Do you believe the Iraq War can be justified?

[TheBloods]

Now you've altered your argument to 'conventional military campaign'. That was not the discussion - that's called a strawman.

Which means the military campaign is not over.

It's exactly the point of the discussion. Everyone was referring to "the invasion".
The invasion was the conventional military exercise - it was a success.

If the aftermath - which was the administrative part - was done properly the military part would be completed.

The military campaign is not over because the aftermath was not adequately planned and executed.

 

[achancely]

It's exactly the point of the discussion. Everyone was referring to "the invasion".
The invasion was the conventional military exercise - it was a success.

If the aftermath - which was the administrative part - was done properly the military part would be completed.

The military campaign is not over because the aftermath was not adequately planned and executed.

You said The invasion is the military exercise

I said The military are still there, still fighting

You then said They won the conventional military battle

You changed your words completely. The military exercise is still ongoing - regardless of whether it is 'conventional'. That's just a cheap strawman.

The aftermath is often military in modern warfare due to the growth of asymmetric warfare - to say it is purely administrative is asinine.

 

[TheBloods]

You're going down the pathetic path of trying to win an internet conversation by semantics.

My point remains the same and it is correct.

The breakdown was in the planning for the aftermath of the invasion, which was an administrative breakdown.

 

[achancely]

You're going down the pathetic path of trying to win an internet conversation by semantics.

My point remains the same and it is correct.

The breakdown was in the planning for the aftermath of the invasion, which was an administrative breakdown.

Oh that's really cheap. Troll stuff - accusing me of going down the 'pathetic path' when you were the one playing semantics and had to put up a strawman.

It was not an administrative breakdown. It was a military breakdown. They failed to plan, they reaped the failure: the war is still not over, it simply changed form.

Your attempt to get out of your error by turning it back on me is entirely immature.

 

[TheBloods]

Oh that's really cheap. Troll stuff - accusing me of going down the 'pathetic path' when you were the one playing semantics and had to put up a strawman.

It was not an administrative breakdown. It was a military breakdown. They failed to plan, they reaped the failure: the war is still not over, it simply changed form.

Your attempt to get out of your error by turning it back on me is entirely immature.

You are playing the semantics game.
My argument remains the same.

If the aftermath of the invasion - the administrative side - had been planned properly, then the military wouldn't have the current problems.

For example, if they hadn't dismissed all the Ba'athist members then there would be a sizeable and experienced civil service and a large army. Then they would have had sufficient people to run the state and protect the infrastructure. Then the military could have gradually pulled out and the Iraqis could have policed the state and recovered the economy. The insurgents would have received far less succour from the locals as they would not have supported them in the same way they do against the foreigners.

If this was done then we wouldn't have the problems we have now, hence it is an administrative problem and hence it is as an aftermath problem.

 

[achancely]

You are playing the semantics game.
My argument remains the same.

It hasn't remained the same at all. You've changed it then accused me of changing it. Really petty.

If the aftermath of the invasion - the administrative side - had been planned properly, then the military wouldn't have the current problems.

It's not the administrative side. I've explained this to you - obviously you don't get modern military strategy.

For example, if they hadn't dismissed all the Ba'athist members then there would be a sizeable and experienced civil service and a large army. Then they would have had sufficient people to run the state and protect the infrastructure. Then the military could have gradually pulled out and the Iraqis could have policed the state and recovered the economy. The insurgents would have received far less succour from the locals as they would not have supported them in the same way they do against the foreigners.

This is just conjecture. Poor form of evidence.

If this was done then we wouldn't have the problems we have now, hence it is an administrative problem and hence it is as an aftermath problem.

Incorrect. The development of an asymmetric force had nothing to do with administration. You are making it up as you go along, this is really shit stuff for someone trying to take the high ground.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It's not the administrative side. I've explained this to you - obviously you don't get modern military strategy.

You are wrong. Go buy the DVD no end in sight.

 

[GuruJane]

You are playing the semantics game.
My argument remains the same.

If the aftermath of the invasion - the administrative side - had been planned properly, then the military wouldn't have the current problems.

For example, if they hadn't dismissed all the Ba'athist members then there would be a sizeable and experienced civil service and a large army. Then they would have had sufficient people to run the state and protect the infrastructure. Then the military could have gradually pulled out and the Iraqis could have policed the state and recovered the economy. The insurgents would have received far less succour from the locals as they would not have supported them in the same way they do against the foreigners.

If this was done then we wouldn't have the problems we have now, hence it is an administrative problem and hence it is as an aftermath problem.

The administration could have planned as much as they liked, they still would have faced an insurgency basically because the US did not defeat and destroy the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen and the Mukhabaret in the war of 2003. If you remember Saddam's forces "melted away" - to fight another day!

The Iraq War should properly be seen as three separate stages in a linked war - similar to WW1 and WW2. The first was the Gulf War in 1991, which failed to remove Saddam and the Baath, leading inevitably to the 2nd which was the Iraq War in 2003, which also failed to destroy the Baath, leading inevitably to the third, which is the insurgency.

In the latter the Baathists, the Guard, the Fedayeen, the Mukhabaret assisted by Al Qaeda commenced action in August 2003 when they blew up the Jordan embassy, blew up the UN headquarters and attempted to blow up a prominent Shiite mosque and killed a prominent Shiite cleric.

 

[achancely]

The administration could have planned as much as they liked, they still would have faced an insurgency basically because the US did not defeat and destroy the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen and the Mukhabaret in the war of 2003. If you remember Saddam's forces "melted away" - to fight another day!

The Iraq War should properly be seen as three separate stages in a linked war - similar to WW1 and WW2. The first was the Gulf War in 1991, which failed to remove Saddam and the Baath, leading inevitably to the 2nd which was the Iraq War in 2003, which also failed to destroy the Baath, leading inevitably to the third, which is the insurgency.

In the latter the Baathists, the Guard, the Fedayeen, the Mukhabaret assisted by Al Qaeda commenced action in August 2003 when they blew up the Jordan embassy, blew up the UN headquarters and attempted to blow up a prominent Shiite mosque and killed a prominent Shiite cleric.

 

[TheBloods]

The administration could have planned as much as they liked, they still would have faced an insurgency basically because the US did not defeat and destroy the Republican Guard, the Fedayeen and the Mukhabaret in the war of 2003. If you remember Saddam's forces "melted away" - to fight another day!

Actually most of Saddam's army was still around and if they had been paid they would have remained a force in being and could have been retrained. This is what Garner wanted to do. Instead the army was not paid and was dismissed instead, and these men had no other choice but to join the insurgency. Of course there would have been insurgents in any case, but nowhere near as many and of course there would have been an Iraqi army to fight them.

 

[TheBloods]

It hasn't remained the same at all. You've changed it then accused me of changing it. Really petty.

Are you JM?

My argument has not changed - I've just clarified so you understand.

It's not the administrative side. I've explained this to you - obviously you don't get modern military strategy.

As explained - organising the occupied was the administrative aspect.

This is just conjecture. Poor form of evidence.

It's what happened and is the most likely analysis, and the same conclusion has been formed by a number of observers.

Incorrect. The development of an asymmetric force had nothing to do with administration. You are making it up as you go along, this is really shit stuff for someone trying to take the high ground.

You really do sound like JM - how tragic! The size of the insurgency is strongly related to the policies undertaken.

 

[GuruJane]

Actually most of Saddam's army was still around and if they had been paid they would have remained a force in being and could have been retrained. This is what Garner wanted to do. Instead the army was not paid and was dismissed instead, and these men had no other choice but to join the insurgency. Of course there would have been insurgents in any case, but nowhere near as many and of course there would have been an Iraqi army to fight them.

You need to make a distinction here between the overwhelming Baath officers and the almost 100% poor, shmuck Shiite grunts.

