Assuming we limp away from Iraq debacle at some point, what lessons do we take away?

[Zoe]

Patriotism without knowledge and religious fervor without tolerance can destroy this country faster than any terrorists.

[msmith537]

@ElvisL1ves

The same ones described in the Powell Doctrine, which will have to be reworded and renamed since it is now discredited by Powell’s own failure to make sure they were followed. Basically, be sure you’re right, that you can win, that you know what winning *is * in context, then use overwhelming force and minimum casualties. One addendum: If you want to make them your friends, don’t torture them.

Airman Doors, USAF - 2) That we need to call everyone back within our borders and close them for a period of about 5 years so we can get ourselves together at home, reconstructing our industries and manufacturing capabilities so we can survive on our own and not be dependent upon people who loathe us for our national survival.

You should have quit after #1. I take it from your xenophobic views that you rarely travel outside the US? You are correct that we should not have to depend on politically unstable regions for our energy policy, but suggesting that all Americans should retreat to within the US borders is pretty ridiculous. So while the rest of the world continues to trade and prosper, we become an isolated backwater like North Korea? Good plan.

Oh and by the way, we don’t hold a monopoly on being victimized by terrorism.
Squink - Right…because that’s the cause of all the trouble in Iraq - hippies waving placards in Washington Square.
How about these leasons learned:

1. Have a battle plan and exit strategy that is not based on wishfull thinking

2. Actually follow a doctrine (Powell) that has proven to work in the past…in the same country

3. Make sure you can back up your claims as to why we are there so we don’t look like a nation of jackasses on CNN.

[PatriotX]

Perhaps if we narrowly defined our national interests for a few years and just sort of ‘reset’, maybe that would be more satisfactory to all parties?

I think that most everyone would agree that we, as an electorate, need to thoroughly reappraise our foreign policy.

‘Rational ignorance’ has taken some tolls on our nation. No blame.
Process needs to be redone to where all that one needs to trust another to do is act generally in accordance with his interests. Perhaps a govt designed through game theory where often enough, those making decisions maintained vested interests in what’s best for the country, short-term, mid-term, and long-term.

We could all play it as a computer game for a few years to get the bugs out, then we could implement it. Whiskey rivers and rock-candy mountains too.

[iamme99]

Well, a professor at USC Business school is interestingly approaching this question as a case study of “a messy mergers-and-acquisitions case: the war and reconstruction of Iraq”. It’s a shame that the administration did not adopt a similar perspective before embarking on this adventure.

Businessweek
MAY 31, 2004
MANAGEMENT

Invasion As A Case Study
At USC, students learn parallels between Iraq and a merger gone wrong

When Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz asked Congress in early May for $25 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Michael Keane, a lecturer at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, reached for his pen. Like many other B-school teachers, Keane uses case studies – analyses of real transactions and outcomes – to teach MBA students in his financial strategy class. But his cases offer a sobering twist – each corporate example is taught alongside a corresponding military campaign. And Wolfowitz had just given him his next lesson plan.

Keane’s premise is simple. Business and military strategy are based on similar principles – but with war, the outcomes resonate on a massive scale. Want a model for a successful hostile takeover? That’s easy: the Civil War battle of Vicksburg, Miss., that turned the war in favor of the Union Army. Repeated failure to market a product properly? Consider the flawed campaigns in Vietnam that still haunt U.S. policy decisions. And now, Keane is teaching a messy mergers-and-acquisitions case: the war and reconstruction of Iraq.

Sure, it’s easy to suggest military strategy from the ivory tower. But the B-school lecturer, who is also a military strategist and former Defense Dept. fellow, saw action firsthand earlier this year when he embedded with the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, Iraq. He was there to advise the division on integrating business and economic development into military efforts. Iraq, he says, is a spectacular version of a troubled transaction, rife with serious threats to success: an undetermined desired outcome, culture clashes, conflicting interests, and an endangered profit-and-loss sheet.

Add to those problems some angry shareholders, in this case senators who scolded Wolfowitz for asking, essentially, for a blank check. That raises another lesson: Always integrate expenditures with strategy – and conduct meticulous research before plowing ahead with a business or war plan. “I’ve seen better due diligence around a QuikStop purchase,” he says of the Iraq war.

