Is the Reconstruction of Iraq Failing?

[Phoenix44]

Growing pains? Stability? The National Intelligence Council says it is likely that Iraq will descend into Civil War before the end of 2005. There are already signs that the Kurds are backing out of any possible coalition government, and the Shiites and Sunni are barely co-existing.

There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region. Richard Clarke outlined it in his very extensive report to the Clinton administration in December 2000, and handed it over to the Bush Administration after the inauguration in January 2001. It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations. It did not involve invading Iraq. This was GW Bush's intent even before 9/11, and even before his inauguration. This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple. And guess what? NOW they're talking about IRAN, which could mean nuclear war.

 

[Makalakumu]

Growing pains? Stability? The National Intelligence Council says it is likely that Iraq will descend into Civil War before the end of 2005. There are already signs that the Kurds are backing out of any possible coalition government, and the Shiites and Sunni are barely co-existing.

There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region. Richard Clarke outlined it in his very extensive report to the Clinton administration in December 2000, and handed it over to the Bush Administration after the inauguration in January 2001. It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations. It did not involve invading Iraq. This was GW Bush's intent even before 9/11, and even before his inauguration. This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple. And guess what? NOW they're talking about IRAN, which could mean nuclear war.

Act 3... :idunno:

 

[lvwhitebir]

There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region. ... It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations. It did not involve invading Iraq.

So what there was a plan; there's always a plan. Usually many and some of those are in opposition. For some reason they didn't adopt Clark's. We'll probably never know why. You can't tell me that Clark's plan would have been the best because other variables would have come into play that would have mired us in some other war.

This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple.

We've had our hands dirty with Iraq since 1991. We'd already been there for 12 years and it didn't look like we were going to get out any time soon, because they weren't legally abiding by the UN terms. We also had information that as soon as we left, Saddam would take right back up with his military engine. Several times during the 1990s we attacked them with missiles; we constantly had air support over the northern and southern no-fly zones destoying mobile missile launchers. I believe it was the Butler Report which stated it, but the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control. They felt the only way to end this stand-off was to invade them and install an elected government.

How can you say that invading after 12 years is suddenly an oil, money, or power issue? It's just political rhetoric.

WhiteBirch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I believe it was the Butler Report which stated it, but the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control. They felt the only way to end this stand-off was to invade them and install an elected government.


And how stable is the region now? And how will they pull off elections knowing the electorate likely won't turn out for fear for their safety? We haven't enough troops to provide security and insurgents are in controls of whole sections of Iraq. How does one conduct a fairly elected government in that sort of environment?



Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

there's always a plan.

There wasn't a plan with this Administration as to how to get us out.

 

[michaeledward]

There wasn't a plan with this Administration as to how to get us out.

Feisty .. of course there was a plan. The problem has been shown to be that this Administration's plan was put together by our friend 'Amhed Chalabi', someone who had not set foot in Iraq for decades before we launched the war. Of course, the intelligence community and the military all had suggestions too ... but they were far less credible than this Iraqi exile.

I hope all can see the sarcasm in this reply. But it als truthful.

Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

...the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control.

...Even though most of the major figures of the administration stated up through 2001 that leaving Saddam in power was *desirable* to keep regional stability.

And even though UNSCOM had already destroyed the remnants of Iraq's WMD programs.

 

[Phoenix44]

How can you say that invading after 12 years is suddenly an oil, money, or power issue? It's just political rhetoric.

Because Bush and his cronies are OILmen, they are making an enormous amount of MONEY from the war in Iraq, and they used political POWER to accomplish it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

And just to be picky about reality, why was it that we went to the aid of poor, beleaguered Kuwait, a country with several hundred thousand foreign workers who are de facts slaves? A country in which lots of citizens aren't allowed to vote? A country where lots of citizens didn't even defend their country? Oh wait....could it have been....OIL?

Yes, I understand that the UN Charter makes invasions illegal, and allows member nations to respond with force following UN authorization, and that's why we....hey, wait just a darn minnit.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

...Even though most of the major figures of the administration stated up through 2001 that leaving Saddam in power was *desirable* to keep regional stability.

And even though UNSCOM had already destroyed the remnants of Iraq's WMD programs.

Something I'd like to have cleared up. If the administration has had these oil ties for so long, and has therefore had the goal of controlling the Middle East if mind for so long, why would they make statements like these which are so blatantly contradictory to their goals of invasion? It seems to me that unless either (a) they expected the American public and media to forget about these comments after a few years, or (b) the comments were made by administration members who weren't "in the know" about the overall plans.

Just a quick question is all.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Something I'd like to have cleared up. If the administration has had these oil ties for so long, and has therefore had the goal of controlling the Middle East if mind for so long, why would they make statements like these which are so blatantly contradictory to their goals of invasion?

