So the US finally ended it’s ill advised and ill fated adventure in Mesopotamia early this morning. So what lessons can you take away from it.
My own take
When you plan a war and someone says it’s going to be a cakewalk/the people will throw roses at us, please feel free to shoot that someone.
When the professional head of your Army says that xyz troops will be required and an ideologically driven political flunky disputes that, you should listen to the 4 star general.
If you must demonize your opponents, don’t believe your own propaganda, and start thinking that they are idiots, it tends to backfire.
4)When the commanders on the ground ask for more troops and declare that you face an insurgency don’t disbelieve them.
The opinions and knowledge of exiles who have been out of the country for more then three decades is not really something you should base a warplan on.
6)If you are going to attempt to be a new Churhilll and recall his words about liberty and freedom, also remember the words about how once war starts it’s in no mans control.
Good points. I would add-learn some history.
Vietnam, Korea, Somalia were perfect templates for what happened.
And when some idiot in Washington starts pushing for war, remember:
-it will cost 100 to 1000X what he is saying (in money)
-it will cost 10 to 100X the lives
-it will result in economic depression at home
-it will create new enemies for the USA
Frankly, the only kinds of wars that we should get involved in are those where we can win quickly, using overwhelming force. And NEVER get into long-term occupations of enemy territory-unless we are prepared to commit widespread atrocities (it goes with the territory)…e.g., the Philippines Insurrection.
Now noises are being made about war with Iran-are these people totally insane?:eek:
No matter how much you regard yourself as the good guys, people in nations you conquer are not compelled to believe you.
Shooting and bombing and torturing people does a rotten job of winning them over.
Removing regulations, taxes, and government oversight from a devastated conquered nation will not turn it into a shining beacon of capitalist prosperity, nor will the Free Market rebuild it.
Try not having a 12 division commitment for a 10 division Army and if you must, please raise those two additional divisions. I forget which General said that in 2003. Very prescient.
This should be carved into the desk in the Oval office. And made a required slide in any national security/military planning type briefing given to any President from now until the end of time. It’s not often that I agree with you on…well…pretty much anything outside of Cafe Society…but you nailed this one.
I think it actually goes beyond that. I’m sure DT would disagree with me on this, but I wouldn’t say we “conquered” Iraq. Point being, even if you are the “liberating” force, the people you “liberated” are going to want you to get the hell out. It’s their country, and by God, if they want a civil war, they’re going to have one!
You only need to remove the senior members of the government from power. Debathification went too far.
Disbanding the army is not a good idea. The basic squad, platoon, company, etc cand and should remain intact. They could have helped with the security situation early on.
Is that really the bottom line for you; nothing about justified use of force, our survival at stake, anything like that? If we can win a war cheaply enough, we should go ahead and start it?
War and international politics are not a morality play.
It is impossible to wage war in a country without waging war on that country’s people.
The welcome of foreign “liberators” will have the same shelf life as fresh fish.
Boots on the ground. Nothing we have or expect to have in the foreseeable future can replace boots on the ground.
Don’t expect people whom you can’t or won’t protect 24/7 to be on your side.
Democracy is not the default government of the human species.
If you cannot get enough troops to carry out a military action- either because the public won’t support a draft, or because you can’t recruit enough professional soldiers- then it isn’t that vital.
We have been arrogant before – the Philippines, Somalia, Vietnam – with the belief that our superior military and national resources can achieve any goal we set before it. It would be nice to think we have learned something. Or, indeed, can learn something
I’m not sure we ever defined the goals of our military action. Didn’t we originally go in to root out WMD? If so, then the goal seems to have changed in a way that didn’t have a clear end game.
You know, I’m quite surprised that a majority of the comments here seem to be oriented towards how a war should be better run: how many troops to commit, how the populace may view the invasion, how to stabilize the post-war government, and so on.
I think all of those comments may have some applicability to wars in general, but the only solid lesson of the Iraq war is some variation on “The United States should not invade a country if we have an option not to.” You can also call it “We should not send our Army halfway around the world to engage in a war of choice,” or something else.
We’re talking about a war that a good number of people understood from the very beginning had no rational purpose. Forget tactics and strategy, we should learn from Iraq that that there should be a reason that our country has no choice but to go to war.
And one other thing: shame on John McCain for his efforts over the last several months to force the US military presence in Iraq to continue over the objections of the Iraqi government. He’s essentially been advocating a second invasion of Iraq, and nobody has been paying attention to him.
Agreed. There was never a good reason for this war.
Yes and no. We still have troops in Iraq, contrary to the reports. He and Obama only differed on the number of troops. And I’m not even sure how much they differed. Panetta, certainly negotiating on behalf of Obama, was trying to get the Iraqi government to agree to allow more troops to stay. He was unable to make that work.
Cite, please. Every press report I’ve seen has said that the remaining 4,000 troops will be gone by the end of the year, leaving only those military personnel attached to the embassy. Example.
Obama says he has decided on a complete withdrawal of US troops. John McCain says Obama has decided on a complete withdrawal of US troops. McCain advocates keeping 20,000 US troops in Iraq for an undefined period of time. Link.
That seems like a pretty substantial difference of opinion, there.
Frankly, if Eisenhower was alive, we should nominate him for president. Eisenhower actually experienced war-and knew the awful costs of it. That is why he was reluctant to get involved in wars-would that the politicians of today had his perspective.
Now, we have had 9+ years of war, which has given us:
-staggering debt (up to $4 trillion)
-a host of new enemies
-a long lasting economic depression
-thousands of seriously wounded veterans
-over 5000 dead
Heck, I can’t wait to get into the next one! Where will it be? Iran, Yemen, Africa? Take your pick!
