[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

What I think you're misunderstanding about my opinion is that I'm not suggesting a military solution anymore than I'm suggesting 'throwing money at a problem.' You said it yourself, the military and the money are tools... but how are you going to do the job if the tools are inadequate?

If we had deployed sufficient troops we could have
a) secured the borders to prevent an ingress of foreign fighters
b) prevented looting in business districts vital to the economy
c) protected the infrastructure from collapse

Neither more troops nor money were a solution. Too few troops was only a symptom. And money shortages never existed. Many planes packed end to end with pallets of $100 bill were even shipped into Iraq and distributed. America was asking for aid from European nations for an oil rich nation; more money than is provided to all of Africa. When Europeans balked, American covered those expenses as well. To claim money was insufficient is a Nixonian lie.

BTW, who financed so much of Iraq's insurgencies? America probably did. $billions in cash were distributed and nobody knows where the money went. Shortage of money never existed.

If the Iraq electric grid was so deteriorated, then why could Saddam have full electricity restored throughout his nation in only one month? We specifically targeted his entire electric system in the first war - and he restore it almost completely in one month. Why with many $billions spent on power plants and the grid - why does the grid only provide 2 to 6 hours of electricity daily? Do you have any idea how massive $billion are? We almost gold plated that grid - and it still cannot do what Saddam did in only one month.

You are falling for myths. Money was not insufficient. Deterioration was not the problem. Americans were/are the problem.

Cited previously was the MD State traffic code. Americans were using the MD State traffic laws to rewrite Iraqi traffic laws - rather than restoring electricity. Not an exaggeration. People sent to Iraq were selected, for example, on how they answered questions about abortion and questions on Republican party loyalty. Parking lots full of black SUVs - not moving - as most Aemricans were found lounging all day around swimming pools rather than out in the field in those SUVs.

How do people who answer politically correct then restore electricity? How does an army, purged of its civil affairs officers, restore an electric system?

Money and more troops will not solve a problem when 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Again, money and more troops would not solve what Frontline made so obvious in:
The Lost Year.
If you don't have time to learn what are major facts - well beyond what you are posting here - then why are you posting here? Concept in that video is not optional. Concepts are a pre-requisite.

America only had six months to get it done. America did nothing - zero - for seven months. It’s too late. The mindset takes root like kudzu. As anyone familiar with Phase Four planning knows - if you don't win those hearts and minds in six months, then all is lost. A fundmanetal point made even in the movie Patton.

$Billions cannot fix the grid because the work was not done in 2003. Deterioration is not the problem - except where propaganda is promoted. Brand new power plants completely destroyed. Americans never even taught Iraqis how to maintain it. American incompetence is that widespread. A resulting mindset cannot be fixed with more money and troops. And then Americans openly advocated torture - including some in The Cellar.

Damage has been done. No amount of money or troops can change that.

Latest examples are Lebanon and the Balkans. Clinton was particularly sharp. At the time, I feared he blew it - moved in too early. Not enough had died. Clinton let the violence fester long enough so that all parties finally wanted peace. And his negotiator Holbrook was so sharp as to get Milosevic negotiate himself out of a job. Another success only possible because death rates were sufficiently high to change that mindset.

Not enough people have died yet in Iraq as is so obvious in those 18 unfulfilled benchmarks, a fourth Iraqi government that shows no interest in building a nation, and the secular mindset of hatred now entrenched across Iraq. American can no longer impose a solution. The damage is done. We are a nation who even tortures routinely and lie about that. Does not matter what you think. The damage has been done.

Time to avoid that failure was more than 3 years ago. That was an underlying point even in the Iraq Study Group. That is the point in this soon to be released government report. That is well proven in history. Nobody has any tools that can fix what America has now created.

Show me how America could have ended Lebanon's Civil war or averted massacres in Balkan with more men and money. Not possible. Why did both end for the better? Because we were smarter; let the parties of hate kill one another long enough that all parties finally want peace. The conflict was contained and let fester. Peace cannot be imposed. It must first be wanted - a mindset cannot be imposed.

Learn from this now so that when another dumb president does it again in 30 years, you will be sufficiently patriotic American and informed to call him a mental midget.

Some wars can only be contained and let burn themselves out - just like Lebanon and Balkans - because hate is that deeply entrenched. Welcome to the disaster in Somalia where everyone who thinks they are going to fix it only makes it worse. There are no tools that can solve such wars except higher death rates.

BTW, the ingress of foreign fighters? Even that is mostly a myth created by the same incompetant American liars. America created the insurgency that is almost 100% homegrown. There are almost no Al Qaeda of foreign fighters. See Frontline's The Lost Year. Appreicate why America created an insurgency. Appreciate why Al Sadr with no army in 2003 is so powerful today.

The low troop numbers now still contribute: we don't have enough men to patrol the borders, fight the insurgency, AND protect the infrastructure, but it COULD BE DONE with enough manpower.

That is the classic and futile military solution. You are using the exact same lies that Westmoreland used in Nam. It completely confuses tactical victories with winning a war. Your post is another classic example of the same Vietnam lies that concluded with "I see light at the end of the tunnel". Even a poltical solution must begin before any military action.