Reality Check

[Bruce Carriker]

At a breakfast meeting with reporters, Gen. James Conway also warned that it could take years to adequately train and equip the Iraqi security forces — longer, perhaps, "than the timeline that we probably feel ... our country will support."

This is not from any of the newly elected Democrats. This is from the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

[Bruce Carriker]

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/nation1.html

This is a link to a Rand Corporation study done in the summer of 2003, shortly after the defeat of Iraq. Boy, are these guys smart, or what? There's not a thing they said then that has proved false in the ensuing 3-1/2 years.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Bruce,

Thanks for one of the most pertinent links I've ever found on Naznet current events forum. It helps me put things in perspective on some personal thoughts. Given that Saddam eliminated a couple generations of indigenous leadership, I have suspected it will take considerably longer than other places to permit/encourage political leaders to grow into capable power. Likely that reveals more about my missunderstandings regarding democracy than what is valid.

Even in the church, we recognize that emerging leaders need opportunity to grow, make mistakes, and develop. We sometimes call it experience, and other times refer to it as tradition.

In Rand's article, one of the key observations is that surrounding countries' involvement is vital. In Iraq, those countries seem to be not merely indifferent, but hostile toward the process - hence, insurgents that increasingly hinder the process. Additionally, we continually - and admirably - continue to rebuild/improve infrastructure, exponentially increasing the value of the country. In this case, a regional history of countries being rather easily occupied and taken over ups the ante. Iraqi leadership with which the US has early sided have too frequently themselves proven to be opportunists. At least from what we have thus far seen, Iraqi loyalty seems to be a rare commodity. I pray we're not getting an accurate picture.

"The second lesson for Iraq is that short departure deadlines are incompatible with nation-building. The United States will succeed only if it makes a long-term commitment to establishing strong democratic institutions and does not beat a hasty retreat tied to artificial deadlines. Moreover, setting premature dates for early national elections can be counterproductive." Rand

This paragraph lifted from the Rand document of three and a half years ago could have come from this morning's tv newscasts. When John McCain calls for an increase in troups and a longer commitment, at least it's not simply a thought he had due to last night's pizza.

What I long for more than politcal party bickering or kneejerk reaction, is a communicated plan. While this administration seems unwilling or unable to explain to the American people what their plan is, neither does opposition leadership put one on the table. Admitting there are others way more observant than myself, would someone please step up and tell us where we are headed, what the cost is going to be, and when we will know how it's going?

Merely to say it's going to take a long time and determination isn't sufficient. Based on history, we can determine what it's taken in the past, and factor in what it most likely will require this time around. The American people have a right to be trusted with a little of this information, if we are to be saddled with the responsibility of sacrificing our loved ones.

We have willingly given in Japan, Germany, Kosovo, Haiti, and other places where progress has been made. Those of us who have invested in Iraq aren't willing to see that investment have been made in vain. Neither, however, are we eager to see more American lives thrown into a vast pit without knowing where we are going, what the desired outcome is, and a pretty clear picture of progress. I suspect we're willing to commit to a two or three decade term if we know what the plan is.

Unfortunately, I don't see much on the American politcal scene to indicate an ability to communicate such, in either party. "Stay the course", nor "Just pull out" are acceptable mottos. Where is leadership when we need it?

[Bruce Carriker]

Dennis,

Here are a couple of things about the study that troubles me. Nowhere has "nation building" been successfully accomplished in less than 7 years. I wonder what the national response would have been in the spring of 2003 if the President had been candid enough to level with us and say, "Based on history, we are about to undertake an endeavor that will probably require at least a decade to complete." Instead we got a low cost, short war story and we all bought in to it because we wanted to believe it.

Also, going in, did our "experts" not understand what the Rand study points out: That a nation's history of democratic government (or lack thereof) and the support of the neighboring states were vital components?

You mentioned Rand's study in relation to Senator McCain's call for more troops. Did you read the part that said on a per capita basis, to do what's been done in the past, we'd have to put 500,000 troops in Iraq? How do we do that?

It just troubles me that an independent "think tank" could have such a better handle on the situation than our government "experts" in DoD and the State Department. And as pointed out, this Rand study does not have the benefit of hindsight. It was published in 2003.

[Bruce Carriker]

Admitting there are others way more observant than myself, would someone please step up and tell us where we are headed, what the cost is going to be, and when we will know how it's going?


Dennis,

I don't know that anyone can do that. I don't think there is a plan that addresses the questions you ask here. We have wandered into this piecemeal, and now find ourselves stuck.

The national policy leading up to the invasion and its immediate aftermath are something aking to, "Let's go win the war. Okay, we've done that. Now what?" At which point the head-scratching commenced.

We've managed this war the way women say men drive:

Stop and ask directions.

No, it's a right up here...I'm sure it is.

Okay, NOW can we stop and ask directions?

No, we must've needed a left back there. We'll just go back and find our way from there.

Okay, NOW can we stop and ask directions?

No, if I can just get back to that intersection, I know I can figure this out.

Okay, NOW what's wrong?

We're out of gas.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dennis,

We've managed this war the way women say men drive:

Stop and ask directions.

No, it's a right up here...I'm sure it is.

Okay, NOW can we stop and ask directions?

No, we must've needed a left back there. We'll just go back and find our way from there.

Okay, NOW can we stop and ask directions?

No, if I can just get back to that intersection, I know I can figure this out.

Okay, NOW what's wrong?

We're out of gas.


That's a pretty scary and likely accurate analogy.

As to the length of this effort, I suspect in this case it would take longer than a decade, and the American people don't/can't see any mutual benefit.

[Bruce Carriker]

As to the length of this effort, I suspect in this case it would take longer than a decade, and the American people don't/can't see any mutual benefit.


Isn't this part of the discussion we should have been having four years ago?

[Jim Franklin]

I think Pres. Bush is somewhat in the same position as Pres. Truman in 1945 and 1950, that being "how do we deal with the nations against whom we have fought?" He had no idea when he made MacArthur the chief of occupation in Japan or when he sent troops into Korea how long it would take but Truman unlike Bush knew he had a comparatively united people behind him. The main differences is that he did not have an opposition press and a lot of neysayers who effectively turned the electorate against his action. Yes, I do remember that there were stories in the press in 1950 that said that Truman was drunk from an all night Washington Press Club party at the time he ordered troops into Korea. But without a frontline type of warfare there is no way any of our leadership in Iraq can make an end run (Inchon amphibious invasion) as MacArthur did. Most of the Japanese Constitution is still the composition of MacArthur and his staff. Pres. Truman had more or less a free hand in dealing with the North Korean invasion of South Korea and the UN involved and Bush had a high backing to retaliate against the Al Qaeda to begin with. I feel that a lot more troops should have been involved in the initial thrust and liberation effort. But I was not asked by the Pentagon personel. I do not agree with John McCain on a lot of things and he would not be my preference for GOP nominee in 2008 but I do agree that we need a lot more force to accomplish the task which may take another 10, 20 or more years to accomplish given the culture of jihad. I, also, think that the usefulness of our troops based in Europe could well be redeployed to Iraq. Just an effort at more discussion from an old head. Thanks, Scott, for the addition of the Current Events Forum.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Logically, yes - and admittedly the President did say it would be a lot longer than the American people would want to go. However, for the most part we were in a reactionary frame of mind. The conversation should have taken place, but wasn't going to happen. In some circles, it still won't happen. Unfortunately, now that the conversation could take place, the mood is simply to get our people home and have them out of harm's way. Measuring instruments weren't adopted then, and because the emotion of four years ago, which was why we entered, is no longer present, there's not much available to have discussion now.

