Manpower and Iraq

[sephodwyrm]

One of the most pressing concern with the war in Iraq is the lack of manpower. "Staying Manpower", that is. The Pentagon and the Bush administration made the biggest mistake of underestimating popular opposition and overestimating political motivation and will. I was thinking that if the American political indoctrination and service motivation was higher to give the US another half a million soldiers at their disposal, would the Iraq war have turned out different?

I may sound like an arch-Conservative right now, but I wonder what does the rest of TWC think about this new approach at the Iraq War. If the US had a more pro-military populace and showed the Iraqis that they are worse than Saddam if need arises to create order and stability in the country, would the Iraq situation turn out different? To me, it doesn't really matter if it's illegal or not anymore. Iraq would not be the last of the resource wars. With the domination of Iraq, the US guaranteed an energy future for at least 5-10 years. And that's a big thing, really. So much as the liberals are against it, they'll still need to drive, eat and turn on the heater when they take showers in winter time.

A few more points to think about:
- Is a Balkanized Iraq really what the US wants?
- Could the US manage to mold their populace into a more pro-military one with her resources?
- Would the US actually learn from Iraq?

[Farnan]

If we would have been harsher we would have had a harder time.

One reason we got support from the tribes in Anbar is because Al Qaeda was harsher than us.

Though half a million soldiers in the beginning would have helped.

[motiv-8]

Would the US learn from Iraq? That's a silly question. Lessons learned are already about to be applied in Afghanistan this year.

But yes, absolutely, the invasion and occupation was actually planned with a much higher amount of soldiers than were actually put in because of bickering between State and the Pentagon.

See Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran or Assassin's Gate by Larry Diamond.

[sephodwyrm]

One reason we got support from the tribes in Anbar is because Al Qaeda was harsher than us.

I got that idea from a Vietnam veteran. Given, he was pretty damn drunk and thought that we (Chinese) could conquer America on horses. I should have used better judgment - by posting on TWC and getting response from a group of adolescents and young adults (groan...).

Should the US have Balkanized Iraq? Was it a necessary move due to the lack of staying manpower?

between State and the Pentagon.

You mean between the Bush Administration and the Pentagon?
Would the situation in Iraq be better if the professional militarists get their way?

[Zephyrus]

I got that idea from a Vietnam veteran. Given, he was pretty damn drunk and thought that we (Chinese) could conquer America on horses. I should have used better judgment - by posting on TWC and getting response from a group of adolescents and young adults (groan...).

Should the US have Balkanized Iraq? Was it a necessary move due to the lack of staying manpower?



You mean between the Bush Administration and the Pentagon?
Would the situation in Iraq be better if the professional militarists get their way?

See what happens when you invoke your mongolian heritage at Vietnam veterans? It just results in an ugly combination.

[Visna]

IYou mean between the Bush Administration and the Pentagon?

I'm going to presume something here. i presume he meant exactly what he said.
That is the bickering and rivalry between the state department personified by Colin Powell and the Pentagon with that Rumsfeld fellow in charge.
The Iraq war turned out to be fought a la Rumsfeld. And well, you can see how that version went when Iraq descended into chaos and violence.

[sephodwyrm]

It just results in an ugly combination.

The dude offered me his beer~~

[motiv-8]

How novel, Dark Elder.

To be more concise, it was a three-way ing match between State, the Pentagon, and NSA over who would coordinate operations and the post-war administration. The result was the cluster- that was the CPA, headed by the most ever-deserving of summary military crimes tribunal in perhaps all of US history.

In fact, the more I read about the planning and execution of the war and occupation, the less I felt angry at Bush for any of it. He relied on his people in high offices with plenty of skilled manpower and resources to get things done, and they completely failed. If there was ever a time when a leader was fatefully non-micromanaging, that was it.

[patrick1191]

It was a hard lesson that needed to be learned, because these are the types of wars that will be fought from now on.

[sephodwyrm]

was fatefully non-micromanaging

You mean fatally non-micromanaging?

I would say that he entrusted the big issue to the wrong people. Sure, the US did smash the Iraqis on the ground without peer. But the war was blown out of proportion in the media, IMO. Maybe if they have called it Police Action: Iraq...instead of Operation Iraqi Liberation, or at least highlight the honest need to have energy guarantee for American consumers...

