Military History
|
How To Make War
|
Wars Around the World
Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Counter-Terrorism Operations
Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page
Subject:
The War Against The Culturally Insensitive
SYSOP
7/3/2012 5:27:56 AM
Quote
Reply
Show Only Poster Name and Title
Newest to Oldest
Chris
7/4/2012 12:09:09 AM
There are a few problems here - because this article is in direct conflict with multiple years of National Intelligence Estimates - let alone recent history. Iraq: was known to be a nation that was no threat to the US or its allies in 2001, 2002, and 2003; had no WMD to speak of, and according to the CIA, the British, NATO, and Germans (amongst others), the UN had done a thorough job of removing WMD from Iraq. Furthermore, the CIA announced that the job was so thorough, that the only remaining WMD, if there were any, were "residual, and of no strategic consequence".
While Saddam harbored small time terrorists, he was in no way involved with Al Qaida (as was repeatedly claimed by the Bush Administration, and most infamously by Richard Cheney, long after the claims had been debunked).
Saddam was small time, and no threat to his neighbors - he was in his box with no where to go.
His removal caused, in conjunction with the addition of Iran to the so-called "axis of evil", the largest foreign policy blunder in US history, and according to the 2005 and 2006 NIE's, created a huge national security problem for the US and its allies. That "policy" created a new cadre of terrorists (and funders of terrorism), and while it killed a lot - it didn't kill all of them. And the ones that survived are now battle tested.
Because we stupidly invaded Iraq (turning the local balance of power into the hands of the Iranians), the focus on AFghanistan was lost, causing the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaida (recruiting for money and volunteers). According to the British, the AFghan campaign was lost the day it was decided that it was more important to invade Iraq than it was to finish the job in Afghanistan when we had the Taliban and Al Qaida on the run, and we were ont he trail.
The entire fiasco (also the name of a book regarding the invasion of Iraq - now required reading for all command staff at the Pentagon), was the greatest terrorism recruiting tool ever devised, which in the end when combined with the economic collapse of the US (let alone the western world), garnered Al Qaida and the Taliban (and their ilk) the largest victory imaginable (according to these NIE's, and for that mater, the world press).
We might of learn a good deal - but we destabilized the entire region, and were massively indebted to a communist dictatorship in return for a phyrric victory. And as if that wasn't bad enough - that same communist dictatorship - the Chinese - were the ones that got the lions share of the oil deals with Iraq.
The USA won nothing from this escapade - except for mountains of money, many thousands of lives wasted, families destroyed, international reputation in ruins, the world united against us (the USA was voted the worst threat to world peace - even over IRAN by the rest of the planets population).
@import url
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css
);" target="_blank">link
Quote
Reply
CuriousOfNews
Interesting
7/4/2012 4:52:44 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much. Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that. It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran. Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder. History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented. Sadly, we know that. If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man? He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off. We'll see.....
Quote
Reply
Chris
7/5/2012 12:50:58 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much. Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that. It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran. Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder. History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented. Sadly, we know that. If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man? He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off. We'll see.....
=========================================================
Sir - the first Gulf War (started via the invasion of Kuwait, and potentially Saudi Arabia) is/was different from Gulf War II, which was what I was discussing. However, even in the first gulf war Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi's (who had legitimate complaints w/r/t oil rights and the Kuwaiti's) that "the US is not interested in arab-arab disputes", which right or wrong had the effect giving Saddam Hussein the green light.
Doing nothing in that case would've also been a foreign policy blunder - but then-POTUS George H. W. Bush took care in the use of our armed forces, in that:
1. There was a mandate from the UN and a truly willing cadre of allies
2. There was a clear objective, and definition of victory
3. There was a real strategy to execute the campaign, and when complete
4. A plan to bring our troops home.
The success of the campaign was later marred, lamentably, by the broadcasting (by the US) of messages into Iraq telling the Iraqi people that it was time to rise against Saddam, we're here, we're loaded for bear, and we'll support you. When they did - we sat back and allowed Hussein to slaughter many, many thousands of people. Few Iraqi families didn't lose members as a result of this diplomatic betrayal. Hence - the Iraqi's had no love whatsoever for the United States when we invaded them the second time - and that was the ultimate diplomatic blunder in US history.