The question that should be discussed now, rather than later, even though it should have been but wasn't four years ago is - how will the world deal with terrorism? It isn't an issue of what to do to replace Saddam.

[BobHunt]

I think that most people on both political parties see that it would be dangerous to just pick up and leave without something to stop the violence and some assurance that the terrorists wont take over the country, and thereby strengthening Iran especially.
I dont understand tho how they can call on nations like Syria to help quell the violence, when Syria is probably one of the nations who is sponsoring the violence.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

*laughs*

i think Dennis' computer and mine are cousins. They misspell words.

[Judy Hamilton]

This is an interesting thread, one that generates several opposing arguments.
If we pull out of Iraq within the next few months will this signal to the Iraqis that the US has a limited commitment and possibily encourage them [Iraq] to assume a greater responsibility in the formation of their government and taming the insurgents? The Senator from Arizona advocates sending more troops to clean up the debacle with insurgents and settle the violence. He feels pulling out of Iraq would lead to disastor. It seems near disastor now, however remembering the bloodshed post 1975 when the US pulled out of VN, perhaps he is correct? Others have contended that Senator McCain is wrong and that added deployment would only have a temporary effect and would not sustain a foundation for democratic governing. As it stands now our Combat Divisions are taking turns with each Division every 12 months attempting to wait another 12 months before redeployment.

General Abizaid, the commander of our forces in the Mid East as gone on record to state that "withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months would lead to an increase in sectarian killings and hamper effective peruason of the Iraqi government to make difficult decisions needed to secure the country". Politacl verbage seems to embrace the term "stability" rathar than emphasis on "democracy" Does this interpret as long term occupaton? This commander believes that they are making progress, however others, many (many) others are questioning his interpretation of progress and find the Sunni-Shite..insurgents situation unacceptable

It seems that the Iraqi government is weak and without the motivation to step up to the plate and take control of the insurgent situation. Perhaps they will allow our soldiers and those of the UK continue to do the fighting and take the losses as long as we are willing to do so? Would they stiffen their backbone were we not doing the job for them???

Indeed there does need desparately to be a political settlement, however this can only be reached by the Iraqi government.
Turning to Syria and Iran could be a move that will in the future have the possibility to bite us, with revenge. Would we rue the day we turned to them for assistance in bringing peace to the Mid East?? I have read statistics that have estimated there are less than 1,500 insurgents in Iraq and about 10,000 Suni Arabs carrying out attacks against American military and paid civilians. We number 140,000 and boast to be the best trained military, and I belive this to be true. Is it past time for the US to strongly consider implementing principles of asymetric warfare (http://asymmetric-warfare.search.ipupdater.com/) ?????????

enjoy this dialogue..however may not be able to keep up with my work schedule and GAME DAY interuptions this week end!!

Judy

[Bruce Carriker]

...but Truman unlike Bush knew he had a comparatively united people behind him.

How quickly we forget. Support for the war in the spring of 2003 was 69%. So don't say Bush didn't have a united people behind him. Bush probably had as much public support to go to war with Iraq as any President has had for a decision to commit combat forces since FDR after Pearl Harbor.

It was only in the aftermath...the mishandling of the occupation after the war; the gold-digging of favored firms like the VP's Halliburton; the duplicitousness concerning WMD and the shifting of the reason we went to war; the opportunism of our Iraqi "allies" like Chulabi; the continuing insistence that everything was good when it was clear everything wasn't good...that support began to wane.

[Bruce Carriker]

Judy, you raise some great points.

This thing requires a diplomatic solution, but so long as Iraq's neighbors are Iran and Syria, a diplomatic solution seems impossible.

If we leave, we create a power vacuum that will be filled. The only question is, by whom? Bush 41 understood that, and opted for the lesser of evils...a stable Iraq, even it meant living with Saddam Hussein. Right now, US forces are filling the power vacuum. The Iraqi government will function only as long as we are there.

