Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Counter-Terrorism Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The War Against The Culturally Insensitive
SYSOP    7/3/2012 5:27:56 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Chris       7/4/2012 12:09:09 AM
There are a few problems here - because this article is in direct conflict with multiple years of National Intelligence Estimates - let alone recent history.  Iraq: was known to be a nation that was no threat to the US or its allies in 2001, 2002, and 2003;  had no WMD to speak of, and according to the CIA, the British, NATO,  and Germans (amongst others), the UN had done a thorough job of removing WMD from Iraq.  Furthermore, the CIA announced that the job was so thorough, that the only remaining WMD, if there were any, were "residual, and of no strategic consequence".
 
While Saddam harbored small time terrorists, he was in no way involved with Al Qaida (as was repeatedly claimed by the Bush Administration, and most infamously by Richard Cheney, long after the claims had been debunked).
 
Saddam was small time, and no threat to his neighbors - he was in his box with no where to go.
 
His removal caused, in conjunction with the addition of Iran to the so-called "axis of evil", the largest foreign policy blunder in US history, and according to the 2005 and 2006 NIE's, created a huge national security problem for the US and its allies.  That "policy" created a new cadre of terrorists (and funders of terrorism), and while it killed a lot - it didn't kill all of them. And the ones that survived are now battle tested.
 
Because we stupidly invaded Iraq (turning the local balance of power into the hands of the Iranians), the focus on AFghanistan was lost, causing the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaida (recruiting for money and volunteers).   According to the British, the AFghan campaign was lost the day it was decided that it was more important to invade Iraq than it was to finish the job in Afghanistan when we had the Taliban and Al Qaida on the run, and we were ont he trail. 
 
The entire fiasco (also the name of a book regarding the invasion of Iraq - now required reading for all command staff at the Pentagon), was the greatest terrorism recruiting tool ever devised, which in the end when combined with the economic collapse of the US (let alone the western world), garnered Al Qaida and the Taliban (and their ilk) the largest victory imaginable (according to these NIE's, and for that mater, the world press).
 
We might of learn a good deal - but we destabilized the entire region, and were massively indebted to a communist dictatorship in return for a phyrric victory.  And as if that wasn't bad enough - that same communist dictatorship - the Chinese - were the ones that got the lions share of the oil deals with Iraq.   
 
The USA won nothing from this escapade - except for mountains of money, many thousands of lives wasted, families destroyed, international reputation in ruins, the world united against us (the USA was voted the worst threat to world peace - even over IRAN by the rest of the planets population).
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

CuriousOfNews    Interesting   7/4/2012 4:52:44 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much.  Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that.  It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
 
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran.  Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
 
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder.  History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented.  Sadly, we know that.  If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man?  He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
 
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off.  We'll see.....
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       7/5/2012 12:50:58 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much.  Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that.  It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
 
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran.  Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
 
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder.  History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented.  Sadly, we know that.  If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man?  He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
 
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off.  We'll see.....
=========================================================
Sir - the first Gulf War (started via the invasion of Kuwait, and potentially Saudi Arabia) is/was different from Gulf War II, which was what I was discussing.  However, even in the first gulf war Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi's (who had legitimate complaints w/r/t oil rights and the Kuwaiti's) that "the US is not interested in arab-arab disputes", which right or wrong had the effect giving Saddam Hussein the green light.
 
Doing nothing in that case would've also been a foreign policy blunder - but then-POTUS George H. W. Bush took care in the use of our armed forces, in that:
1.  There was a mandate from the UN and a truly willing cadre of allies
2.  There was a clear objective, and definition of victory 
3.  There was a real strategy to execute the campaign, and when complete
4.  A plan to bring our troops home.
 
The success of the campaign was later marred, lamentably, by the broadcasting (by the US) of messages into Iraq telling the Iraqi people that it was time to rise against Saddam, we're here, we're loaded for bear, and we'll support you.  When they did - we sat back and allowed Hussein to slaughter many, many thousands of people.  Few Iraqi families didn't lose members as a result of this diplomatic betrayal.  Hence - the Iraqi's had no love whatsoever for the United States when we invaded them the second time - and that was the ultimate diplomatic blunder in US history.
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       7/5/2012 1:49:16 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much.  Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that.  It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
 
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran.  Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
 
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder.  History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented.  Sadly, we know that.  If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man?  He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
 
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off.  We'll see.....
=========================================================
Sir - the first Gulf War (started via the invasion of Kuwait, and potentially Saudi Arabia) is/was different from Gulf War II, which was what I was discussing.  However, even in the first gulf war Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi's (who had legitimate complaints w/r/t oil rights and the Kuwaiti's) that "the US is not interested in arab-arab disputes", which right or wrong had the effect giving Saddam Hussein the green light.
 
Doing nothing in that case would've also been a foreign policy blunder - but then-POTUS George H. W. Bush took care in the use of our armed forces, in that:
1.  There was a mandate from the UN and a truly willing cadre of allies
2.  There was a clear objective, and definition of victory 
3.  There was a real strategy to execute the campaign, and when complete
4.  A plan to bring our troops home.
 
The success of the campaign was later marred, lamentably, by the broadcasting (by the US) of messages into Iraq telling the Iraqi people that it was time to rise against Saddam, we're here, we're loaded for bear, and we'll support you.  When they did - we sat back and allowed Hussein to slaughter many, many thousands of people.  Few Iraqi families didn't lose members as a result of this diplomatic betrayal.  Hence - the Iraqi's had no love whatsoever for the United States when we invaded them the second time - and that was the ultimate diplomatic blunder in US history.
@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

CuriousOfNews    Nice reply   7/7/2012 11:51:58 AM
Thanks Chris, enjoyed your response, and can't really argue with anything posted.  I agree the failure to follow up on the rebellion cost Amercian troops lives in the second invasion.  Yes, I did get confused first invasion versus second invasion.  Looking forward to seeing more posts!  Take care
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics