• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

A democratic Iraq means..........

  • More people standing up against tyranny, like we're seeing in Iran

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Democracy will not last, dictatorship will inevitably return

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Democracy will take hold, but the results will not be favorable for the US

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • I'm a malodorous hippie who believes Dick Cheney and George Bush eat arab babies for fuel

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
You must explain in detail exactly what our strategy in the ME is, why it is important to the US and why invading a sovereign and stable nation, destabilizing it and instituting a style government that is prone to upheaval every election cycle is beneficial to the US.
Uhhh.....Did you just make the argument that Iraq was stable before our invasion? Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.

To give a general and oversimplified answer to your question, though, democracies don't fight each other.
 
Last edited:
This is why I have no confidence in the long-term Iraq strategy. I believe Rumsfeld lacked foresight and had too much of a hand in the strategy.
So you're judging the merits of a venture based on the fact of someone's involvement? Seems like you never planned on giving it an honest chance.
 
We are talking in circles. I addressed this with my comment below. It was not charity, it was in our strategic interest.

We are talking in circles, but I feel it's primarily because of a fundamental difference regarding what qualifies as "strategically important" and why.

I'll get into more detail below:

I would say that the following are what makes it in the strategic interest:

OK, let's look at each listed example:

[*]oil reserves - the world relies on stable oil prices and the ME has the most proven reserves. This makes the region strategically important.

How has the war in Iraq stabilized oil prices, though? Recent data suggests the opposite. Prices have been pretty unstable over the last 7 years.

Are you saying that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will re-stabilize the oil prices somehow? If so, how?

Plus, this goal seems very short-sighted to me considering that a better long-term goal is to decrease, if not totally eliminate, our dependence on foreign energy commodities altogether.

[*]soft war between autocrats and islamists. The autocrats are restricting the populations. The populations are responding with radical Islamism. In some cases the autocrats are encouraging this - KSA. The way out of this is democratization.

How does democratization offer a way out of radical Islamism, exactly?

Also, was there a larger proportion of radical Islamism in Iraq before or after our intervention?

I ask because all the data I've ever found on the matter suggests that Islamism has increased since the invasion, not decreased. Not just in Iraq either.

[*]Iraq had 17 resolutions against it. Easy pickings.

That makes it strategically important how, exactly?

Specifically, how does that benefit the US?

[*]Saddam subjugated his people. Humanitarian crisis.

Why is this strategically important to the US? To me, that's just charity, and as such, should be funded privately.

[*]Iraq is centrally located along fault lines: Kurdistan, Sunni v Shiite, Arab v Persian.

OK, and what is the strategic importance of this exactly?

What was the strategic benefit of invasion compared to the status quo?

Where are the US gains, exactly?

[*]Iraq's people are educated and capable of democracy.

Are you saying they were educated before the invasion, and thus were capable of democracy, or that we've made them educated and capable of democracy?

If it was a pre-existing condition, are they still as educated as they were after 7 years of war-torn strife?

If it's an after the invasion development, can you show evidence of increased education directly resulting from the invasion?

Also, this comes back to the same ultimate question, what specific benefit is for the US does this provide?

There is a fundamental difference between identifying somewhere as strategically important and our strategy for dealing with it. I clarified why I think the ME and Iraq is strategically important above. Democracy has political upheavals, but is more stable than an autocracy. We invaded because of the justification of humanitarian intervention, IMHO - not WMDs.

But the ultimate strategy must be clearly defined prior to designating something as "strategically important".

And the strategy must have a clear benefit for the American people to warrant taxpayer-funding of the venture.


Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement.

I flat out disagree with this.

Would overthrowing Israel and putting in an Islamist regime be an improvement?

Of course not. But it would certainly "break the stasis".

I think that anything done to break the stasis absolutely has to consider long-term ramifications, with a primary interest in benefit for the American people.

I simply don't agree that a change in the status quo in the Middle East always equals a benefit for the American people. I would require undeniable evidence evidence that any change will be a benefit to Americans before I would ever buy that argument.


I don't think Al Qaeda's goal was to increase anti-americanism. It was to establish a caliphate. Iran will change as much as Iraq over time.

My belief is that you have described Al Qaeda's long-term goal and that one of the immediate steps necessary to achieving that goal is increasing anti-American sentiment.

Iran and Al Qaeda have lost this war.

Personally, I don't think such claims can be made until the final outcomes are determined, and that those outcomes can't really be determined for at least 20-30 years.

But my hope of hopes is that you are correct and I'm completely and totally incorrect.

No one could predict the actions of the enemy.

No one could predict them with 100% certainty, but many did predict them pretty accurately. Specifically McCain comes to mind, again.

I think the insurgency was predictable, and the whole time Rumsfeld was saying no insurgency. Perhaps it was part of the plan, to create a honey pot. Bush was slow to go COIN, because of Rumsfeld I think, but once he did we went for it and it was a success.