Iraq was a creation of the end of WWII and the fall of the Otttoman Empire. They have no background as a nation or as a democracy. They are the Middle East's Yugoslavia...a bunch of smaller countries (or ethnic identities) forced into one entity, and held together only by totalitarian rule. Now, that has dissolved and chaos is the result. The Shiites and the Sunnis are unlikely to come to any diplomatic agreements, and the Kurds just want to be left alone.

After 15 years, the Yugoslavia situation has finally stabilized (more or less). But there are glaring differences, the most obvious being that the Balkans was a UN/NATO effort that had the significant support of all our traditional European allies and the European community as a whole. In Iraq we have the significant support of almost none of our traditional European allies (have, in fact, told them we don't need them); and the support of almost none of the Middle Eastern nations, who have the most at stake.

Colin Powell is credited with the "you break it, you buy it" line. Whether he said it or not, its absolutely true. We broke Iraq, and now we own it until it can be safely released back into the world. And that's not going to be for a long, long time.

[Judy Hamilton]

Judy, you raise some great points.

This thing requires a diplomatic solution, but so long as Iraq's neighbors are Iran and Syria, a diplomatic solution seems impossible.

If we leave, we create a power vacuum that will be filled. The only question is, by whom? Bush 41 understood that, and opted for the lesser of evils...a stable Iraq, even it meant living with Saddam Hussein. Right now, US forces are filling the power vacuum. The Iraqi government will function only as long as we are there.


Colin Powell is credited with the "you break it, you buy it" line. Whether he said it or not, its absolutely true. We broke Iraq, and now we own it until it can be safely released back into the world. And that's not going to be for a long, long time.

Bruce herein lays the heart of this debacle. We in democratic countries need to understand that to leave Iraq a vacuum opens Pandora's box to a Mid East no country other than their neighbors (Israel excluded) can live with. Europe needs to also come aboard and see the writing on the wall.Is is too late for them to assist in policing or strong arm guiding Iraq?? I agree with you on every point made concerning this present administration, as Colin Powell most likely does also, hence he took himself out of the arena. Now that we are in agreement...what can be done to fix it?? My opinion of Condi Rice is she is too passive and she is a woman. Women are not highly regarded by Arabs in high profile places of management over Arab men. Not sure that Hillary would find herself in the same boat if for no other reason than her gender.
The only woman IMHO that turned their heads was Golda Meir
and there is/was only one of her in all of history.

We need a straight shootin' President, who is a Statesman and has the grit to withstand Europe, the almighty press and restless Americans who want peace without paying the wages and having the patience of making a lasting peace a reality. I know this will take years, however, what are our options?? We either stay on a viable course to see this through to the end (e.g. a stable Iraq) or we continue to say
"how-high" every time the terrorist says jump. Do Americans, Canadians, UK et al not understand that if we allow them to continue in their bully tactics we will hold this intimidated posture until Jesus comes?

Men of integrity and substance need to step up to meet this challenge.

any other easy chair politicians have ideas to share???????

Judy

[Bruce Carriker]

My concern is that no matter what we do, it's not going to be enough, and we're going to wind up being in Iraq fifty years from now, just as we're still in South Korea.

The questions being raised here are questions that this administration should have been asking...and answering...in 2002. Without any history of democracy it was naive to expect that in a few years the Iraqi's would embrace the idea and become a functioning democracy. I'm not sure, short of increasing troop strength and publicly declaring that this is what it is...a long-term military occupation of a foreign country...that we can stop the ongoing civil war in Iraq. The mere idea that we refuse to call it by that name makes us look foolish in the eyes of most of the rest of the world.

We have pretty much single-handedly destabilized the most politically volatile region in the world, and I'm not sure we have the ability to put humpty-dumpty back together again. Given the way we berated and belittled them, I suspect that some of our traditional allies in Europe are privately enjoying the mess we've gotten ourselves into. That may be petty, but they're only human. So I wouldn't expect them to come rushing in to help us out anytime soon.

