Things the Bush administration could have done better in Iraq

[Aquila_Be]

@yanceylebeef

Considering that intellegence agencies had predicted almost to the letter what would happen in Iraq, but were completely ignored

I have not heard of this.

Is this something from some self promoting retired ex intelligence advisers making ex post facto claims that they “knew all along” what would happen, or is it based on reports produced by agencies at the same time as the pre invasion planning?

[Little_Nemo]

1 - Not establishing effective police control
2 - Not restoring infrastructure
3 - Firing the entire Iraqi government and military
4 - Human rights abuses
5 - Not having enough troops on the ground
6 - Not seeking international support
7 - Corporate cronyism
8 - Not securing all weapons in the country
9 - Not developing a cadre of Arab speakers and Iraqi experts
10 - Ongoing unwillingness to accept which Iraqis had real post-war political power

[Aquila_Be]

It was probably fairly obvious from the start that Bush didn’t know what he was getting into.
Consider the following story by former ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, that he says took place only a few weeks prior to the invasion.
rawstory.com

American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.
Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

Unmentioned in this anecdote is the evident complete lack of awareness of the existence of Orthodox and Catholic Christian minorities that then numbered about 1.8M and the extreme danger those communities would be placed in if Saddam Hussein was removed.

I have no doubt that Bush knew nothing about them and that none of the high level career advisers, I’m not referring to his political cronies, saw fit to mention them.

Most people here would probably agree that Bush is a dolt. However, it’s all very easy to describe GWB as someone who is: -

Incurious, deficient in general education and incapable or unwilling to conduct research for himself. (This applies to all politicians).

Relies on others to conduct relevant research, to provide him with relevant information and briefings and to advise him. (This applies to all politicians).

Assertive and dogmatic even if poorly informed or even completely misinformed about a subject. (This applies to all politicians).
In this respect, Bush is no better or worse than any other politician.

You saw exactly the same phenomenon with Pelosi’s recent jaunt in the Middle East and the current group of congressional clowns who recently met with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They live in a similar delusional universe to the one where GWB resides.
Left to fend for himself someone like GWB could not help but repeatedly make errors in judgement and appear to be less than sane when placed in a completely unfamiliar situation.

Providing him with advice from experts will not solve the problem if fantasist historians have helped to shape the worldview of those experts.

I refer here to the experts in places like the US State Department that supposedly has an abundance of high level realists and experts, and other “think tanks” of supposed realists with similar credentials as experts.

Unfortunately, almost all high level experts have been informed by fantasists, so there is no hope of any improvement in the foreseeable future, no matter who’s in power.

[tagos]

@Aquila Be

Most people here would probably agree that Bush is a dolt. However, it’s all very easy to describe GWB as someone who is: -

Incurious, deficient in general education and incapable or unwilling to conduct research for himself. (This applies to all politicians).

Relies on others to conduct relevant research, to provide him with relevant information and briefings and to advise him. (This applies to all politicians).

Assertive and dogmatic even if poorly informed or even completely misinformed about a subject. (This applies to all politicians).
In this respect, Bush is no better or worse than any other politician.

You have no reason at all to believe these points apply to all politicians.

[Aquila_Be]

@tagos

You have no reason at all to believe these points apply to all politicians.

I provided a few examples. Pelosi and the let’s-have-a-chatter-with-Hamas congresspeople as displaying the same level of competence and understanding as Bush.

I know of no politician that has displayed any special talent in understanding anything associated with the Middle East in particular or foreign countires in general.

[Aquila_Be]

By “Hamas” I meant “Muslim Brotherhood”, a similar type of organisation.

[tagos]

@Aquila Be

I provided a few examples. Pelosi and the let’s-have-a-chatter-with-Hamas congresspeople as displaying the same level of competence and understanding as Bush.

I know of no politician that has displayed any special talent in understanding anything associated with the Middle East in particular or foreign countires in general.

No - you made an unfounded and unsupported allegation shorn of details. Talking to Israel’s enemies, that are also the elected govt of the Palestinians is not evidence either. You may be horrified to hear this but we talk to our enemies all the time. It is called diplomacy.

As Churchill said - jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Huerta88

So while I take your point that you don’t want to debate the basic premise – it’s hard to avoid. It’s like the old question: “When sticking your [penis] into a fan, how do you avoid getting hurt?” Answer: “Don’t stick your [penis] into a fan.”

If that’s an old question, I’ve never heard it, but I like it a lot. Thanks for that.

[Huerta88]

@Aquila Be

I have not heard of this.

Is this something from some self promoting retired ex intelligence advisers making ex post facto claims that they “knew all along” what would happen, or is it based on reports produced by agencies at the same time as the pre invasion planning?

James Baker was quoted a number of years ago (pre GWII), in the context of defending GHWB’s declining to go into Baghdad during GWI, as saying something to the effect that knocking over the Iraqi regime would lead to three feuding religious/ethnic statelets, with the central cities being ungovernable because the ethnicities were too mixed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Huerta88

James Baker was quoted a number of years ago (pre GWII), in the context of defending GHWB’s declining to go into Baghdad during GWI, as saying something to the effect that knocking over the Iraqi regime would lead to three feuding religious/ethnic statelets, with the central cities being ungovernable because the ethnicities were too mixed.