I don't actually disagree with this. I would say Rummy was the primary cause of what I view as the strategic errors in Iraq.

While Bush is ultimately responsible for listening to him as CinC, he did do the right thing eventually and I would say that this action will help his legacy regardless of what the ultimate outcome in Iraq is.

But Rumsfeld is a huge factor in my lack of confidence in the long-term planning of the decisions.

But I don't doubt that the actions were taken by Bush because he felt they were in the best interests of the American people.

I just don't agree that these actions will ultimately be in the best interests of the American people. This is based on fundamental differences I have regarding an interventionist military strategy, which I feel usually ends up having negative long-term effects in general.


It is in the Iraqis hands.

That is true. I hope that, as you said, Iran and Al Qaeda and radicalism have lost there.

Thanks for the long message. I hope I addressed your points.

You're welcome and thanks for the response. I think we have at least one fundamental difference in opinion that might not be rectifiable, specifically the view that "Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement."

I would also appreciate further clarification of the strategic importance arguments. Specifically, how the war in Iraq can and will create the correct environment to achieve the stated goals you have listed, and what, if any, benefit this will have for the US.

Thanks.
 
So you're judging the merits of a venture based on the fact of someone's involvement? Seems like you never planned on giving it an honest chance.

That's nonsense. I'm judging the primary planner's ability to have long-term foresight based on his horrendous track record of having a long-term foresight, specifically regarding the Middle East.

I might be wrong. He might not have screwed the pooch this time, but assuming that he didn't in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his lack of foresight in past decisions is pure lunacy, IMO.

As far as things go, it doesn't matter what I think since the situation (ie going into Iraq in the fist place) is already decided. My opinion ain't changing things.

And I honestly do hope I'm wrong. That this turns out to be an out-of-character brilliant move by Rumsfeld in the ME.

there's no reason why I should operate under the assumption he didn't **** up, especially knowing that at first, he very clearly did.
 
That's nonsense. I'm judging the primary planner's ability to have long-term foresight based on his horrendous track record of having a long-term foresight, specifically regarding the Middle East.

I might be wrong. He might not have screwed the pooch this time, but assuming that he didn't in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his lack of foresight in past decisions is pure lunacy, IMO.

As far as things go, it doesn't matter what I think since the situation (ie going into Iraq in the fist place) is already decided. My opinion ain't changing things.

And I honestly do hope I'm wrong. That this turns out to be an out-of-character brilliant move by Rumsfeld in the ME.

there's no reason why I should operate under the assumption he didn't **** up, especially knowing that at first, he very clearly did.
Why would we assume something based on Rumsfeld either way? Shouldn't your assessment of the strategy be based on your own logic and the facts as they are on the ground?

And you do realize that he wasn't the primary planner, right? The SecDef is not head of military logistics. He does approve or disapprove of much of the central planning involved in warfighting, however there were many hands involved in the initial miscalculation of the troops needed to execute the mission.

Of course, none of this speaks to the merits of the actual operation underway. The fact is we have achieved an impressive victory in Iraq. There were mistakes along the way, many of them due to the fact that we face an intelligent enemy that adapts to our tactics as we employ them.

The mere fact of Rumsfeld's involvement, however, is not in itself an argument against the campaign as a whole.
 
Uhhh.....Did you just make the argument that Iraq was stable before our invasion? Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.

I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?
 
I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?
You gotta love when debate devolves into condescension out of frustration.

You got me, Tucker. Iraq was stable. They did not fluctuate at all in the last couple decades. Saddam was firmly established in his financial support of suicide bombers and his housing of the world's most wanted terrorist in an Iraqi goverment office.

I should have clarified. I was referring to Iraq's "stability" as a destabilizing force in the ME.

You can go on about technical definitions if you like, but the bottom line is you were using Iraq's stability as a selling point in an argument not to invade, as if being in any type of perpetual state inherently lends itself to peace.
 
Last edited:
I've never watched a Michael Moore movie, but I have read lots of books. Probably more than most people.

One of those books I've read was this one that is often called a "dictionary". These magical things give the "definitions" words such as "stable" which means firmly established and not changing or fluctuating.

As anyone with a fourth grade education will realize, a government that went almost entirely unchanged for almost 24 years would definitely qualify as firmly establish and not changing or fluctuating.

In fact, over that same time span, the government of Iraq was more stable than the government of the US, which underwent multiple fluctuations and changes.

Not only that, but Iraq's government then was more resistant to change compared to how it is in a democracy.

This is important because another definition for stable is resistant to change.


Another great example of a stable dictatorship is Cuba. 50+ years of stability.

Now, are you actually able to present evidence of instability in Iraq prior to our invasion, i.e. that it was prone to change or fluctuation or not firmly established, or were you just interested in making it abundantly clear that you did not actually have any clue of what "stable" means?

I agree with you, a dictatorship is more stable. It often preserves that stability through the subjugation of its people, a violation of human rights. Stability is not a desired feature. Smoothly changing instability is what is desired, so that the society can change over time. Ergo, democracy.
 