@import url
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css
);" target="_blank">link
Quote
Reply
Chris
7/5/2012 1:49:16 PM
Chris, I agree with your WMD and harboring of small time terrorists, but to say "he was in his box with no where to go." is a bit much. Remember he attacked Kuwait, and the US was alarmend, but didn't get involved in that. It was only after he massed his troops on the Saudi border that the US became militarily involved.
Yes, prior to all of this the US aided Saddam in his war against Iran. Only when he invaded one country and stood to invade another did US get involved.
In my opinion, doing nothing would have been a collosal foreign policy blunder. History repeats itself, and everyone remembers Hitlers appeasement in the hopes that WWII would be prevented. Sadly, we know that. If Saddam had captured all of those oil fields would he have been a fair business man? He wanted power and wealth, and this would have given him all of that.
The balance of power has shifted, and now Iran and Turkey appear to be squaring off. We'll see.....
=========================================================
Sir - the first Gulf War (started via the invasion of Kuwait, and potentially Saudi Arabia) is/was different from Gulf War II, which was what I was discussing. However, even in the first gulf war Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi's (who had legitimate complaints w/r/t oil rights and the Kuwaiti's) that "the US is not interested in arab-arab disputes", which right or wrong had the effect giving Saddam Hussein the green light.
Doing nothing in that case would've also been a foreign policy blunder - but then-POTUS George H. W. Bush took care in the use of our armed forces, in that:
1. There was a mandate from the UN and a truly willing cadre of allies
2. There was a clear objective, and definition of victory
3. There was a real strategy to execute the campaign, and when complete
4. A plan to bring our troops home.
The success of the campaign was later marred, lamentably, by the broadcasting (by the US) of messages into Iraq telling the Iraqi people that it was time to rise against Saddam, we're here, we're loaded for bear, and we'll support you. When they did - we sat back and allowed Hussein to slaughter many, many thousands of people. Few Iraqi families didn't lose members as a result of this diplomatic betrayal. Hence - the Iraqi's had no love whatsoever for the United States when we invaded them the second time - and that was the ultimate diplomatic blunder in US history.
@import url
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css
);" target="_blank">link
Quote
Reply
CuriousOfNews
Nice reply
7/7/2012 11:51:58 AM
Thanks Chris, enjoyed your response, and can't really argue with anything posted. I agree the failure to follow up on the rebellion cost Amercian troops lives in the second invasion. Yes, I did get confused first invasion versus second invasion. Looking forward to seeing more posts! Take care
Quote
Reply
Latest
News
Most
Read
Most
Commented
Hot
Topics
NIGERIA: Blitzkrieg Breaks Boko Haram
ISRAEL: Go On Syria, Make My Day
NAVAL AIR: Keeping The Chinese Blind
LOGISTICS: The Flaw In North Korean War Plans
LEADERSHIP: Shut Up You Whore,
WARPLANES: Turkish UAV Exports
CONGO: Peacekeeping Becomes War
NAVAL AIR: Mixing Droids And Pilots In The Same Squadron
WEAPONS: Bigger Is No Longer Better
SUBMARINES: The Chinese Plan To Catch Up
MURPHY'S LAW: The Sad Death Of Euro Hawk
INDONESIA: Islamic Terrorists Down But Not Gone
BALKANS: Serbs And Albanians Sort Of Make Peace
MURPHY'S LAW: Searching For Mister Big
COUNTER-TERRORISM: The Other Al Qaeda