It seems the policy Rumsfeld was directing Garner to pursue, was to quickly hand over government to the Shiite exiles and get out of there, leaving the Shiites to deal with the Baath officers (and the rest of the Baath) in the time honored Middle Eastern way. But all this would have meant was that the better organised, more educated, more experienced, more ruthless Saddam operatives would have still co-pted Al Qaeda to overthrow the Shiites. In which they might well have suceeded and Saddam may even have been resurrected.

Going back to my earlier point: the 3rd Iraq war started because of US did not destroy all the security organs of the Baath during the 2nd Iraq War. This is no more a military failure than was the defeat of Germany in WW1 - without having destroyed the German military machine and economy first - because of the geo political considerations involved.

 

[achancely]

Are you JM?

My argument has not changed - I've just clarified so you understand.

A clarification by accusing me of being pathetic is not a clarification at all.

As explained - organising the occupied was the administrative aspect.

No, it wasn't. As I explained - it's part of the military strategy.

It's what happened and is the most likely analysis, and the same conclusion has been formed by a number of observers.

No, it's just conjecture. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing as to why the insurgency isn't part of the ongoing war. It was the result of a failure of military planning, this is a very simple concept.

You really do sound like JM - how tragic! The size of the insurgency is strongly related to the policies undertaken.

You really sound like someone making personal attacks to avoid the fact their argument is flimsy.

 

[TheBloods]

You need to make a distinction here between the overwhelming Baath officers and the almost 100% poor, shmuck Shiite grunts.

It seems the policy Rumsfeld was directing Garner to pursue, was to quickly hand over government to the Shiite exiles and get out of there, leaving the Shiites to deal with the Baath officers (and the rest of the Baath) in the time honored Middle Eastern way. But all this would have meant was that the better organised, more educated, more experienced, more ruthless Saddam operatives would have still co-pted Al Qaeda to overthrow the Shiites. In which they might well have suceeded and Saddam may even have been resurrected.

The original plan was to keep the army and civil service in situ. Garner was working towards that plan. However, that changed a few months later when Bremner arrived and dismissed all of the members of the Ba'athist party, not just the most senior officials, which virtually wiped out the civil service and much of the army. In addition, they decided not to pay the army its salaries and disbanded it. All of this was against Garner's plans and his view of what had been agreed upon beforehand. Rumsfeld had little interest in what was happening at the detailed aftermath level - he simply wanted the Americans out and refused to consider the appropriate measures.

 

[TheBloods]

A clarification by accusing me of being pathetic is not a clarification at all.

No, it wasn't. As I explained - it's part of the military strategy.

No, it's just conjecture. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing as to why the insurgency isn't part of the ongoing war. It was the result of a failure of military planning, this is a very simple concept.

You really sound like someone making personal attacks to avoid the fact their argument is flimsy.

Whatever you say. In exactly the same way as JM you are focussing on trying to win an argument playing on semantics and ad hominem (which is how you started in your opening two posts), rather than addressing my points, which you've done at no stage. If it really is so important to you to win an internet debate, then congratulations - knock yourself out with your victory celebrations as this is rather tedious as it is. Well done winner!

 

[achancely]

Whatever you say. In exactly the same way as JM you are focussing on trying to win an argument playing on semantics and ad hominem (which is how you started in your opening two posts), rather than addressing my points, which you've done at no stage.

Actually, you haven't addressed any of my points. I've clearly stated the importance of planning for asymmetric warfare in military strategy. Instead you went off on some personal insult line - exactly as you're doing now.

If it really is so important to you to win an internet debate, then congratulations - knock yourself out with your victory celebrations as this is rather tedious as it is. Well done winner!

It's quite amusing to see you trying to take the moral high ground given how you're just insulting me and playing the man instead of the ball.

Don't try and turn this round on me - it's poor form and pretty plain to see. I've only played the ball, you've got personal.

 

[GuruJane]

The original plan was to keep the army and civil service in situ. Garner was working towards that plan.

Plus handing over govt to a US appointed group, which would have been dominated by the Shiite exiles.