EXPLOSIVE DISCONTENT. As with leaders of scandal-plagued companies, Keane draws a parallel with those in charge of the Iraq war, who overpromised, underachieved, then tried to hide failure. The lesson? Make clear how each action will help accomplish the overall goal, and be honest about how much money and human capital are needed. In Iraq, the fall of Baghdad came quickly enough for the President to declare a mission accomplished. But, as it turns out, that takedown was a prelude to a costly guerrilla war that the shareholders – U.S. citizens, Congress, and soldiers – weren’t expecting. Now disappointment has given way to explosive discontent. It mirrors common merger problems like, say, those between J.P. Morgan & Co. and Chase Manhattan Bank in 2001, a combination that started with optimistic talk of synergies but devolved into turf battles and a steep share-price decline.

Keane’s class, one of the most popular at the B-school, is likely to see high enrollment again in the fall. By that time he’ll have new material on exit strategies – or the lack thereof. The haphazard strategy for extrication has left the U.S. looking “like entrenched management facing a group of activist shareholders,” says Keane. And the Iraqis looking like a group simmering over the merger terms.

By Kate Hazelwood in New York

Link

[rjung]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Oh, I don’t know. George the First looks pretty damn good to me now in hindsight, and frankly I think he had a handle on international relations. I voted for him once, supported him thru the Gulf War, and cheered when he declined to roll into Baghdad, thus delaying our current scenario by about 14 years.

While I agree with you that – compared to his son – George the First wasn’t that bad of a leader, I must also remind you that it appears that his administration used forged photos of Iraqi troop buildup on the Iraq-Saudi Arabia border to spook the Saudis. This scare-mongering eventually led to the US building bases in Saudi Arabia, which ended up pissing off a nutjob named Osama bin Laden, and … well, you know the rest.

[iamme99]

"Let us not bicker over who killed who…"

• Monty python and the holy grail

[Marley23]

I am for total isolationism. Total. If they don’t want us, then let’s oblige them.

Economic disengagement from the rest of the world is impossible (especially for a country with a large gulf between imports and exports), and as long as we can’t do that, I don’t think we can pretend the world doesn’t exist. You can’t up and quit - and anyway, doing so would probably reinforce most of the bad stereotypes people have about America.

[DSeid]

We wouldn’t be there if we had the capacity to learn from past mistakes. We keep finding new ways to not learn.

Have a clear understanding of what you know and what you just think you know before you act upon it. Bush clearly confused the two (unless he actually intentionally misrepresented the facts).

Have a clear and realistic understanding of what the downside risks of an action are and intelligently weigh them out against the possible upsides. In this case the rush to war without real multinational involvement (eg but not limited to the UN) had no real upside compared to giving Blix and company time to look some more. If there were WMDs they were unusable whilst the search was on. If not then war was uncalled for at that time. The downside risk is everything that we are seeing now and more to come with no end in sight nor any path to the end in view. Such an analysis will result in war as an option chosen only when the alternative is very likely horrific indeed.

Don’t let flag waving and rallying together in times of crisis justify giving any leader a blank check to act as he or she sees fit without really making the case adequately to us all; don’t let cries of patriotism drown out the voices of skeptical dissent.

Isolationism is not the answer. We are too enmeshed into the fabric of the world tapestry at this point. But a clear articulation of our goals (economic, security, humanitarian, and others) together with a clear understanding of likely costs to accomplish them, can result in more nuanced and grading responses with less catastrophic outcomes than Bush’s cowboy style shoot first and figure out why you shot who later bumblings have or will.

[Evil_Captor]

Do not elect an idiot sockpuppet for a bunch of radical neocons to run the country. The fractiousness and difficulties in Iraq was well known to EVERYONE prior to the invasion of Iraq. It’s why we didn’t take over Iraq in 1991, when there was NOTHING between our army and Bagdad. It was openly discussed in the media then. But Bush and his cronies elected to ignore all that and swallow Chalabi’s bullshit wholesale and got thier and our tuchis stuck in a grinder.

Everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 made a HUGE mistake.

[whoisreadingthis]

#1

there are no good guys.

[msmith537]

Don’t declare a war won (Bush) or lost (fucking hippies) until our soldiers are on their ships and airplanes and on their way back to their bases.

[LouisB]

@msmith537

Don’t declare a war won (Bush) or lost (fucking hippies) until our soldiers are on their ships and airplanes and on their way back to their bases.

If Bush can declare a war won, when it obviously is not, why can’t a “fucking hippie” declare the same war lost, when it obviously is not? And why is it “fucking hippie” and not just “hippie?” And why isn’t it “fucking Bush?”

[Ravenman]

The troops will never be on their way home if nobody knows if we have won or lost. If we are winning or if we losing, then we are still fighting a war without knowing how we are doing. To say that the whole country should just shut up every time our troops are abroad has got to be the first sign of a militaristic, anti-democratic state.

[DSeid]

Ravenman,

That is likely exactly how they’ll come home, without anyone really knowing if we did any good or bad or “won” or “lost” and everybody on every side spinning faster than a spider on speed.

Presuming we ever get to get them home that is.

[Fear_Itself]

@whoisreadingthis

#1

there are no good guys.

Amen, brother. Anytime a country declares that they represent the forces of good battling another regime that is the embodiment of evil, there will never be any winners, only survivors. War is the last resort; unfortunately for the world, Bush lacks the vision to see any other options. “We had no other choice” is the sign of a simple mind without the intellect to create opportunities for peace.

[Lumpy]

@DSeid

Have a clear and realistic understanding of what the downside risks of an action are and intelligently weigh them out against the possible upsides.

Yes, but what if the “possible upsides” are the delusional fantasies of the pro-war faction? It’s easy to get so caught up in the Grand Vision that the imagined payoff is great enough to override common sense.

Hitler and his cabinet at one point envisioned Germany as the hegemon of Europe, the British and French humbled and subservient, the Communists annihilated, eastern Europe the “living space” the German race would expand into, and the Jews extinct from Europe. Hitler insisted on pursuing this vision long after mere survival should have become a priority.

In the case of the Bush Jr. administration, regime change in Iraq was the least they were aiming at. Apparently the neocons envisioned the US “cleaning up” the entire Middle East: overthrowing or forcing reform on Iraq, Iran Syria, and Libya, and finally solving the West bank problem by eliminating the Palestinians’ supporters and leaving them with no choice but to accept peace on Israel’s terms.

Peace, democracy and the end of threats to the oil supply: with that at stake, of course Bush poo-poos our present dilemma as mere roadbumps. The only flaw in the logic is that the “best case scenerio” is a fantasy, not something we could reasonably expect to achieve. It’s like the man who mortgaged his house to buy lottery tickets, convinced that the “Big Win” was just around the corner.

[msmith537]

@Fear Itself

Amen, brother. Anytime a country declares that they represent the forces of good battling another regime that is the embodiment of evil, there will never be any winners, only survivors.

Except World War II.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

That the middle east is a fractious collection of synthetic nation states who want 20th century power and 12th-century governments.

Not necessarily. Those in a position of power rather seem to like that idea, though. And it’s certainly easy to slap together a crazed militia based on hate; history’s shown us lots of examples.

That while the people of the area may want peace, stability, hope and progress, their leaders do not.

Duh. Most people do seem to feel safer when their neighbor countries are in utter shambles, and in no position to invade or jerk around the economy. Of course, now that international terrorist groups are starting to hit Middle Eastern targets, rather than just Americans and Israeli targets, this seems to be changing.

That the only thing they hate more than each other is the “West,” particularly the US.

Hm. Yeah, pretty hard to argue with that one. Although it could be argued they hate Israel more. But a lot of them don’t seem to understand the difference between one and the other. Or care, for that matter.

The whole point of a republic is that in theory it’s supposed to mind it’s own business, stay at home and live in peace. In a democracy, the public will overwhelmingly support war in response to an attack: examples WW2, 9/11-Afghanistan. They will NOT support optional wars to bolster geostrategic position: examples Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. And no matter how the government tries to put spin on it, the public CAN tell the difference.