Why would we assume something based on Rumsfeld either way? Shouldn't your assessment of the strategy be based on your own logic and the facts as they are on the ground?

My assessment is based on my own logic and the facts as they exist. ALL of the facts. Not just the one's I choose to acknowledge. This includes historical facts regarding who implemented the strategies.

Shouldn't yours?

And you do realize that he wasn't the primary planner, right? The SecDef is not head of military logistics. He does approve or disapprove of much of the central planning involved in warfighting, however there were many hands involved in the initial miscalculation of the troops needed to execute the mission.

He was one of the major reasons we went in with fewer troops than necessary. Original outlines for the invasion had far more in the way of boots on the ground. He was vocally critical of this plan on the basis that it had far too many troop in his estimation.

Of course, none of this speaks to the merits of the actual operation underway. The fact is we have achieved an impressive victory in Iraq. There were mistakes along the way, many of them due to the fact that we face an intelligent enemy that adapts to our tactics as we employ them.

First: Most of the mistakes were due to incompetent planning and bad intelligence. That's pretty clear by now. Rumsfeld was a big factor in the incompetent planning. All enemies adapt to the tactics employed. The mistake is not altering your tactics in response. That's incompetent leadership right there. Nothing more.

Second: What did we win, exactly? Our military did an impressive job fulfilling their mission, especially in light of the incompetence displayed by leadership early on, and my hat is off to them.

But what did we, the American People, win? I'm looking in my mailbox right now and I don't see an "Iraq prize". It's one thing to say we achieved" victory" when you are talking about the military fulfilling it';s mission, but it's another thing when you have to explain what benefits this ill-conceived venture has bestowed upon the American people. That won't be determined for decades.

Like I've said, I might be wrong. This could somehow have a benefit for the American People. I'm just not sure how it will or if it can. Nor has anyone actually tried to give a legitimate explanation of how and why it will. Only guesses about untested hypotheses.

It remains to be seen if this venture will ultimately strengthen or weaken our terrorist enemies in the long run, so declaring victory is absurd, IMO.
 
You gotta love when debate devolves into condescension out of frustration.

So what exactly was causing your frustration that caused you to spew this condescending idiocy:

Sorry man, but if you believe that you need to cut back on the Michael Moore flicks and do some reading.

I'd love to know what it was, exactly, that caused your devolution there.
 
I agree with you, a dictatorship is more stable. It often preserves that stability through the subjugation of its people, a violation of human rights. Stability is not a desired feature. Smoothly changing instability is what is desired, so that the society can change over time. Ergo, democracy.

OK. That's something I can agree with.

But what I'm not sold on is if it is our job to overthrow dictatorships in order to implement these preferable forms of government. I'm not sold on what benefit it provides for the American people, specifically, to the point that we should take a militaristic stance on doing this.
 
First I should apologize for conflating two sets of things in my list of strategically important considerations. The real list defining the strategic importance of Iraq is:

  • oil reserves - the world relies on stable oil prices and the ME has the most proven reserves. This makes the region strategically important.
  • soft war between autocrats and islamists. The autocrats are restricting the populations. The populations are responding with radical Islamism. In some cases the autocrats are encouraging this - KSA. The way out of this is democratization.
  • Iraq is centrally located along fault lines: Kurdistan, Sunni v Shiite, Arab v Persian.

The others are considerations that made Iraq a prime target of regime change...not strategically important to the region.

Now to go point by point:

OK, let's look at each listed example:

oil reserves - the world relies on stable oil prices and the ME has the most proven reserves. This makes the region strategically important.

How has the war in Iraq stabilized oil prices, though? Recent data suggests the opposite. Prices have been pretty unstable over the last 7 years.

Are you saying that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will re-stabilize the oil prices somehow? If so, how?

Plus, this goal seems very short-sighted to me considering that a better long-term goal is to decrease, if not totally eliminate, our dependence on foreign energy commodities altogether.

I would suggest that we are still in the short-term vis-a-vis the stable oil prices I was discussing. We are now getting into territory where Iraq, as an OPEC founder, is expanding exports and may well be causing OPEC limits to be exceeded. There was even talk that Iraq would leave OPEC.

Other than the one summer spike, oil prices have been stable.

A long-term goal of the US should be eliminating our dependence, I agree. CNG sounds promising. All electric transportation does not sound promising and shifts energy dependence to power plant production - i.e. nuclear.



soft war between autocrats and islamists. The autocrats are restricting the populations. The populations are responding with radical Islamism. In some cases the autocrats are encouraging this - KSA. The way out of this is democratization.
How does democratization offer a way out of radical Islamism, exactly?

Also, was there a larger proportion of radical Islamism in Iraq before or after our intervention?

I ask because all the data I've ever found on the matter suggests that Islamism has increased since the invasion, not decreased. Not just in Iraq either.