If I had the answers to that, I'd be on... well, maybe not "60 Minutes"

Anywho, I've got my theories. Cheney was the Defense Secretary under Herbert Walker Bush, and was probably involved in developing the original containment strategy. Colin Powell was involved as well... and used to be sane. Condoleeza Rice, I imagine, was echoing the common position on Iraq.

The push for Iraq regime change has been coming from neoconservative influences outside this traditional group of power figures for years. For this reason, I'm not entirely convinced by the oil-personal-gain arguments.

On the other hand, Cheney worked plenty of skeezy, probably illegal, deals for Halliburton to work with sanctioned oil-rich countries before he joined the current administration.

I'm guessing it's a mixture of factors, including the "in-the-know" factor you mention below. Until the Bush Administration chose to adopt the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, for whatever reasons, I'm sure these people were all just continuing the party line.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I still have to ask:
How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?

It took over 2 years to return all Japanese POWs home after the peace treaty was signed.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I still have to ask:
How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?

And how many popular insurgent movements did we have to battle in Germany, Japan, and England?

How many cities and towns in Germany, Japan, and England were the Allies unable to enter a year after the conclusion of hostilities (oh, wait, there never was a surrender in Iraq)?

How many airstrikes did we launch in Germany, Japan, and England did we launch after the conclusion of hostilities... oh wait.

Oh, and besides, England was on *our* side.

Apples... Oranges.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It seems to me that it would be better to compare apples to apples. The US jumped into the Philippines for no earthly good reason, in 1899--our "help," has damn near ruined the joint. We took over Panama--how're they doing? How 'bout our "help" for Cuba and Latin America? Hey--how about how much we "helped," Chile into a military dictatorship? Or have there been any consequences to our (illegal, to be sure, but who's counting) invasions of Laos and Cambodia?

Or, best of all--the US sponsored a military ouster of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government, in Iran, and propped up the Shah for what, three decades? Including helping to train SAVAK? How'd that work out anyway--I forget?

 

[PeachMonkey]

It seems to me that it would be better to compare apples to apples.

Let's not forget destabilizing the leftist government of Afghanistan in order to draw the Soviet Union into a war of counterinsurgency. Look how well that worked out.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, it IS sadly difficult to keep track.

But--in the full Jerome Bixby/Twilight Zone sense of the sentence--"It's a GOOD thing," that we helped train the Mujahaddin and Osama bin Laden, isn't it?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I still have to ask:
How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?

It took over 2 years to return all Japanese POWs home after the peace treaty was signed.

Kaith,

Post war Germany wasn't nearly as violent as "post war" Iraq. There are no parallels that suffice. Some might claim resistance on the part of the SS trained "werewolves", but the following article pretty much debunks that:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/

"According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany—and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases—was zero."

Reconstructing Iraq and reconstructing Japan and Germany are two totally different ball games. Both Japan and Germany were modern industrialized world powers prior to WWII. Both had notions of what democratic/parlimentary government could be. Japan had a culture that lent itself to discipline, hard work, and obedience--they had an icon (the Emperor) to look to for inspiration--and they had absolutely NO ethnic strife as they were all of one race. Religious intolerance didn't exist in Japan in 1945. Both Germany and Japan were brutally humbled by the outcome of the war. They initiated the conflict, and they had been utterly destroyed. They were taken from the heights of hubris to complete ruin.

Eric Hoffer, author of "The True Believer" says that a fanatic must have a shred of hope in order to believe in his mission. What hope the Japanese and Germans had following WWII was provided by us. For the Iraqi insurgents, hope hinges on Allah...not the United States. It is a far different scenario than was found in 1945. Back then we weren't sitting on a powder keg. Now we are.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And how many popular insurgent movements did we have to battle in Germany, Japan, and England?

How many cities and towns in Germany, Japan, and England were the Allies unable to enter a year after the conclusion of hostilities (oh, wait, there never was a surrender in Iraq)?

How many airstrikes did we launch in Germany, Japan, and England did we launch after the conclusion of hostilities... oh wait.

Oh, and besides, England was on *our* side.

Apples... Oranges.

The question is important.

At the end of the second world war, Europe was in ruins. England had been getting hammered for years. Entire cities were flattened, little more than rubble. The dead were in the MILLIONS. Japan had -TWO- cities that had been nuked.

Iraq is mostly intact.

It is not fair to look at Iraq after only 1 year of occupation, and say 'See, its a failure'.

Yes, in the post WW2 era there was little damage done by rebels, insurgants, or sabotage. For the scope of my question, that is not a consideration.

If it took Japan, Germany, England, France, etc time to recover from major damage in a calm, peaceful enviroment, how can we reasonably expect miracles in the repair and recovery of a country still at war?