WEAPONS: Russia Resists A Revolutionary AK
SPACE: Chinese KillSats Threaten GPS Network
SYRIA: Iran Shows How It Is Done
NAVAL AIR: Replacing Carriers With Cruise Missiles
NAVAL AIR: China Learns From The Masters
ARTILLERY: The Tale Of The North Korean TELs
COUNTER-TERRORISM: A Taliban Cry For Help
MYANMAR: China Tries To Be The Good Guy
WARPLANES: Rafale Fades Some More
MURPHY'S LAW: A Melancholy Milestone For MiG
MURPHY'S LAW: China Bans Military Hotrods
KURDISH WAR: The Threat From Syria And Iran
YEMEN: Death Squads Gone Wild
WEAPONS: SEALs Succumb To Sig Sauer
SUPPORT: The Chinese Air Force Underground
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Submarines: The Chinese Plan To Catch Up
Weapons: Bigger Is No Longer Better
Murphy's Law: The Sad Death Of Euro Hawk
Naval Air: Replacing Carriers With Cruise Missiles
Naval Air: Mixing Droids And Pilots In The Same Squadron
WARS Syria: Iran Shows How It Is Done
Weapons: Russia Resists A Revolutionary AK
Space: Chinese KillSats Threaten GPS Network
Murphy's Law: Searching For Mister Big
Naval Air: China Learns From The Masters
WARS Congo: Peacekeeping Becomes War
Artillery: The Tale Of The North Korean TELs
Counter-Terrorism: A Taliban Cry For Help
Counter-Terrorism: The Other Al Qaeda
WARS Indonesia: Islamic Terrorists Down But Not Gone
Warplanes: Rafale Fades Some More
WARS Balkans: Serbs And Albanians Sort Of Make Peace
Murphy's Law: A Melancholy Milestone For MiG
WARS Myanmar: China Tries To Be The Good Guy
Murphy's Law: China Bans Military Hotrods
WARS Kurdish War: The Threat From Syria And Iran
Weapons: SEALs Succumb To Sig Sauer
Support: The Chinese Air Force Underground
WARS Yemen: Death Squads Gone Wild
Air Defense: Russian Tech Fails To Protect Syria
NAVAL AIR: Replacing Carriers With Cruise Missiles
AIR DEFENSE: Russian Tech Fails To Protect Syria
WARPLANES: Rafale Fades Some More
COUNTER-TERRORISM: A Taliban Cry For Help
YEMEN: Death Squads Gone Wild
CHINA: Cracking Down On North Korea
CONGO: Peacekeeping Becomes War
ARTILLERY: The Tale Of The North Korean TELs
NAVAL AIR: Mixing Droids And Pilots In The Same Squadron
LOGISTICS: The Flaw In North Korean War Plans
BALKANS: Serbs And Albanians Sort Of Make Peace
INDONESIA: Islamic Terrorists Down But Not Gone
MURPHY'S LAW: The Sad Death Of Euro Hawk
COUNTER-TERRORISM: The Other Al Qaeda
SUPPORT: The Chinese Air Force Underground
ATTRITION: The Cost Of Good Intentions
MURPHY'S LAW: North Korea And The High Tech Horror
MYANMAR: China Tries To Be The Good Guy
SYRIA: Iran Shows How It Is Done
SPACE: Chinese KillSats Threaten GPS Network
Dirty Little Links: News Links.
Naval Air: Replacing Carriers With Cruise Missiles
Murphy's Law in Action: The Sad Death Of Euro Hawk
Naval Air: Mixing Droids And Pilots In The Same Squadron
Congo: Peacekeeping Becomes War
Logistics: The Flaw In North Korean War Plans
Balkans: Serbs And Albanians Sort Of Make Peace
Books of Interest
The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe, 1944-1945 (Liberation Trilogy)
Fallujah Awakens: Marines, Sheikhs, and the Battle Against al Qaeda (Blue and Gold)
SPECIAL OPERATIONS IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution
The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth
From Amazon
News
How To Make War
Wars Around The World
Austin Bay's On Point
StrategyTalk
Dirty Little Secrets
Features
Al Nofi's CIC
Prediction Market
Wargames
Measure of Respect
On War and Warfare
Videos
Photos
Jokes
Community
Military Discussion Boards
Military Jokes
Military Photos
Military Book Reviews
Military Movie Reviews
StrategyPage
Subscribe
Login
Feedback
About Us
Search
Account Manager
Advertise With Us
Search