Regionally, trend lines were going from autocracies to islamists, as a solution to the inequities of autocracy. Democratization provides an alternative. This is a regional argument.

Iraq is trending toward secular nationalism.

Iraq is centrally located along fault lines: Kurdistan, Sunni v Shiite, Arab v Persian.
OK, and what is the strategic importance of this exactly?

What was the strategic benefit of invasion compared to the status quo?

Where are the US gains, exactly?

In order for democracy to work, minorities must get a voice and not be threatened by violence or oppression. Iraq is the perfect location to work that out.


Iraq's people are educated and capable of democracy.
Are you saying they were educated before the invasion, and thus were capable of democracy, or that we've made them educated and capable of democracy?

If it was a pre-existing condition, are they still as educated as they were after 7 years of war-torn strife?

If it's an after the invasion development, can you show evidence of increased education directly resulting from the invasion?

Also, this comes back to the same ultimate question, what specific benefit is for the US does this provide?

I am saying they had a high literacy rate before the invasion. Compare to Afghanistan.


But the ultimate strategy must be clearly defined prior to designating something as "strategically important".

I disagree. A region can be strategically important and we could have no strategy for dealing with it. Or we could have a losing strategy, like the no-fly zones and sanctions prior to the OIF. The sanctions were slipping away.

Or we could have a losing strategy, like Rumsfeld - advised as he was by military brass - to train security and turn over responsibility, all the while staying locked up on FOBs with no protection of the population offered. It took the switch to COIN (more important than the surge in numbers) to rectify this strategic blunder.

And the strategy must have a clear benefit for the American people to warrant taxpayer-funding of the venture.

It should, I agree.




Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement.
I flat out disagree with this.

Would overthrowing Israel and putting in an Islamist regime be an improvement?

Of course not. But it would certainly "break the stasis".

I think that anything done to break the stasis absolutely has to consider long-term ramifications, with a primary interest in benefit for the American people.

I simply don't agree that a change in the status quo in the Middle East always equals a benefit for the American people. I would require undeniable evidence evidence that any change will be a benefit to Americans before I would ever buy that argument.

I agree overthrowing Israel, the other democracy, would not be wise. However, I view the ME like linked gyroscopes. You push in one direction and it goes spinning off at right angles. Any change in the stasis is good (within reason). Ok, maybe not. Just ignore my comment! ;)


My belief is that you have described Al Qaeda's long-term goal and that one of the immediate steps necessary to achieving that goal is increasing anti-American sentiment.

My the increase in anti-Americanism (with the Shia - the Sunnis respect us and the Kurds love us) has not resulted in gains by Al Qaeda. In fact, the Sunnis hate Al Qaeda.


Iran and Al Qaeda have lost this war.
Personally, I don't think such claims can be made until the final outcomes are determined, and that those outcomes can't really be determined for at least 20-30 years.

But my hope of hopes is that you are correct and I'm completely and totally incorrect.

A lot depends on this election and the peaceful transfer of power.

No one could predict them with 100% certainty, but many did predict them pretty accurately. Specifically McCain comes to mind, again.

All McCain said reflected Generals who said we needed more troops. That was not the problem. The problem was the strategy by these same generals, who were hands off the population and exit as fast as we could after handing over power. It wasn't happening, so the insurgency rose up. COIN said get with the population and it works.


I don't actually disagree with this. I would say Rummy was the primary cause of what I view as the strategic errors in Iraq.

While Bush is ultimately responsible for listening to him as CinC, he did do the right thing eventually and I would say that this action will help his legacy regardless of what the ultimate outcome in Iraq is.

But Rumsfeld is a huge factor in my lack of confidence in the long-term planning of the decisions.

But I don't doubt that the actions were taken by Bush because he felt they were in the best interests of the American people.

I think the generals advising Rumsfeld had a mental model they pushed as well. It took Jack Keane and Cheney to break this.

I just don't agree that these actions will ultimately be in the best interests of the American people. This is based on fundamental differences I have regarding an interventionist military strategy, which I feel usually ends up having negative long-term effects in general.

I hear you. I think we need to be very limited on interventions. I do feel Iraq was an important one, because of the impact it will have on the region (Syria, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, ...)


That is true. I hope that, as you said, Iran and Al Qaeda and radicalism have lost there.

My hope as well, but as you point out it isn't over. Frustrating to see our combat troops leave so quickly from such a precarious situation.


You're welcome and thanks for the response. I think we have at least one fundamental difference in opinion that might not be rectifiable, specifically the view that "Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement."

I loosely said that and you can ignore it as such. :)

I would also appreciate further clarification of the strategic importance arguments. Specifically, how the war in Iraq can and will create the correct environment to achieve the stated goals you have listed, and what, if any, benefit this will have for the US.

Don't think I actually addressed this question. I think we see the plurality being exhibited in Iraq today. If it remains reasonably non-violent and one of the sects doesn't get screwed over, that is the correct environment. The benefit to the US will be an example of a functioning democracy in the ME that will influence other countries.

