming. We're finally on our own. .... I can understand why UT still believes the lies from the George Jr administration. Many before him have made the same mistake - including me. History is again repeating.

richlevy has defined the problem properly. We are now stuck in a quagmire. No way around that. This administration lied like no other since Nixon. We must now sacrifice hundreds of American troops and $billions of American capital to solve this problem - because so many blindly believed a man with a long history of lying to promote his poltical agenda.

There is no denying that fact. The George jr administration lied to create the war in Iraq - even outing a CIA agent - a graduate of a Montgomergy County High School - because one dared to expose an administration lie. (of course no one in the administration is prosecuted).

Even worse, an important war in Afghanistan remains unresolved - because of this George Jr preconceived notion of who our enemies really are. He did not even seek bin Laden so that we could attack Iraq. Need we mention the George jr Star Wars project as but another example? A system that even this nation's number one expert on anti-ballistic missiles says will not work. A system to defend against an enemy that does not exist.

Remember all those W keys missing from White House computers? It was a lie intentionally promoted so that Clinton staffers would have difficulty finding new jobs. Hire someone that might be on trial for destruction of White House property? Not likely. Just the beginning of an administration where lying is 'situation normal' should it promote an agenda.

What did George Jr tell Richard Clarke? Find a connection between the WTC attack and Iraq. Administration even outright denied that - lied; until many other witnesses confirmed the story. What the White House spokesman stop dead in his statement when Leslie Stahl tells him they have multiple confirmations. Suddenly the White House spokesman was caught red handed telling another administration lie. How does UT still trust anything from the George Jr administration? Well we also made that mistake with Nixon. He lied just as routinely.

In the meantime I am struck why so many are confused by VietNam. They will not even read the Pentagon Papers or David Halberstams "Making of a Quagmire" - but still know there is no connection. Of course they are confused. They refuse to first learn the lessons of history - which is why a lying American president can get away with more outright lies - what some will dismiss only as spin. Even withholding essential documents from the 911 Commission only to coverup his lies.

If the administration says it, then doubt it until mutliple confirming sources are located. It is the lesson of history as demonstrated by the "I am not a Crook" Richard Nixon and VietNam. When one does not see the similarities, then one probably did not even bother to learn history. Top of the list is blunt - no smoking gun to justify the Pearl Harbor type attack on Iraq.

Not <a href="http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/">all blogs</a> are happy-luv-luv.

I am not the only one having problems with George Jr's credibility. The Economist cover of last week is below. Arrows point to various points of his body. His Helmet has two and one half stars. Front cover comments:
. Nevers hears a spending plan he does not like.
. Backs unequal rights for homosexuals
. Strong but not humble
. Hot air on WMD
. No conjones on Palestine and Israel
... (You know where that arrow points)
. All hat and no plans for post-war Iraq
. Budget belt far too loose
. Weak-kneed on trade: farms, steel, sugar, cotton.
... (You should understand that comment fully)
. Tramples on civil liberties

I was rereading some 2001 Economist articles. Amazing how sharply different even The Economist tone has changed about George Jr. I am not the only one whose opinions have been sharply changed by this administration. We have come a long way from when I noted how George Jr traditionally would work most often with TX Democrats. We know have a dictator who will even lie whenever he can to promote his agenda.

How do we solve Iraq? First we must remove reason for the problem - George Jr. That would only be the easy part. Only then can we start looking for a light at the end of the tunnel. UT. You have never seen me in well over a decade every come out so strongly against any American president. We have never had one this immoral - lie this much.

Well, they did stage the Tonkin Gulf crap.

WW II had opposing armies and a front. The cities were behind enemy lines then they weren’t. When we went into a city, the enemy left. In Iraq there was no front, the war was everywhere in that no matter how quiet it was at the moment, the shit could hit the fan, instantly. When we went into Baghdad the enemy didn’t leave, they changed their clothes, and everyone knew it.

It appears to me that the Bush gang never made the transition from campaign mode, where everything is "spin", to administration mode, where they should be playing square with the American people.

"Hot Air" has a good arrow as well.

Riiiiiiight

There was no smoking gun in Afghanistan. We should have pressed the Taliban to give up bin Laden and organized some kind of $100M aid package that would convince them to give him up. Then we would have him without violating the soverignty of that country.

There was a quagmire on day 5 of the war. Some people called it a "supply pause" but tw knew better from his understanding of Vietnam.

I wager your accuracy rate of analysis is about the same as mine, which is to say they're both at about 50%. We don't have the information to make your kind of flying leaps because the media is more interested in covering official press conferences and wildly speculating about them, than in gathering and reporting information.

I believe tw said that there was a smoking gun in Afghanistan, which is what distinguishes it from Vietnam and Iraq.

But what gun was that?

Terrorist training camps.

They had those in Iraq. Including a full airframe IIRC.

The Afgahan ones were for export. Weren't the Iraqie ones for internal matters, ie Saddams henchmen?

But then they didn't find it! Another defector report gone bad?

But this blooger points out that the UN inspections team saw the 707 at one point so... it DID exist at one time, although it doesn't now.

Counterterrorist training? It is to laugh!

I wonder where Khodada was from '92 til '01 when he came here? How much of his story is speculation on his part. especially in hindsight? Saying the US is the ultimate target is SOP for all the despots to rally followers. The training he says he actually witnessed could probably be found at the CIA or in England, certainly in Israel. I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam would back such a facility, but to say that Saddam was better able to put 9-11 together than bin Laden, is pretty far out. Of course that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't involved with some of the training, we just don't know. The Afgahn training camps had no cover story like training police for counter terrorist action.

