No idea of the veracity of any of this, but if it’s true, then, well, the planning for Iraq must have been even more slipshod than we thought.
I’ve not seen any other mention of this in the media, so it has me wondering.
I have outrage fatigue. Interesting how well they’ve documented their false assumptions, though.
I was browsing some books on The Troubles in my neighbours house a few years back. The author of one on the British Army in Northern Ireland mused that it was considered highly unusually that the Army had been there for so long and suggested it would soon leave. The book itself was written in the early 70s, before Operation Banner became the Army’s longest running deployment :smack:
EDIT: Ironically, the number of soldiers in Northern Ireland is now actually at 5k, there in a garrison to be deployed world wide.
It’s all in Cobra II. No, seriously. I’d elucidate on the topic, but A: outrage fatigue sets in, and B: outrage fatigue doesn’t set in enough.
Good book, very solid, and basically, they were expecting the Iraqis to dance in the streets and celebrate their liberation. There were no plans for an occupation or to establish law.
I know, it makes no sense, but there it is.
My best friend was up last week for vacation. He lives in a relatively liberal, upscale area of California, though he himself is a Republican.
He told me during the runup to the war, and he mentioned it again last week, that all kinds of people he knew were convinced, absolutely 100% certain, that the U.S. was going to make money off the war. According to these people - educated people with actual jobs, not people in insane asylums - once the Iraqis were liberated, they would be so happy that they would give the United States free oil, and gas would be fifty cents a gallon (or some other absurd price, depending on the specific person.)
Despite being a Republican, my friend knew this was flatly insane. He tried to explain to people why this could not be so. He explained that nothing like that had ever happened before in the history of the world. He explained that the Iraqis would have to sell their oil so that they could have food and clothing. His peers would have none of it. He works at a highly respected company and believes that more than half of his U.S.-born co-workers honestly believed that within months, grateful Iraqis would be sending the free oil. One guy, he vividly recalled, said that the Iraqis would pump the oil for ten years out of sheer gratitude, and that “we’ll only pay the state tax on our gas 'cause all oil will be free.” Many were surprised when gasoline prices did not drop to fifty cents per gallon.
I don’t think a country that educated has ever been so self-deluded about something. I mean, you shouldn’t have to really know anything about the Middle East, economics, or geopolitics to be able to listen to the claim “If we invade this country their population will be so happy they will give us all their natural resources for free” and think “You know, that sounds really unlikely to me.”
Next to that, CENTCOM’s lack of a war plan (which is not news; we’re had threads about it before. I started one on the book Fiasco, which points out the same thing) is pretty low on the nutty-shit-meter.
I’d be really interested to learn where they got that view. Who promoted it?
I don’t remember the name, but a US Representative from the Mid-West was quoted as saying that is what he believed would (should? can’t remember) happen. Others told him it was in bad taste to talk about going to war for natural resources.
During the runup to the war, there were people in the Administration testifying before Congress, saying that essentially oil revenues from Iraq would pay for the costs of reconstruction. These people were also claiming that the costs to the US would be a few billion in total.
Obviously, I can’t reliably figure out for you who promoted an idea that was told to my best friend five or six years ago; the people w2ho advocated this position likely would be unable to recall other than “I heard that’s how it was going to be.”