You seem to be asking for Tom Clancy fan fiction errata.
Your question about what will happen is unanswerable. There are too many factors to predict accurately exactly what will happen. I could make something up, but it would be pointless.
The proper question to ask is “Should we remove Saddam from power?” If the answer is yes, then the administation can worry about the “How do we remove Saddam from power?” and “What do we do afterwards?”
The administration had no detailed public plan for Afghanistan when we removed the Taliban from power. Neither will they in Iraq. It would be silly to even attempt such a thing. First of all it would be impossible to predict every future event, there has to be some rolling with the punches. Secondly, there needs to be secrecy for any such plan to work.
Debaser, having a plan in place is not “silly”; the original Marshall Plan was put in place after the fact due to the fact that we didn’t fully comprehend the responsibilities we would assume on actually winning the war. In Afghanistan, action preceded any coherent “re-structuring” plan, and it is obvious today: Kabul is the only area that the current Afghan government has any real control, and the rest of the country is still pretty much the way it has been for the past 50 years.
Now, when you look at Iraq and the serious strategic and geopolitical roles it has the potential of playing, only a very foolish invader would not have some after-action plan in mind; otherwise, a serious implosion or other backfire could take place. And in this “volatile” region, this could have grave ramifications. In fact, a “public” plan of “re-construction” that was logical would probably go a long way to convincing the other countries in the region that we aren’t just cowboys on a crusade: a well thought out plan, that took into account the current problems and tried to rectify the thorniest issues, could do wonders for the whole “war with Iraq” theme. Hell, it might even help the administration look like they knew what they were doing. A plan, as most businessmen know, can’t predict every possible outcome, and doesn’t need to; it needs to be able to provide a framework upon which further decisions can be made. And why would secrecy be important? I think any secret reconstruction plan would be counter-productive; the more logical the plan, the more likely that there would be positive support for the administration’s desires.
So the most successful reformation doctrine of all time was conceived only after we had already destroyed the infrastructure of the countries to be reformed. And this supports your argument that we’ll fail unless we have a plan beforehand how?
Jeff
War is chaos made manifest, no sane person pretends to know what will happen. If we have to invade Baghdad, and Al-Jazeera broadcasts images of the streets strewn with Iraqi corpses to the Muslim world, nation building will be the least of our problems.
The urgency to make a decision without a plan is not apparent to me. It would be one thing if we were being attacked, as was the case in WWII (Pearl Harbor), and presumably in Afghanistan(since most here assume Al queda can be blamed for that).
This is not the case in Iraq. It’s a pre-emptive strike. We have enough time to anticipate many of the possible pitfalls and the consequences of a very likely military victory.
Yes war is chaos. That’s why you have plans, and backup plans if those fail. That’s why you prepare and think about the possibilities.
I don’t see the need for secrecy. Circulating a plan for an alternative to Saddam would only bolster support (assuming it was sensible) and increase pressure on Saddam.
Well, Jeff, my comment was made to acknowledge the fact that the Marshall Plan was not a predicted “this is what we will do” affair; however, I think it’s remarkable success was due to many factors, not including it’s creation after the fact; I think we are all very lucky that the plan worked as well as it did. However, in both Germany and Japan, we were dealing with countries that were at absolute rock-bottom, with no discernible infrastructure in place; in addition, we were fully invested in both areas for a few years before the Plan took effect (the plan commenced in 1948 and terminated in 1950, while US occupation forces were in both locations providing aid from the armistice onward).
And, not to nitpick, but that one sentence is not my whole argument: if you prefer, I could have said, “hey, we got lucky with the Marshall Plan…”; in return, I could ask whether you expect us to fight several years of war, making sure that not only the infrastructure is completely devastated, but also that the entire populace is demoralized and reduced to the most extreme level of survival before we decide to figure out how to rebuild? If so, then I think many would be sorely disappointed in this supposed “regime change” action we are pushing to undertake. I personally think we should learn from our mistakes: just because the Marshall Plan was successful doesn’t mean that total unpreparedness is the answer. Remember: we instituted the Marshall Plan to help these severely war-ravaged countries to survive, not to effect regime change. The latter was a consequence of almost 6 years of global war; the Plan was an immediate reaction to a situation that no one had predicted would become so extreme.