World Trade Center and Pentagon. Why need I post the obvious. Those are clearly smoking guns that justify the war in Afghanistan just as Pearl Harbor justified WWII.

What evidence do you have of a connection between the Taliban and WTC?

The context of your question, as defined by this thread, is, "why did the US have a smoking gun to justify attacking the Taliban?" That answer was clearly stated by the George Jr administration. We were at war with bin Laden's operation - a paramilitary organizaton called Al Qaeda. Taliban were asked by many nations (not just US) to surrender bin Laden. US made it quite clear that if Taliban did not hand over bin Laden, then Taliban would be considered allies of bin Landen - having provided comfort and safe haven to the enemy. Taliban stated their position as a bin Laden ally.

In reality, there was very little difference between Taliban and Al Qaeda anyway. Only thing missing was the political nicieties of a written document or UN resolution. But clearly, the war in Afghanistan was created and justified by a smoking gun - the WTC and Pentagon.

Where was this 'smoking gun' that justifies an attack on Iraq? Because bin Laden attacked WTC and Pentagon, then we have the right to attack Iraq? Where is the smoking gun in Iraq? Just like in VietNam - no smoking gun existed.

Where was the smoking gun to justify war on Germany and Italy? Germany and Italy did not attack Pearl Harbor? They were simply allies of Japan - as Taliban were the ally of bin Laden. In both cases, war was justified by a smoking gun.

At the very least, the Afghanistan connection hasn't been debunked while the Iraq connections have been knocked down one after the other.

Most of 'em.

All the ones I can remember. What am I missing?

Amongst them this is what I believe:

The mass graves were not faked and there were more of them than we ever thought, most containing summary executions with a bullet to the forehead. 400,000 estimated killed I think?

Hussein was funding Palestinian terrorism and propping up other terrorists.

Al Queda was in Iraq.

They did have longer range, prohibited, undeclared missiles that the inspectors didn't find. They did have chemical warheads for those missiles. The only thing not found was the chemicals themselves.

The oil-for-food program was totally corrupt and all right under the noses of the UN.

Now I'm not exactly clear on what they really did find at Salman Pak. I found one link pro and one con.

Massive amounts of cash WERE stolen from the country itself to fund the sort ofthing we're seeing now.


That is all... so far

The fact that Saddam was a despot sicko certainly can't be disputed. His danger to the Iraquie people has been proven. The Question is how much of a danger to other countries was he?

Iraq could have been a threat to Israel.

None of which is a 'clear and present' danger to the US.

The 45-minute launchable rockets that were first mentioned in the rush to invade had the range of a mortar or RPG, far short of the 3000 miles it would take to hit the US.

If Hussein moved outside his borders, the Arab nations and the UN would have ask for help and we would have had a real coalition.

Any other actions that we could prove against Hussein in financing terror might justify a raid, but not as an excuse to overrun a country.

Their have been very few cases in history in which the 'good guys' overran a country. Hitler and Hussein both were very fond of making up excuses to invade other countries, but, if we are in Bush's white-hat. black-hat world, rarely do the 'white hats' do it. We have always criticized countries like China when they annexed Tibet.

As for the case for the US to go to war to save Hussein's people, the Human Rights Watch addressed that rationale better than I could. Human Rights Watch on the Iraq War as Humanitarian Intervention

We might as well face the fact that Iraq was an itch that GWB had to scratch and 9/11 gave him the power to do so. As a result we have 12,000 troops in the real war on terror in Afganistan, trying to prevent civil war and hunt down Bin Laden, and 10 times that number in the sideshow in Iraq?

If we had 130,000 troops in Afghanistan, don't you think we would have a better chance of finding Bin Laden?

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we would have kept the world's goodwill from the events of 9/11 and had a real chance to destroy Al-Queda in it's own backyard. Instead we are fighting a two-front war (not counting the Balkans) and have turned a functioning country, even if it was a brutal dictatorship) into a lawless no-man's land and terrorist spawning ground.

bin Laden is in Pakistan so no.

Afghanistan is a screw-up. We're losing and cannot win, the people we went there to kill are alive (if probably not all that well), humanitarian groups are backing out (have already backed out?), and we have fermented greater chaos.

Afghanistan was a way to channel the nation's anger at the destruction of the towers to a place very far away that didn't matter there much. I don't know of anything that we can do right in Afghanistan, we're spending money and incurring enemies, so why don't we get up and leave?

Because Pakistan and Iran are both potentially our worst enemies and it's absolutely critical that it not become a failed state right next to them and that we maintain a big ol' US interest right there.

It is a failed state, everyone has a gun, the United States and Karzai exert little control beyond the capital, and even Kabul has been said to be worse off than it was during the rule of the Taliban.

Lets not forget the latest reason given by George Jr in his latest speech and news conference to justify the invasion of Iraq. The murder of Daniel Pearl.

Pottery Barn Theory
 

I just heard that GW was told by Powell that if he invades Iraq, "Just remember, if you break it, you buy it".

It looks like the President was given a lot of good advice, on reasons not to go there, on how messy things could get, and on how many troops would be needed.

He just ignored them.

In my mind I cannot fault GWB more than Clinton, or the other Bush on 9/11. I can, however, fault him for his prosecution of the Iraq war. He broke it, and we Americans will be paying for it for the next decade.