[familyguy1]

Well. Two Books I would suggest to you for reading. Two are Fiasco & The Gamble, by Thomas E. Ricks. Both are very well written, The Gamble talks about 2006-2009 and how the war has changed dramatically.

- Is a Balkanized Iraq really what the US wants?
What exactly do you mean?
- Could the US manage to mold their populace into a more pro-military one with her resources?
No, this would be impossible. For one reason is because their is no real "enemy", not a really defined one at least. September 11th woke up the nation to the realities of Terrorism and what it can do, yet while tons of people were grieving there were still people looking into the motives behind the attacks. There were also people who were looking to another way to deal with this than war. We certainly got ourselves pro-military when we went into Afghanistan because we were fighting the enemy that did the 9/11 Attacks, Al-Queda and their leader, Usama Bin Laden(sp?). Certainly the populace was Gun-Ho about going to war in that country because we were 'fighting' the people that attacked our soil. Yet even today, the motives behind the BA's[Bush Admin] & The Military's reasoning for going into Iraq are still being considered and looked at to see if their was a definitive reason or not. Whether the topic be Oil, WMD's, or Terrorists, we might never know what the reason was.. luckily there are people that are looking into this. When people look at the Operation Iraqi Freedom aspect of the invasion, people see only the BA, yet the military played a crucial role in the decision making, From Tommy Franks, General Casey, and Cent Comm up to Pace[Joint Chiefs] and the DoD/Rumsfeld. 2003- Late 2005 was a horrible year for the U.S in Iraq because we did not have a concrete plan for what to do.
By resources, what exactly do you mean? Like with the need for oil, could we make the populace pro-military or what?

- Would the US actually learn from Iraq?
Do you mean in the long term future or..?
Right now we are certainly learning from Iraq, even as I type, some platoon commander may be making a different plan than one his predecessor made in '05. The key to the learning is now we actually have a plan on what to do. Early in the war, the plan was to 'Take down Saddam Hussein and to create a stable democracy', Now that plan has been totally scrapped, it has been for the past 3 years because we realized that once we finished #1, there was no way for us to even complete #2. Democracy is impossible in a culture that has never experienced a political system like ours[Even though its not perfect, there are some perks and flaws]. Al-Maliki has finally taken steps to combat both sides in Iraq, the Sunni Insurgents[The ones that have not joined Sons of Iraq, or the Awakening Tribes, or who have not allied with the Americans] & He also fights against his own side, the Shiite Insurgency because he realized to have a stable country, He cannot have warring factions. We have learned to move off of the rediculous/expensive Forward Operating Bases and move inside the neighborhoods, so we actually 'live' with the populace which "Surprisingly", as one BA person might put it, helps us defeating Insurgent cells. Because of this, we are even trying to make an even better ally out of Muqtada Al-Sadr, who may want us out, but he certainly does not want Iran in Iraq as well.


Regards.
FG1

[spartan117]

You mean fatally non-micromanaging?

I would say that he entrusted the big issue to the wrong people. Sure, the US did smash the Iraqis on the ground without peer. But the war was blown out of proportion in the media, IMO. Maybe if they have called it Police Action: Iraq...instead of Operation Iraqi Liberation, or at least highlight the honest need to have energy guarantee for American consumers...

Which would result in less support and more opposition amongst American citizens. It is much better for the use of rhetoric about liberating iraq from evil oppressors and then how dangerous Iraq is with its chemical and nuclear weapons in terms of gaining support that is.

[sephodwyrm]

Which would result in less support and more opposition amongst American citizens.

Not if we call it Police Action : Iraq. It wouldn't be a classical 'war' but more like policing. If I were American I would support the Iraq war not because it is "right" but because the fuel economy needs the 5-10 year guarantee before we could obtain an alternative. Surely, US dominance should be upheld and unchallenged. But I'm not, and I'm wondering why the US political indoctrination and philosophy hasn't got the courage to actually tell citizens the truth.

[motiv-8]

I would say that he entrusted the big issue to the wrong people.

Uh? He entrusted it to all the people who were in the position to make things happen. You're saying the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are the wrong people to ask handle a war?

It's a wonder we made it through World War II then.