However, that changed a few months later

actualkly it was within weeks

when Bremner arrived

as Bush's personal envoy, and personally briefed by Bush

and dismissed all of the members of the Ba'athist party, not just the most senior officials, which virtually wiped out the civil service and much of the army. In addition, they decided not to pay the army its salaries and disbanded it. All of this was against Garner's plans and his view of what had been agreed upon beforehand. Rumsfeld had little interest in what was happening at the detailed aftermath level - he simply wanted the Americans out and refused to consider the appropriate measures.

Correct. There is a well sourced story (i don't have the ref at hand at the moment) that it was Bush who torpedoed the first plan, insisting that any new Iraq govt had to be democratically elected. This would inevitably involve a longer "occupation", which is what happened.

The dismissal of the Baath army and the Baathists in the civil service was also inevitable, assuming that Bush's policy was for a democracy and not merely a handover to another authoritarian regime.

 

[TheBloods]

You started with "I cannot believe anyone would be so foolish as to make the claim you have."

I've already mentioned that the asymmetric dimension was to countered by retrained Iraqi forces working in conjuction with reduced US military, while better civil infrastructure was to reduce the motivation to provide succour.

Sir John Keegan breaks the war into the military campaign, completed once the conventional fighting was concludued with Tikrit and Baghdad captured and the Iraqi army defeated, and then says once the military campaign was complete it was necessary to win the peace.

I've also made it clear that I was referring to the invasion up front, as the others were. I've also made it clear that it's the aftermath of the conventional military invasion which was the unsuccessful part. I've also addressed the administrative policy failures that contributed to the sizeable insurgency.

However, you seem obsessed with 'winning', so well done.

 

[bit_pattern]

Iraq Five Years On By Antony Loewenstein


On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Antony Loewenstein asks: would we do it again?


Five years after the start of the Iraq war, a clear majority of Iraqis want American troops to leave. The results of the latest ORB/Channel 4 study are disturbing. The human cost of the conflict is starkly revealed: “A quarter of those surveyed said they had lost a family member to murder. In Baghdad, that figure rose to nearly half (45 per cent). Some 81 per cent had suffered power cuts and 43 per cent had experienced drinking water shortages. In the last month, more than a quarter (28 per cent) had been short of food.”

I’ve been writing about the war since 2003 and watched the slow descent of the country into ethnic cleansing and chaos. The Independent’s Patrick Cockburn (arguably the finest Western reporter on the war), writes this week that “five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party, and the Shia wave a newer version, adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag.” The White House Press Secretary still praises President Bush’s brilliant Iraq strategy.

Iraq is a war that has redefined the ways in which we view armed conflict. The suicide bomber, used in previous battles from Sri Lanka to Lebanon, has become a ferocious force of unimaginable terror. Robert Fisk recently concluded that there has been at least 1,121 Muslim suicide bombers in Iraq since 2003 and these explosions — immobilised predominantly, though not solely, by men — have killed around 16,000 people. “One of George Bush’s more insidious legacies in Iraq”, Fisks laments, “thus remains its most mysterious: the marriage of nationalism and spiritual ferocity, the birth of an unprecedentedly huge army of Muslims inspired by the idea of death.”

Although support for the war in America is at its highest point since 2006 — a slim majority now believe the “US will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” — this is predominantly due to the corporate media’s slavish praise of the “surge”, an injection of more American troops to “pacify” the country, especially Baghdad. Jonathan Steele, Guardian columnist and author of the book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, acknowledges that casualties have been reduced since the “surge” but recently told Democracy Now! that this was for different reasons to those given by the war hawks and their media courtiers:

“It’s actually become harder to kill people. What do I mean by that? It’s just that the mixed neighbourhoods of Baghdad, you know, where Sunni and Shia used to live side-by-side without even worrying or caring or even knowing what sect their neighbour was, they’ve all broken down, because if you’re a minority Shia living in a Sunni area, you’ve now moved out, and vice versa. And so, you’ve got a kind of sectarian relocation that’s gone on. And, of course, that makes it harder if — for these sort of death squads to come in, because they’re now going to areas where people feel much better protected, because they’ve got their own people all around them and they’ve got their local sort of vigilante groups protecting them.”