 

[michaeledward]

The question is important.
At the end of the second world war, Europe was in ruins. England had been getting hammered for years. Entire cities were flattened, little more than rubble. The dead were in the MILLIONS. Japan had -TWO- cities that had been nuked.
Iraq is mostly intact.
It is not fair to look at Iraq after only 1 year of occupation, and say 'See, its a failure'.
Yes, in the post WW2 era there was little damage done by rebels, insurgants, or sabotage. For the scope of my question, that is not a consideration.
If it took Japan, Germany, England, France, etc time to recover from major damage in a calm, peaceful enviroment, how can we reasonably expect miracles in the repair and recovery of a country still at war?

In World War II, the allies achieved an 'Unconditional Surrender' from the Axis powers, didn't they? How is that different from where we stand in Iraq? Where we never signed a treaty at the end of the invasion. The President just declared "Mission Accomplished" & "the end of major combat operations".

So, yes, 1 year is a short time-table for comparison. But, what were we told to expect, concerning the length of the war & reconstruction? These come from the 'Claim V Fact database':
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President
Date: 3/16/2003
Quote/Claim:
"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." [Source: Meet the Press, reprinted in Boston Globe]

Speaker: Myers, Richard - Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff
Date: 3/4/2003
Quote/Claim:
"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict...Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s, [when its forces were routed from Kuwait.]" [Source: USA Today]

Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 2/7/2003
Quote/Claim:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." [Source: USA Today]

So, we were told the conflict would take a very short time, because Iraq is so much weaker than they were in 1991. We were told we would be greated as 'Liberators', which of course, hasn't happened (outside of the first few days). If we examine the trend of activity in Iraq, it does not bode well.

From www.icasualties.org

May 2003 - 41 military fatalities (1.32 per day)

June 2003 - 36 military fatalities (1.2 per day)
July 2003 - 48 military fatalities (1.55 per day)
August 2003 - 43 military fatalities (1.39 per day)
September 2003 - 32 military fatalities (1.07 per day)
October 2003 - 46 military fatalities (1.48 per day)
November 2003 - 110 military fatalities (3.67 per day)
December 2003 - 48 military fatalities (1.55 per day)
January 2004 - 52 military fatalities (1.68 per day)
February 2004 - 23 military fatalities (0.79 per day)
March 2004 - 52 military fatalities (1.68 per day)
April 2004 - 140 military fatalities (4.67 per day)
May 2004 - 84 military fatalities (2.71 per day)
June 2004 - 50 military fatalities (1.67 per day)
July 2004 - 58 military fatalities (1.87 per day)
August 2004 - 75 military fatalities (2.42 per day)
September 2004 - 60 military fatalites (by the 20th - 2.86 per day)

​

Don't forget to view the database at www.iraqbodycount.net to dig into the toll being paid by non-military people in Iraq; some of which, no doubt are bad guys, but all?


Looking at this, we can see the trend is getting worse, not better.

Since we handed over "sovereignty" to our 'client government', 180 United States service people have died in this foreign country and 17 service members from the 'Coalition of the Willing'.

Of course, these numbers and trends do not look at the financial costs being placed upon the American taxpayer. The American people were also decieved to the amount of money this imperial exercise was going to require.

Yesterday, I heard there were whispered rumors in the military of a very extensive reserve activation planned for after the election (which seems to be only common sense).

Perhaps a better analogy would to be to review the first 18 months of the American involvment in Vietnam. In 1959, there were only 760 United States 'Advisors' in Vietnam. (This list is not 'fatalities' but rather US serving in Vietnam ... we do know that 58,148 eventually were killed)

1960 - 900
1961 - 3,205
1962 - 11,300
1963 - 16,300
1964 - 23,300

Do I need to continue?

We are in a period of escalation in Iraq. We are continuing to enrage young men of the Islamic faith, and they are being told we are fighting because of 'religion'. We are doing an awful lot to develop hatred in the region. We are doing an awful lot to build up support for al Qaeda.

And I fear it is going to get far worse, before it gets any better.

Mike

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As point of comparison, at the outbreak of hostilities, Lincoln and his advisors said the same thing. "Over in a few days, weeks at most". What followed were 5 of the bloodiest years in US history, followed by 10 years of humiliation, the destruction of the Jeffersonian Constitution, and over 100 years of racial tensions.

The US will need additional manpower. They will need to heavily staff the several US military bases that will remain, as well and the new ones soon to be built in Libya.

Officially, the 'Turn Over' can be seen as the 'treaty' needed as it did return control to the Iraqis. They do not want us to leave, yet, as their own situation is still 'iffy'.

There was an excellent article on the war in this months Playboy. It indicates to just what extent the war was 'mismanaged', and suggests that certain incidents need not have happened (The Lynch ambush for example)

It is going to get worse. I just hope, it starts to get better. 2/3 of the country is peaceful and improving. 1/3 is a powderkeg and the fuze is lit.