Cheers!
 
So what exactly was causing your frustration that caused you to spew this condescending idiocy:



I'd love to know what it was, exactly, that caused your devolution there.
My fault. I didn't mean for it to come across as that condescending. I often forget that tone doesn't translate well through the internet.
 
OK. That's something I can agree with.

But what I'm not sold on is if it is our job to overthrow dictatorships in order to implement these preferable forms of government. I'm not sold on what benefit it provides for the American people, specifically, to the point that we should take a militaristic stance on doing this.
What other stance do you propose we take?

I understand the human and financial cost of war. I've experienced it first hand. I just personally believe it to be naive to think that we can affect change in any other way. We have tried diplomacy until we're blue in the face, and we're doing the same in Iran now. No tyrannical regime has ever or will ever voluntarily relinquish it's own totalitarian power in order to bring a peaceful stability to it's region. It's just reality.
 
OK. That's something I can agree with.

But what I'm not sold on is if it is our job to overthrow dictatorships in order to implement these preferable forms of government. I'm not sold on what benefit it provides for the American people, specifically, to the point that we should take a militaristic stance on doing this.

Only when it is in our strategic interest.
 
Anything to break the stasis of the ME is an improvement.
I view the ME like linked gyroscopes. You push in one direction and it goes spinning off at right angles. Any change in the stasis is good (within reason). Ok, maybe not. Just ignore my comment! ;)

I thought of something else to say about this. I am a firm believer in the benevolence of creative destruction. So just breaking the stasis is a good thing in this respect.
 
My assessment is based on my own logic and the facts as they exist. ALL of the facts. Not just the one's I choose to acknowledge. This includes historical facts regarding who implemented the strategies.

Shouldn't yours?
No, it shouldn't. I don't care if Donald Duck devised the strategy. If I agree with Donald Duck that empowering the Iraqi population with a say in their own governance is an important step toward creating a lasting peace in the ME, then my hat goes off to him, regardless of what other past decisions I disagree with him on.

It does a grave injustice to the facts on the ground to judge the merits of OIF as a whole based on the poor initial implementation. Mind you, this doesn't mean I'm giving Rumsfeld credit for our success. I'm merely saying that his incompetence is irrelevant to the merits of the general mission.

To quote John McCain, "I'm afraid my opponent doesn't know the difference between a tactic and a strategy".



He was one of the major reasons we went in with fewer troops than necessary. Original outlines for the invasion had far more in the way of boots on the ground. He was vocally critical of this plan on the basis that it had far too many troop in his estimation.
Yeah, he effed up, along with several Generals who supported his position. Troops levels were actually the least costly mistake of the initial invasion, though. The decision to completely disband the Iraqi Army was absolutely disastrous. Many observers believe that our troop levels would have been plenty sufficient had Paul Bremer not made that tragic error in judgement.

Of course this is all theoretical, and hindsight is 20/20.



First: Most of the mistakes were due to incompetent planning and bad intelligence. That's pretty clear by now. Rumsfeld was a big factor in the incompetent planning. All enemies adapt to the tactics employed. The mistake is not altering your tactics in response. That's incompetent leadership right there. Nothing more.
This is simply false. We constantly adjusted our fighting tactics from day 1. We had no choice, really. You must remember that this is America's first venture into a large scale, urban guerrilla war of this type. We had to learn many hard lessons along the way, but have been able to adapt our tactics effectively, as is evidenced by Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual, which is now required reading.

Second: What did we win, exactly? Our military did an impressive job fulfilling their mission, especially in light of the incompetence displayed by leadership early on, and my hat is off to them.

But what did we, the American People, win? I'm looking in my mailbox right now and I don't see an "Iraq prize". It's one thing to say we achieved" victory" when you are talking about the military fulfilling it';s mission, but it's another thing when you have to explain what benefits this ill-conceived venture has bestowed upon the American people. That won't be determined for decades.

Like I've said, I might be wrong. This could somehow have a benefit for the American People. I'm just not sure how it will or if it can. Nor has anyone actually tried to give a legitimate explanation of how and why it will. Only guesses about untested hypotheses.

It remains to be seen if this venture will ultimately strengthen or weaken our terrorist enemies in the long run, so declaring victory is absurd, IMO.[/
What are you expecting to find in your mailbox? I mean, come on. Let's take a step back and take a look at what we've accomplished in the last 7 years. We completely removed a tyrannical regime, helped the Iraqi people to create an infant democracy in the heart of the ME while constantly fending off attacks from outside forces such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and created an ally that turned out in droves a couple months ago, risking life and limb to elect their own leaders. Qadaffi has completely disassembled his nuclear program based on our agreement that we will not do the same to him. We've done all this while losing a little over 4,000 brave men and women. Of course, any loss of life is tragic, but to achieve what we have in this amount of time while losing what we lost in a few months in Vietnam is nothing short of amazing.