BTW - there actually was some forethought to the war’s conclusion and the ensuing mess: there was an agreement signed in 1943 under the auspices of the UN with the support of the allies for “Relief and Rehabilitation.” Unfortunately, it was simply not possible to predict the scope of the situation by the war’s end, nor the resources that would be available to respond. In the case of Iraq, this should not be the issue: the administration is claiming both a moral and an ethical basis for the war; shouldn’t they then shoulder the responsibility of doing their best to protect the people already suffering under Saddam? The administration should have, at the very least, a logical and public framework that can show how the Iraqi people will end up being better off sans Saddam; if not, how can they justify their actions?
Sorry if my sentence was unclear, but I was not using the Marshall Plan statement as a form of support for my argument, simply acknowledging the facts of its establishment.
The U.S. HAS made their post-Saddam plan public. I don’t have a link offhand, but it was in the news last week.
Their estimate was for an 18-month military occupation along the lines of the occupation of Japan. However, to deflect any potential cries of colonialism, the U.S. was suggesting a civilian governor, perhaps appointed by the UN.
Here is a CNN article which notes that rocket attacks against US bases have been “almost daily.” In this one incident, six 107-mm rockets were fired at an American base.
SO… now that Sam Stone claims that the Bush administration has produced a plan and made it public, are you ready to criticize it for the reasons you just mentioned?
BTW Sam Stone, I would appreciate a link to that plan because I haven’t seen it. I may have time to search for it later, but that could be a while.
Sam and errata, here is a link that discusses the plan; this is the most that anyone has really said about it, and this came out back in October, 2002.
One of the problems with this “plan” is that it has been estimated by the Brookings Inst. that it will take about 150,000 troops to implement something on this scale, and could take several years of occupation. There are also calls for war crimes tribunals and other para-judicial acts.
Does anyone think the public, already up in arms about the war now, will stomach an investiture of that magnitude? And there goes any boost to the economy: if we are footing the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq, it will be few years before we start seeing anything come back to us. But maybe Bush can engineer another miracle tax cut…
On the one hand it’s encouraging to see some commitment on the part of the administration, on the other hand calling the plan the most ambitious since WWII is pretty daunting in it’s own right. I honestly don’t see how this can be corretated with administration’s line that they don’t want to participate in nation building.
I can’t say that I would come up with a better plan given an invasion, but I wouldn’t start a war to begin with.
Those who favor the war: are you comfortable with the “the most ambitious effort to administer a country since controlling affairs in Germany and Japan after the Second World War”?
Sam - thanks for the links. To me, it seems that the administration has seen the weakness of its position, and is now doing what I said they should do in earlier post: provide something that will make the surrounding countries feel somewhat re-assured that we know what we are doing. However, 18 months? Who is kidding who here? How long have we been in Afghanistan, and how long do you think we will be there? In a country the size and complexity of Iraq it could take much longer; and, considering there really is no current opposition to Saddam that is trusted by the Iraqi people, it could take several years before a decent framework is created.
As stated previously: this isn’t Germany, Japan, or even Korea, but a very different animal, in a much more volatile region. When it comes to paying for the whole thing: are we going to foot the bill, or use the oil “for the Iraqi people” and siphon off enough money to cover our costs? Anyone see a problem with this? How this may play into the hands of those who say we have some ulterior motives for going in there in the first place?
Yep, and I’m not even American. Saddam lost his right to sovereignity a long, long time ago. He has been living under a cease-fire agreement that he has violated repeatedly, and now he’s being held accountable for it. There was no formal end to hostilities to the Gulf War - just a conditional agreement. The U…S. has been bombing Iraq and being shot at by Iraq for years.
This isn’t a new war with Iraq. It’s the end game of the Gulf War. This seems to be a distinction ignored by most critics.