Steele concludes that the war was “lost when they decided to have this open-ended occupation of the country without giving any date for withdrawal.” Even today, none of the major American presidential candidates are advocating full troop withdrawal. Predictably, even so-called “anti-war” Democrats are still refusing to seriously refute Bush’s talking points.

The mainstream media, with some notable exceptions, has remained complicit in these deceptions, refusing to ask the tough questions of politicians and generals. At least the Independent on Sunday’s editorial this week, on the fifth anniversary, rebuked journalists for not “asking much more searching questions about what would happen after the invasion”. The high rate of Iraqi civilian casualties remains largely absent from media coverage. The fact that over one million people have probably been killed since 2003 has been all but erased from the public record.

Returned American soldiers are starting to recount their harrowing tales of collective punishment in the war zone. The aim is to enlighten the world about their actions — while endorsed by the US army, they were a major contributing factor to the raging insurgency. One soldier, Hart Viges, joined the army one day after September 11, 2001, but now says that his mission in Iraq was flawed from the beginning. “We never went on the right raid where we got the right house, much less the right person — not once,” he said. He goes on:

“We were driving in Baghdad one day and found a dead body on the side of the road. We pulled over to secure the area and my friends jumped off and started taking pictures with it, smiling. They asked me if I wanted to join them and I said no, but not because it was unethical, but because it wasn’t my kill. Because you shouldn’t take trophies with those you didn’t kill. I wasn’t upset this man was dead, but just that they shouldn’t be taking credit for something they didn’t do. But that’s war.”

Other soldiers have recounted war crimes committed on a daily basis in the war zone. Despite evidence that implicates the military in the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians, authorities are notoriously lax in offering compensation.

As a journalist, I regularly ask myself if the mainstream media has learned any lessons since 2003. Sadly, I don’t believe so (and even Britain’s Ministry of Defence is now trying to force teachers to transmit to students a sanitised history of the war.) The same journalists who endorsed, encouraged and transmitted false intelligence and hubris would do so again. They are the war enablers, desperate to ingratiate themselves with those in power, grovelling before authority (Here Salon’s Glenn Greenwald explains the real “role of the American press”.)

The Iraq war has primarily been a disaster for the Iraqi people and a success for the defence industry. Until there is a full reckoning of the last five years, we are destined to relive history again with the next “essential” conflict.

http://newmatilda.com/2008/03/20/iraq-five-years

 

[TheBloods]

Plus handing over govt to a US appointed group, which would have been dominated by the Shiite exiles.

Definitely a mistake. But again, a post-invasion administrative issue.

actualkly it was within weeks

I was actually thinking it was two months, but I think you may be right.

as Bush's personal envoy, and personally briefed by Bush

Yes, but we don't know how much policy was passed on there. Nevertheless, still poor adminstrative aftermath.

Correct. There is a well sourced story (i don't have the ref at hand at the moment) that it was Bush who torpedoed the first plan, insisting that any new Iraq govt had to be democratically elected. This would inevitably involve a longer "occupation", which is what happened.

The dismissal of the Baath army and the Baathists in the civil service was also inevitable, assuming that Bush's policy was for a democracy and not merely a handover to another authoritarian regime.

Inevitable maybe, but also incredibly foolish and as I said one of the major contributors to the problem. How can you expect a country to run efficiently when you dismiss all the most experienced operators? It was also a fundamental misunderstanding that everyone in a relatively senior position had to be a Ba'athist official - they had no choice.

 

[achancely]

You started with "I cannot believe anyone would be so foolish as to make the claim you have."

It's a legitimate point. I was literally in disbelief.

I've already mentioned that the asymmetric dimension was to countered by retrained Iraqi forces working in conjuction with reduced US military, while better civil infrastructure was to reduce the motivation to provide succour.