As far as "what you get", you get what the entire rest of the world gets; a chance at creating a lasting peace in the ME. We have accomplished in helping to create an atmosphere in Iraq that is less conducive to the terrorist mindset that plagues the world as we speak. You get the peace of mind of knowing that we actually have a shot at seeing real, tangible change in the ME, rather than chasing our tails for the next 100 years with the perpetual state of war that comes with a reactionary defensive stance.
 
Tucker Case said:
[Rumsfeld] was one of the major reasons we went in with fewer troops than necessary. Original outlines for the invasion had far more in the way of boots on the ground. He was vocally critical of this plan on the basis that it had far too many troop in his estimation.

Yeah, he effed up, along with several Generals who supported his position. Troops levels were actually the least costly mistake of the initial invasion, though. The decision to completely disband the Iraqi Army was absolutely disastrous. Many observers believe that our troop levels would have been plenty sufficient had Paul Bremer not made that tragic error in judgement.

Of course this is all theoretical, and hindsight is 20/20.

Now hold on. Some estimates were 600,000 troops, which we did not have. Initial troop levels were fine for the first year and change. The problem was strategy, not troop levels. We weren't protecting the population. That it only took an additional 30,000 troops, at the height of the civil war, in the surge is proof that we went in with the right troop level.

Now about this issue of disbanding the army. It had to be done. The Iraqi Army was an institution of Sunni power. It had to be disbanded to allow the Shiites to gain power that could be exercised freely. It predictably resulted in an insurgency. We weren't COIN at the time so it spiraled out of control.

Tucker Case said:
First: Most of the mistakes were due to incompetent planning and bad intelligence. That's pretty clear by now. Rumsfeld was a big factor in the incompetent planning. All enemies adapt to the tactics employed. The mistake is not altering your tactics in response. That's incompetent leadership right there. Nothing more.

This is simply false. We constantly adjusted our fighting tactics from day 1. We had no choice, really. You must remember that this is America's first venture into a large scale, urban guerrilla war of this type. We had to learn many hard lessons along the way, but have been able to adapt our tactics effectively, as is evidenced by Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual, which is now required reading.

It doesn't matter that we were adjusting our tactics. We had the wrong strategy until Keane, Odierno and Petraeus came along in 2006/2007. That's 4 years of the wrong strategy.
 
Now hold on. Some estimates were 600,000 troops, which we did not have. Initial troop levels were fine for the first year and change. The problem was strategy, not troop levels. We weren't protecting the population. That it only took an additional 30,000 troops, at the height of the civil war, in the surge is proof that we went in with the right troop level.
This is false. First off, how do you arrive at the conclusion that troops levels were "fine" in the first year? You say that the problem lied in our inability to protect the population, but these two variables are intertwined. We were under constant attack. The ability to defeat the opposing forces would inherently allow for the protection of the citizenry. We simply did not have the forces available to effectively quell violence and in turn secure the population.
Now about this issue of disbanding the army. It had to be done. The Iraqi Army was an institution of Sunni power. It had to be disbanded to allow the Shiites to gain power that could be exercised freely. It predictably resulted in an insurgency. We weren't COIN at the time so it spiraled out of control.
The overwhelming majority of those in the Iraqi Army were more concerned with employment than the preservation of Sunni power. Large numbers of unemployed soldiers were thrown out into the population. Sure, there would have been some in the ranks that could not be trusted, as there are now, but the cost/benefit ratio of allowing them to serve in the new Iraq from the outset would have been much more favorable to us, IMO. Who do you think comprises the Iraqi Army now? It's not only Shiites and Kurds.



It doesn't matter that we were adjusting our tactics. We had the wrong strategy until Keane, Odierno and Petraeus came along in 2006/2007. That's 4 years of the wrong strategy.
Yes, what's your point?
 
Last edited:
This is false. First off, how do you arrive at the conclusion that troops levels were "fine" in the first year?

Low level of attacks.

You say that the problem lied in our inability to protect the population, but these two variables are intertwined. We were under constant attack. The ability to defeat the opposing forces would inherently allow for the protection of the citizenry. We simply did not have the forces available to effectively quell violence and in turn secure the population.

No, it was the wrong strategy. We had no presence among the population, therefore we had no intelligence regarding where the insurgents were. We were blind.

The overwhelming majority of those in the Iraqi Army were more concerned with employment than the preservation of Sunni power. Large numbers of unemployed soldiers were thrown out into the population.

The majority of whom were Sunni, including most positions of leadership. It was a Sunni institution.

Sure, there would have been some in the ranks that could not be trusted, as there are now, but the cost/benefit ratio of allowing them to serve in the new Iraq from the outset would have been much more favorable to us, IMO. Who do you think comprises the Iraqi Army now? It's not only Shiites and Kurds.

This would have been fine if our objective was to return a Sunni to power, a la Garner. This was not our objective. Our objective was a pluralistic Iraq. The Army had to go.

Yes, what's your point?

What I said: It doesn't matter that we were adjusting our tactics.
 