If it were me, I'd try some of the following steps, which I'm sure will enrage many here:

1. Tell Israel that we're done supporting them when they ignore UN resolutions regarding Gaza and the West Bank. Part of our problem in the Mideast is that no matter what Israel does, we support them blindly...even when they're wrong.

2. Recognize the Hamas government in Palestine, contingent on them withdrawing their support of terrorists. (Understand that the support will continue, but if we could at least force them to do it covertly, it would be a step in the right direction. Our CIA has covertly toppled unfriendly governments for years.)

3. Publicly admit, on the floor of the UN, that there were no WMD in Iraq and that our primary purpose for going to war in 2003 was to topple Saddam Hussein's government.

3a. In that same speech, formally apologize to the UN for refusing to accept the reports and the recommendations of the weapons inspections teams; and for using UN resolutions which were already being complied with as a pretense for going to war.

4. Admit to the American people that intelligence was "interpreted" to support the case for war; and that only the rosiest projections regarding the cost of the war, in terms of life and dollars, were ever presented to the public.

5. Withdraw Bolton's recess appointment as UN ambassador and go, hat in hand, and BEG Colin Powell to take the job. If he won't, then ask Dad to convince his old pal Jim Baker, that he needs to do this one last thing for the country.

6. Admit that the war is costing more than projected, and more than we can afford, and that the temporary tax cuts of 2001 must be allowed to expire when their end dates come.

7. State publicly, openly, clearly, and unequivocally that if any of the uniformed services fails to meet their recruiting goals in FY-2007, the President will urge Congress to reinstate the draft in FY-2008. Put ALL reserve and National Guard units on active duty for the duration...whatever that is...and recall all eligible retirees to active duty (yes, even me). If we're really a nation at war, then we need to be a NATION in a war posture, prepared to prosecute this war AS A NATION.

8. Invite Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into multi-lateral talks about what to do about the situation in Iraq.

9. Increase troop strength to a sufficient number that we can conduct offensive operations against terrorist cells AND secure areas after they are cleared of terrorists. As it stands right now, we can do one or the other, but not both....so we go in, clear them out, move on, and they come right back.

10. Pour...and I do mean pour...as much money as is necessary into rebuilding infrastructure, so that by the end of 2008 public services in Iraq are what they were before the invasion.

11. Re-instate the Special Inspector General for Iraq, increase the staff of that office, and make their #1 priority waste, fraud, and abuse among American contractors.

12. Either withdraw, or draft, all contractors presently in Iraq, who are performing tasks which the military traditionally has done for themselves...especially logistics. If we're going to fight a war, we need to do it with the military...not with contractors, so we can artificially deflate the total number of personnel we have committed in Iraq.

Well, that should be enough ideas to anger virtually everyone else on these boards in one way or another.

[BobHunt]

nope, not even gonna touch that one, Id be thrown outta here if I did.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Bruce,

Some of your proposals I suggested here over a year ago - like admitting WMDs weren't there - and you're right: they received ire. I also like several other of your suggestions that include honesty. Because of that I don't agree with the one about recruiting more heavily. Some recruiters already paint far too rosey a picture when they promise the moon to poor young people who wind up coming back in pieces, having had no idea what their life was worth or what their families will be paid.

Unfortunately, while I think your proposals make sense, I am now convinced that the American populace hasn't the fortitude to see this thing through. Not with this President, or any on the horizon. Short of another devastating blow - like NYC 9/11 - the resolve is gone. Judy's right: to bail out now will be devastating, but it is going to happen, and the US is going to lose any shread of worldwide respect remaining. So, pride becomes the non-sacrificable commodity.

With every ounce I would like to hear some national leader propose almost anything - but it must include a desired end result. I simply don't hear that kind of plan.