Just because you've mentioned it doesn't make it so. What ifs don't define a good argument.

I've also made it clear that I was referring to the invasion up front, as the others were. I've also made it clear that it's the aftermath of the conventional military invasion which was the unsuccessful part. I've also addressed the administrative policy failures that contributed to the sizeable insurgency.

You haven't addressed these things - you've mentioned them. You also changed tack from 'invasion' to 'conventional military invasion', then blamed me for playing semantics - when in fact those are two very different things.

It's disappointing that you then chose to use personal insults to try and regain some ground.

However, you seem obsessed with 'winning', so well done.

I'm not looking to 'win' anything - again, this attempt to take the moral high ground is incredibly petty when you've been playing the man.

 

[TheBloods]

It's a legitimate point. I was literally in disbelief.

So it's okay to be personal if it's "in disbelief"?

Just because you've mentioned it doesn't make it so. What ifs don't define a good argument.

I haven't just made it up - it's the view of a number of analysts and observers, and comes out quite clearly in a number of books on the topic.

You haven't addressed these things - you've mentioned them. You also changed tack from 'invasion' to 'conventional military invasion', then blamed me for playing semantics - when in fact those are two very different things.

It's disappointing that you then chose to use personal insults to try and regain some ground.

I've stayed with the same argument, just adding clarifications.

Sir John Keegan breaks the war into the military campaign, completed once the conventional fighting was concludued with Tikrit and Baghdad captured and the Iraqi army defeated, and then says once the military campaign was complete it was necessary to win the peace.

I'm not looking to 'win' anything - again, this attempt to take the moral high ground is incredibly petty when you've been playing the man.

As I said, that's how you started and that's all your argument has been. I wasn't playing the man - I was saying that you are going down the pathetic path of arguing on semantics - I didn't say you were pathetic - the argument is.

 

[achancely]

So it's okay to be personal if it's "in disbelief"?

It's not personal - I read the rules of this board and if you attack the opinion, it's fine.

You, however, have been attacking the man.

I haven't just made it up - it's the view of a number of analysts and observers, and comes out quite clearly in a number of books on the topic.

Actually, I've yet to see anyone say asymmetric warfare shouldn't be factored into military strategy, and a military has done it's job if it wins the conventional war.

Enlighten me.

I've stayed with the same argument, just adding clarifications.

Untrue - there is not just semantic difference between what you said, there's a substantive difference.

Sir John Keegan breaks the war into the military campaign, completed once the conventional fighting was concludued with Tikrit and Baghdad captured and the Iraqi army defeated, and then says once the military campaign was complete it was necessary to win the peace.

That's just a badly spun excuse. Fact is, military planning was inadequate. No two ways about it.

As I said, that's how you started and that's all your argument has been. I wasn't playing the man - I was saying that you are going down the pathetic path of arguing on semantics - I didn't say you were pathetic - the argument is.

All my argument has been? I pointed out your severe error in judgement and you proceeded to accuse me of being like someone and made numerous other personal attacks.

Very weak when you could have either conceded or made a genuine argument. Instead you chose to play the man. There was far more than semantics, and it's disgustingly petty of you to turn around and accuse me of being the one making a piddly argument.

Grow up, son.

 

[TheBloods]

Your comment was personal, not on opinion. My comments were about your argument.

In any event if you think you know more about warfare than Keegan and don't even need to address the point, then there is hardly any point in continuing and you achieve your aim of winning the internet argument. Amazingly like JM!

 

[achancely]

Your comment was personal, not on opinion. My comments were about your argument.

What bullshit.

In any event if you think you know more about warfare than Keegan and don't even need to address the point, then there is hardly any point in continuing and you achieve your aim of winning the internet argument. Amazingly like JM!

Here you go again, a personal attack trying to accuse me of something I'm not doing.

And you're yet to show that Keegan said anything like what you said - funny about that.

This is really poor behaviour. Your tactics are blatant.