Oh, how I hope that last sentence is true. There are so many morons out there who seem to think that Bush Knows Best and voting for anyone else is treason that I often wonder about that.

It is virtually impossible to conduct a war in a country and not make war on that country’s inhabitants. The welcome of outside liberators/occupiers will have the same shelf life as fresh fish.

Very true. WWII: The French were happy to see us, and happier still to see us leave. And the French had EVERY reason to want us there.

Ethics and ruthlessness don’t mix. Pick one or the other and stick to it.

True, but that makes “positive spin for the media” extraordinarily difficult.

That we need to spend considerable amounts of money on alternate fuel research so we can wash our hands of these people and let them fight over a now-useless resource under barren land.

Oh, how I wish. These people are never going to leave us alone again, at least not until after World War III. They might, if we bombed the unholy hell out of Israel, but I don’t see that happening. So long as ONE of them is pissed off enough at us to build a bomb and wander into a day care center, we will never truly have peace again.

reconstructing our industries and manufacturing capabilities so we can survive on our own and not be dependent upon people who loathe us for our national survival.

I agree, but the corporations that are outsourcing all our industry, manufacturing capability, and even a good hunk of our service industry would not. Tell it to the President.

You think that America’s dominance of the world market, technology, and military will last forever? And you think anyone will forget that it was America that let them rot?

No, I don’t think that. But I do think that no matter how many Muslims we save from maniacs like the Hussein family and half of Bosnia, there will be ten times as many Muslims who would gleefully blow up Disneyland and everyone in it, just to tell us how much they hate us. And then the rest of them would happily dance in the streets. What, precisely, are my tax dollars going for, again?

Patriotism without knowledge and religious fervor without tolerance can destroy this country faster than any terrorists.

Hell, ANY country. And this is why after we pull out of Iraq, they will immediatly start trying to slaughter each other. Soon, there won’t BE an Iraq for a while. At least, not until someone smart and ruthless enough gains enough power over enough of them. Someone kinda like Saddam Hussein, in fact…

1. Have a battle plan and exit strategy that is not based on wishfull thinking.
2. Actually follow a doctrine (Powell) that has proven to work in the past…in the same country.
3. Make sure you can back up your claims as to why we are there so we don’t look like a nation of jackasses on CNN.

Don’t leave a guy a lot to argue about, do you?

That is likely exactly how they’ll come home, without anyone really knowing if we did any good or bad or “won” or “lost” and everybody on every side spinning faster than a spider on speed. Presuming we ever get to get them home that is.

Oh, we’ll get nearly all of them home, dead or alive. Mostly alive. I just question the wisdom of continuing to send more OVER there afterwards.

[Magiver]

@bizzwire

OK. I know I’m painting with a wide brush and am just asking for it, but these are the conclusions that I’ve been trending towards the more I glean from books, this message board and from the media.

That the middle east is a fractious collection of synthetic nation states who want 20th century power and 12th-century governments.

That while the people of the area may want peace, stability, hope and progress, their leaders do not.

That peoples’ allegiance are: first to their family, then their clan/tribe, then their religion, then their culture and lastly their “country.” This is not necessarily a bad thing, btw, but should be borne in mind instead of expecting that we can import our culture, ethics, or political values and expect immediate acceptance.

That the only thing they hate more than each other is the “West,” particularly the US.

That we should get the fuck out of the area, leaving a sign that says “Give us a call when you get your shit together.” (ok…this is a little harsh… how about “give us a call if we can help you get your shit together?”)
Bizz assumes the position

Not badly stated for a broad brush stroke. It was fun reading all the political hacking it generated.

It’s too soon to answer the question. What I anticipate will happen is that history will run its normal course. A war is often the trigger for social change but it is no guarantee. If people want freedom they will have to actively support it.

[pantom]

If I may, I forgot one:

Never elect a Texan to the White House.

The similarities between Dubya and LBJ are just too weird. The best way to understand Dubya is as a Republican version of LBJ. The Democratic version was bad enough; we really didn’t need to see what the Republican riposte would be. (Sorry, elucidator.)