Furthermore, I'd like to see us step back even further, and determine internatonally where we should put our best effort and energies. Is it Iraq? Is it in the Middle East anywhere? Was Saddam the world's most dangerous leader that needed to be brought to justice? Where are we going? Why are we going there? And how will we know when we're on the right track?

While I'm being totally unrealistic in idealism, there are a couple more things I want:
I want us to not react to emotion. Being mad isn't sufficient rationale to sacrifice the lives of 3,000 American young people.
I want to hope that even at the ballot box we could be a little more logical. Two years from now some of these who were just elected had better be able to show something or explain why not. But let's not just blame the politicians. It was voters who endorsed the "Anybody but Bush" campaign. The Dem strategists I've spoken with still can't get their jaws off the ground. They don't even know some of these who were elected, and they are a little afraid of what the next two years are going to be like. It will at least be interesting - let's pray it's not tragic.

[Judy Hamilton]

Without quoting you gentlemen in an answer let me shoot this off quickly before turning in tonight. The world and especially Americans are not aware there is a war going on. Certainly those who have soldiers serving in the Mid East know for certain that we are at war, however the average general public is not cognizance of this fact. As one of you mentioned. We are at war against terror organizations. A totalitarian Iraqi government would become an even greater despotic paradise for terror activity.

Also if the radical Islams continue to school their children on a steady diet of hatred for western cultures, i see no peace on the horizon for this planet

Seriously, would it be not the best of two difficult options, to buckle down now and face Goliath? Or should we pull out, pull back to our protective shores and isolate ourselves into believing that what we do not interfere with will not harm us?

Keeping in mind that this is the age of cyber technology and the "World indeed is Flat" There are no safe havens. There is no security in the stock market. One significant successful terror plot will topple this tower of security.
and the economic financial shock waves may not cease until we are all in the same boat..with a loss of significant monies for industry and for an exponential millions, the loss of a means of self support.

(Dave you are our economic advisor, this is your cue to comment if you are reviewing this thread)

Americans need to stand united ..there are no options

and BTW Bruce I agree with you on most of your points. We have allowed Israel to run amuck. However I disagree on the statement about Hezebollah ..this is also a terror organization, and I can see no value in dignifying them with international acceptance or recognition.

History has proven it is not in the genetics of Presidents to admit mistakes. However this president has slid so low that he could do no worse than to admit the mistakes you and Dennis have so clearly defined.

A country that does not have to haggle for the basic necessities of daily living are less likely to find fault with us. I totally agree with you Bruce. The insurgent terrorist are destroying what measure if infrastructure we have been able to restore to the Iraqi people. This needs to be a priority, to have their basic needs of electricity, medical care and communications stabilized. And we also do need to send in the Brigades of Army Corps of Engineers and Military Police to do this job and stop the extravagant waste of monies paid to these contract engineers and security firms. Hence, take a stance that Iraq is a Combat Zone and deal with this area of geography accordingly.

Should we consider sending this thread to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi???????

Judy..a concerned citizen

[Hans Deventer]

Well, that should be enough ideas to anger virtually everyone else on these boards in one way or another.

Not me. You make a lot of sense. One remark, in Palestine, it is Hamas, not Hezbollah.

And BTW, I think it is interesting to see that those cowards in Europe might not have been so crazy after all, when they had some second thoughts about jumping into this nightmare. An yes, an apology to Hans Blix might indeed be in place.

[Hans Deventer]

We need a straight shootin' President, who is a Statesman and has the grit to withstand Europe,

Well, you do have one who succeeded in the latter. I don't recall he listened to anyone from this side of the Atlantic but Tony Blair.

[Judy Hamilton]

To quote myself we need a straight shootin President who is a Statesman. This president does not qualify on both accounts

The idiom "Straight shootin' is an old western cowboy description of a man who tells the truth

"shoot straight (American)
a straight shooter - someone who you can trust because they are very honest. Marvin will shoot straight (= be honest) with you. He's a good guy to do business with."

Judy