Formal end to the Gulf War: UNSCR 687, also known as the ceasefire. Sure, ceasefires are temporary, but it isn’t up to the US to make the decision; it’s up to the UN. There was never any formal agreement that allowed us to bomb Iraq in the first place; in the beginning, French forces were also involved, but they pulled out, citing the “ambiguity” and lack of a supporting resolution.
And I guess I should say, since you aren’t American, that who cares if you are comfortable about it or not? It’s we who pay for it, not you, in terms of lives and finances. Seems to me you should be lobbying your own government for invasion, not jumping on our bandwagon…
“End game of the Gulf War”? After twelve years? No wonder the distinction has been “ignored” - sorry, but the Gulf War did end, for us and Iraq. Too bad the supporters of war can’t seem to find that particular “distinction”; it was up to the UN and Iraq to finalize the ceasefire, not the US and Iraq. We took it upon ourselves to bomb and harass Iraq, therefore inviting them to shoot at our aircraft; there was no legal binding for our actions, nor reason for same.
And since I am an American, and pay taxes as such, I am not comfortable with such an effort; I think the administration has very little clue what such an effort will entail. So when does someone start talking about winning over “hearts and minds”?
Clarification: a little of my own ambiguity in there:
Should have read: "we took it upon ourselves to bomb and harass Iraq after the formal cessation of hostilities, therefore inviting them to shoot at our aircraft…
Dammit, Crazy Greek, you’re starting to get on my nerves! Everytime I see an opportunity to savage a lame-ass argument and offer a bit of sustenance for my aging and withering ego, I find you have already covered it: cogently, calmly and respectfully. Such a relentless and pitiless presentation of a Good Example is intolerable! Worse still, God help us, you are a newbie, the last subset of humanity that I could exploit for desperately needed smug superiority. Harumph! Kids these days, no respect. Wear their hair all funny! And thier music! Just a bunch of noise, you ask me…
Now I am reduced to offering supporting facts, mere cameos. Grumble, grumble…
Some time back, in a related thread, I asked why it was that the Iraqis were firing off all these missiles and never hitting anything. Some guy (whose name escapes me, possibly due to a lifelong program of glaucoma prevention) pointed out what should have been obvious. Anti-aircraft missiles depend on radar targeting, without radar targeting you are essentially trying to shoot down a duck flying at 1000 feet with a .22 pistol. But if the Iraqis turn on their radar, they get a radar seeking missile up the butt in two shakes. So they don’t, they just fire off a ballistic missile in a futile display of pique. Might just as well throw rocks, for all the good it will do.
…I know that cheerleading post’s are frowned on in Great Debates, but I do need to say that it has been really good to read your posts greco_loco. The proposed war on Iraq is scary, and no matter how I play our the scenerio’s in my head, I cannot see a positive outcome. While I consider myself informed in terms of the situation in Iraq, I do not feel sufficently confident in my information and my sources to participate in these debates so I resort to lurking. For the last couple of days your posts have expressed my feelings better than I could ever have expressed them, and add balance and experience to these threads. Thank you for taking every incoherent thought out of my mind, and expressing it on these boards for me. God be with you, I hope you will be safe where you are.
Kia Kaha.
elucidator and Banquet Bear: thanks for the kudos, and hey, at least I can forgive the hijack ;). thouhg I may be a newbie, I’m not a young one, so you can feel better now, Lucy, though I may fit the hair comment (just don’t get the wife started…)
BB - I lurked for a year and a half, on and off, as I really didn’t have the time. Now that I am more a manager than engineer (and we know how much time those damned managers have…), I find that I am up late, when the interesting comments are appearing on the boards. Add to that the fact that 1) the war supporters are getting more strident (yet seemingly less based in reality) and 2) that I sent my family back to the US a month ago, it just seemed that the time was right to try and dispel some of the ignorance out there. And feel free to jump in anytime: I can always use the support, and I guarantee there are always a myriad of things I leave out that others will quickly see.
Again thanks - and glad to know you guys are out there; I have seen elucidator wielding his wits to and fro for quite some time, and only hoped I could come up with comments half as clever.