I would suggest that we are still in the short-term vis-a-vis the stable oil prices I was discussing. We are now getting into territory where Iraq, as an OPEC founder, is expanding exports and may well be causing OPEC limits to be exceeded. There was even talk that Iraq would leave OPEC.

Other than the one summer spike, oil prices have been stable.

Looking back at the year-averages, this is true.

There was a lot variance over a couple of years increasing the standard deviations over those years (which does imply instability, as well, to a degree) but aside from that single spike the averages have remained stable. So you are indeed correct when viewed form that perspective.



A long-term goal of the US should be eliminating our dependence, I agree. CNG sounds promising. All electric transportation does not sound promising and shifts energy dependence to power plant production - i.e. nuclear.


We agree on this


Regionally, trend lines were going from autocracies to islamists, as a solution to the inequities of autocracy. Democratization provides an alternative. This is a regional argument.

Iraq is trending toward secular nationalism.

Isn't Iraq less secular than before?

Also isn't there a strong Islamist showing in Iraq at the moment?

The secularists may have gained recently, but when one looks at the current talks about a coalition between SOL and INA, the Islamist groups will have a large majority still.

On top of that, haven't the Sadrists gained recently as well?

Granted, this does add to the current strategic importance of Iraq. I'll explain more on my views about that later in this post.

In order for democracy to work, minorities must get a voice and not be threatened by violence or oppression. Iraq is the perfect location to work that out.

But what happens when the majority is Islamist?


I am saying they had a high literacy rate before the invasion. Compare to Afghanistan.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.


I disagree. A region can be strategically important and we could have no strategy for dealing with it. Or we could have a losing strategy, like the no-fly zones and sanctions prior to the OIF. The sanctions were slipping away.

Or we could have a losing strategy, like Rumsfeld - advised as he was by military brass - to train security and turn over responsibility, all the while staying locked up on FOBs with no protection of the population offered. It took the switch to COIN (more important than the surge in numbers) to rectify this strategic blunder.

See, I'm getting stuck on the difference between what I view as a vested interest and strategically important. I would say that we may have had a vested interest in the region, but without a clear strategy, we can't accurately say there was strategic importance.

This could just be a tomato, to-mah-to thing.

I agree overthrowing Israel, the other democracy, would not be wise. However, I view the ME like linked gyroscopes. You push in one direction and it goes spinning off at right angles. Any change in the stasis is good (within reason). Ok, maybe not. Just ignore my comment! ;)

OK. :lol:

My the increase in anti-Americanism (with the Shia - the Sunnis respect us and the Kurds love us) has not resulted in gains by Al Qaeda. In fact, the Sunnis hate Al Qaeda.

True enough. Al Qaeda hasn't been gaining favor due to the anti-American sentiment. I apologize for that error.

But I would say that Iran has been gaining due to it, to some degree.

Granted, if that is correct, it would be something that raises the current strategic importance of Iraq. Which is different from the strategic importance prior to invasion. I'll explain more about that towards the end of this post.

A lot depends on this election and the peaceful transfer of power.

True. But the recent rumblings about a possible coalition between INA and SOL isn't looking like a good thing, IMO.


All McCain said reflected Generals who said we needed more troops. That was not the problem. The problem was the strategy by these same generals, who were hands off the population and exit as fast as we could after handing over power. It wasn't happening, so the insurgency rose up. COIN said get with the population and it works.

You are correct. I was giving far too much credit to McCain there.


I hear you. I think we need to be very limited on interventions. I do feel Iraq was an important one, because of the impact it will have on the region (Syria, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, ...)

And I'm of the mind that Iraq wasn't strategically important prior to invasion. It seems in general we agree on much though. Specifically the following:


My hope as well, but as you point out it isn't over. Frustrating to see our combat troops leave so quickly from such a precarious situation.

Here's where I'll finally explain more about current strategic importance versus prior strategic importance.

In truth you might be surprised that I agree with you that seeing the combat troops leaving while the position is precarious is not something I wish to see, given my stances listed before in this thread.

While I don't agree with the initial strategic importance of Iraq prior to the invasion, I must concede that it has become of vital strategic importance to the American people to try and make sure that the best opportunity for the envisioned goals prior to invasion comes to fruition.

This is because I believe the alternative scenario is definitely going to be bad for the American People.

I think the initial invasion left us with the options of "potential detriment to the American People" and "definite detriment to the American People"

That's why I didn't support an all-out withdrawal from Iraq. I think once we went in, though, we became "pot committed". Too much is at stake to fold.

In essence, I'm forced to compromise my misgivings with the initial invasion because I have even greater misgivings about ditching the effort entirely.

Like I said, my hope is that I'm wrong regarding my misgivings about the initial invasion. The best chance for me to be wrong is if we make sure the job gets done as much as possible.

