9 years and 4500 Dead Americans

[regular.joe]

What I find interesting in todays world of sound bites is that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States. We just took the lid off, to leave it open like that sure makes it sound like U.S. soldiers have been wandering around Iraq killing 100,000 Iraqis. However miss guided we were for going into Iraq; we did, in good conscience, try to keep the lid on a bit tighter then it would have been had we just left in 2003. Most of the killing of Iraqis has been by Iraqis and fighters from foreign countries like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc... I have not really heard this discussed at any length by anyone outside of the military. There certainly is a depth to this topic that cannot be covered in one post in this thread. The dynamic of Shia VS Sunni VS tribe/family/clan VS government power VS foreign influence VS whateverthefuckelseyoucanthinkoftofightabout is amazing in countries like Iraq. What the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld leadership of the day did not get right in any way shape or form was to topple the country and then the very next day hand it over to the general population and say...no need to thank me...here ya go! Even in post WWII Germany/Europe and Japan we set up military governors and city mayors etc that ran and administered the countries and communities until the military administrators were able to leave. In some cases 20 to 30 years later. I for one do not think that what we have gained and what we have lost as a result of invading and occupying Iraq has been or will be worth the results. We will be feeling the pain from this one for years to come.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beest

I'm not great student of American history but, I understand there was a significant contribution by a foreign military power in the Revolutionary War.

The British could not apply sufficient force in the colonies. The Brits had too many other ongoing wars.

Foreign powers provided two significant contributions. First was military training - a serious problem in the colonial army at both the enlistedman and officer levels. Second was a naval blockade during Yorktown. Without supplies and support from their Navy, then Cornwallis was cut off and forced to surrender to Washington. He could not obtain supplies sufficient to survive a siege.

As with all wars, purpose is to take negotiations to a peace table. That battle itself was only decisive because the British realized they needed their forces elsewhere. Suddenly realized war in the Colonies was not worth the expense. A victory in Yorktown, by itself, did not end the war. But was a deciding factor that caused top British management to negotiate rather than keep fighting.

Had the Brits not been involved in war elsewhere, then the battle in Yorktown probably would not have been the final battle.

British had another problem. Their attitude (similar to what American troops did in Vietnam and Mission Accomplished) had turned most colonials against them. Their military tactics were only creating more enemies.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by JBKlyde

It could have been a whole lot worse..

Originally Posted by regular.joe

What I find interesting in todays world of sound bites is that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States. We just took the lid off, to leave it open like that sure makes it sound like U.S. soldiers have been wandering around Iraq killing 100,000 Iraqis...

This is why it wasn't "a whole lot worse", as bad as it was. The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I have not really heard this discussed at any length by anyone outside of the military.

And you won't. We will get the blame. Some of it is well placed. Much of it is not. Most people never take the time to learn the history of the area but are quick to lay blame on the US.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.

No violence and ethnic killings occurred in Mosul while same was ongoing in so many other regions. Petraeus and the 101st Airborne was literally stealing money to institute Phase Four planning in Mosul. As a result, Mosul was completely peaceful. Until the 101st left. Then Phase Four planning stopped. And Mosul became as violent as other Iraqi regions.

From Wikipedia:

This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in nations such as Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized …

Meanwhile, Bremer never got organized. Even Bremer had to sneak out of Baghdad on a small airplane because violence Bremer created even threatened his own life.

Gen Petraeus was expelled to a penalty box. Stuck in a war college in Kansas rather than in positions for advancement such as in another combat unit or the Pentagon. He was telling truths that contradicted George Jr’s political agendas. Expelled because he was saying all along why Americans were encouraging so much Iraqi violence and uprising. One man in particular was accurately criticized for causing that violence and resulting deaths. Paul Bremer.

George Jr's chosen man, Bremer - even honored with a Freedom Medal by George Jr - was clearly a major reason why so many Iraqis attacked Americans and other Iraqi ethnic groups. A problem is well defined - 2,500 years ago - in military doctrine. Violence was inevitable when Americans did not do nation building. As soon as Petraeus and the 101st left Mosul in 2004, then entire region broke down into chaos. As military doctrine so clearly says.

Cheney, et al just assumed (due to low intelligence) that as soon as Saddam was gone, then democracy would sprout up from the earth. Why did 100,000 Iraqis die? Because wacko extremists (the right wingers that have low intelligence) said, "America does not do nation building." Suddenly 2,500 years later, that well understood principle is wrong? Only when a political agenda is confused as education and intelligence. America encouraged and enabled violence that killed over 100,000 Iraqis. Iraqis did not die when a General harmed his career by doing nation building. Iraqis died in mass numbers because low intelligence leaders in Washington said, "America does not do nation building."

None of this is new. Read old Cellar posts where reasons for an insurgency and deaths were directly attributed to, "America does not do nation building." The problem was well defined and that obvious that many years ago.

[ZenGum]

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

And they're getting right back into it, aren't they? Heck I hope the events of the last few days are just a bit of teething difficulty and things will stabilise again soon, but I have my doubts.

I was always thinking that Iraq would really struggle to hold together after the US leaves, but I was thinking in terms of five or ten years. It hasn't been a week yet.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

As military doctrine says should happen when a conquering nation does not do nation building. Those first six months were that critical. As Colin Powell's "Future of Iraq" study group warned of ten years ago long before even Gen Garner appeared.

Previously, the Kurds have been successful as peace makers. In part because Kurds are so secure in their part of Iraq. Can they still do that without an 800 pound guerilla in the room?

A resulting power vacuum is also an open door for Iranian supporters of their 'favorite' side. That Sadr finished his education in Iran after deciding combat with Americans was counter-productive. Was that coincidence or part of a longer term plan?

The fact that so much violence is happening so quickly implies long term planning. Easy to implement since Iraq's economy remained worse than it was under Saddam.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

He makes a hell of a case for "left" totalitarians and "right" totalitarians being undistinguishable, and contends there is little point in trying to partition either philosophy from the other.

Is true. If a man has power of life or death over you, it does not matter if he is "left" or "right". If you are killed by Hitler or by Stalin, you are just as dead, yes?

It is a bad idea to give any government more power than they need to fix the streets. Trust your friend Uday about this.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As Joe rightly says, a lot of the Iraqi civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis.

And they're getting right back into it, aren't they? Heck I hope the events of the last few days are just a bit of teething difficulty and things will stabilise again soon, but I have my doubts.

I was always thinking that Iraq would really struggle to hold together after the US leaves, but I was thinking in terms of five or ten years. It hasn't been a week yet.

Your friend Uday is surprised that it is only this bad.

What many Americans do not understand is that Iraq is a manufactured nation. It is a collection of tribes which are "stapled" together by the British. Without a monster like Hussien, there is no chance to keep Iraq in one piece.

So, it is a choice between one monster and chaos in street. Choose.

[Undertoad]

One problem is that Hussein felt compelled to use his supply of staples to staple other countries on.

Lebanon, less tribal but more diverse, has remained stapled without a "big man" since 1943. Maybe the French staples are higher in quality.

[regular.joe]

Touche UT.