I was going to cite this too. Poppy Bush actually had a great personal interest in and knowledge of foreign policy and had a good grasp (as good a grasp as anyone can get) of the ME.

[tagos]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I was going to cite this too. Poppy Bush actually had a great personal interest in and knowledge of foreign policy and had a good grasp (as good a grasp as anyone can get) of the ME.

I like to think that when I become Emperor of the Universe and am picking the first port of call for my Liberation Army to free the shit out of, I’d make it my business to become acquainted with some basic facts about the place.

The fact that Bush The Moron didn’t know about the Sunni/Shia thing should be grounds for impeachment in itself.

[Huerta88]

@tagos

The fact that Bush The Moron didn’t know about the Sunni/Shia thing should be grounds for impeachment in itself.

I’d really be curious how many of those Senators who voted to give him war powers knew about it. Seriously – the ghastly HRC is now admitting (along with most of the Senate) to having not read the intelligence estimate [Barry Zuckercorn]"It’s really long![/bz]

[John_Mace]

@Huerta88

James Baker was quoted a number of years ago (pre GWII), in the context of defending GHWB’s declining to go into Baghdad during GWI, as saying something to the effect that knocking over the Iraqi regime would lead to three feuding religious/ethnic statelets, with the central cities being ungovernable because the ethnicities were too mixed.

Actually, wasn’t it Cheney who said that? Maybe it was both of them…

[tagos]

@Huerta88

I’d really be curious how many of those Senators who voted to give him war powers knew about it. Seriously – the ghastly HRC is now admitting (along with most of the Senate) to having not read the intelligence estimate [Barry Zuckercorn]"It’s really long![/bz]

Anyone involved in granting war powers who did not make it their top priority to understand the basics about the region should be impeached or if that’s not possible, soundly mocked and driven from public life.

[John_Mace]

@tagos

The fact that Bush The Moron didn’t know about the Sunni/Shia thing should be grounds for impeachment in itself.

I believe it’s worse than that. I don’t for a second believe that Bush didn’t understand the ethnic divisions in Iraq. He chose, however, to ignore that knowledge because he thought (by a miracle, I guess) that it was something he could “deal” with.

And the same thing goes for the Senate. They all knew, they just chose to ignore that information (the ones that voted for the AUMF, that is).

[rivulus]

Perhaps one other thing they might have done better was to pay attention to this report. Here’s a short blurb describing an interview with Conrad Crane, the head of the U.S. Army Military History Institute, who wrote the report:

Along with Andrew Terrill, he was commissioned by the Army to look at previous post-war occupations and give advice about how to stabilize and reconstruct post-war Iraq. The booklet they produced, which includes nine pages of detailed instructions on how to occupy Iraq, predicted many of the problems that eventually came to haunt the occupation. Although it was admired by successful commanders in Iraq… it was ignored by Pentagon officials.

Supposedly Crane managed to distribute some copies on his own, but it was otherwise disregarded by the folks in charge.

[marshmallow]

@Aquila Be

I have not heard of this.

Is this something from some self promoting retired ex intelligence advisers making ex post facto claims that they “knew all along” what would happen, or is it based on reports produced by agencies at the same time as the pre invasion planning?

This seems to come up a lot and always amuses me. “Who woulda thunk it?”

The latter of your options is true. You don’t think our intelligence services and area experts are stupid, do you? There were several reports detailing what was expected under certain scenarios. One was declassified not too long ago, and many others have been written about in the popular media for several years. There were serious objections to our Iraqi adventure. The civilian leadership didn’t want to hear any of it and, once it was obvious we were going in no matter what, the people who knew what they were talking about shut up.

As for the Cheney quote, there are two good ones.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Bolding mine. I didn’t realize Cheney was a traitorous liberal. But, as we all know, 9/11 changed everything. That’s not even a joke since that’s what he basically said when asked about his post Gulf War opinion compared to his current views back in 2003 or whenever.

Also:

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq… Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.

[Xof711]

Sadly enough, there isn’t much they could have done any worse actually…

[Aquila_Be]

@tagos

As Churchill said - jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

That’s one of Churchill’s less astute sayings. It’s poetry, after all.

To conduct diplomacy with those whose sole mission in life is to annihilate you for reasons based on theocratic beliefs is not rational.

To conduct diplomacy in order to gain time until you can crush those who wish to annihilate you for irrational reasons, is rational.

Only in the latter situation would “jaw jaw” be better than “war war”.

[Der_Trihs]

@Aquila Be

To conduct diplomacy with those whose sole mission in life is to annihilate you for reasons based on theocratic beliefs is not rational.

And how many people are there like that, really ?

@Aquila Be

Only in the latter situation would “jaw jaw” be better than “war war”.

Against terrorists, “war war” usualy doesn’t work. The effective way to fight it is with intelligence agencies, diplomacy, propaganda, and police work, not missles and bombs, most of the time. “Jaw jaw” is better even if it doesn’t work, because it does you less damage if it fails.