I loosely said that and you can ignore it as such. :)

:mrgreen:

Don't think I actually addressed this question. I think we see the plurality being exhibited in Iraq today. If it remains reasonably non-violent and one of the sects doesn't get screwed over, that is the correct environment. The benefit to the US will be an example of a functioning democracy in the ME that will influence other countries.

Cheers!

Cheers. Thanks for the responses. You've given me much to consider. I hope I've clarified my stances a bit as well.
 
Awesome exchange, Tucker. I do love this topic and have since the Iraq war started. I was kinda skeptical on the WMD thing as they had been under tight sanctions, but honestly I got caught up in the threat as well. But I have always thought my most important reason for going to war was the objective, which was establishing a democracy. I was in favor of going in the beginning, heartened by how fast the regime folded but worried about insurgency, sickened by the decay into civil war and glory, glory hallejulah when Petraeus, Odierno and Keane made their entrance.

I moved some of your quotes to group them...

Isn't Iraq less secular than before?

Also isn't there a strong Islamist showing in Iraq at the moment?

The secularists may have gained recently, but when one looks at the current talks about a coalition between SOL and INA, the Islamist groups will have a large majority still.

On top of that, haven't the Sadrists gained recently as well?

Granted, this does add to the current strategic importance of Iraq. I'll explain more on my views about that later in this post.

But what happens when the majority is Islamist?

True. But the recent rumblings about a possible coalition between INA and SOL isn't looking like a good thing, IMO.

Iraqi politics: Let us look at the results: http://www.understandingwar.org/files/Final_Election_Results_30MAR.pdf.

Which parties are Islamist?
  • Not Iraqiyyah, 91 seats.
  • Not State of Law, 89 seats.
  • Iraqi National Alliance is, especially Sadr, but it is of the Shiite variety, 70 seats.
  • Not the Kurdistan Alliance, 43 seats.
  • Not Gorran, 8 seats.
  • Tawafuq is, Sunni variety, 6 seats.
  • Unity of Iraq, unknown, 3 seats
  • KIU is, 4 seats
  • KIG is, 3 seats
  • Two Rivers List, unknown, 1 seat.

Total Islamist (including unknowns for the hell of it): 87 seats
Total Secular: 231

The battle is between Iraqiyyah and SOL.

Seeing people identify with their religions in the wake of all of these changes is not surprising. Seeing them swing back to secular political parties is a big surprise.

Re: INA and SOL...I will be very surprised if they can form a coalition considering the majority seat holders in INA is Sadr and Sadr and SOL get along like oil and water. Whatever is expedient I suppose.


But I would say that Iran has been gaining due to it, to some degree.

Granted, if that is correct, it would be something that raises the current strategic importance of Iraq. Which is different from the strategic importance prior to invasion. I'll explain more about that towards the end of this post.

Not a big surprise since 1) Iraq was the primary opponent of Iran and 2) the Shiites in Iraq became empowered.

I tend to watch for changes in Iran as a result of Iraq, Iraq's elections, Iraq's democracy and Al'SIstani's Quietist Movement effects in Qom. It is interesting that the Green Revolution masked a struggle among the clerics for power, between Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Khamenie.


See, I'm getting stuck on the difference between what I view as a vested interest and strategically important. I would say that we may have had a vested interest in the region, but without a clear strategy, we can't accurately say there was strategic importance.

Here's where I'll finally explain more about current strategic importance versus prior strategic importance.

In truth you might be surprised that I agree with you that seeing the combat troops leaving while the position is precarious is not something I wish to see, given my stances listed before in this thread.

While I don't agree with the initial strategic importance of Iraq prior to the invasion, I must concede that it has become of vital strategic importance to the American people to try and make sure that the best opportunity for the envisioned goals prior to invasion comes to fruition.

This is because I believe the alternative scenario is definitely going to be bad for the American People.

I think the initial invasion left us with the options of "potential detriment to the American People" and "definite detriment to the American People"

That's why I didn't support an all-out withdrawal from Iraq. I think once we went in, though, we became "pot committed". Too much is at stake to fold.

In essence, I'm forced to compromise my misgivings with the initial invasion because I have even greater misgivings about ditching the effort entirely.

Like I said, my hope is that I'm wrong regarding my misgivings about the initial invasion. The best chance for me to be wrong is if we make sure the job gets done as much as possible.

Does this
vital strategic importance to the American people to try and make sure that the best opportunity for the envisioned goals prior to invasion comes to fruition.

Have anything to do with our strategy?

To me something has strategic importance. Period. We separately have a strategy for dealing with it.

I do agree that the strategic importance of Iraq has changed from before the invasion to after. We have escalated a problem in the heart of the ME and completely changed the policies of the countries surrounding it. For instance, Saudi Arabia started cracking down HARD on their Islamists.

Cheers. Thanks for the responses. You've given me much to consider. I hope I've clarified my stances a bit as well.

You too! A pleasure!
 
It is in the Iraqis hands.

And our overwhelming force with 98,000 troops that still remain in Iraq to prop up the new regime and new oil law we crafted.
 
Back
Top Bottom