Bremer on Iraq

[TragicMonkey]

That having been said, are you really unable to accept that Kerry was in error in stating that "this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time"?

It's not inconsistent to hold that it is " the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" and also state that more troops are needed, if you also hold the position that the war is an accomplished fact and cannot be undone. Whether the war was right or not is now irrelevant--the war occurred. What remains is how to deal with it now.

Kerry may think the war is wrong, but he still needs a position on what to do with it now. What's he supposed to do, be like the guy in Clerks who continually cried "I'm not even supposed to be here today?"

 

[DavidJames]

That having been said, are you really unable to accept that Kerry was in error in stating that "this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time"?

As it relates to the what the Bush administration should have done to to combat terrorism, Kerry is 100% correct. But, as Kerry and others have said, we've made this mess, now we have to do the best we can to clean things up (the Pottery Barn reference in the debate).

 

[varwoche]

So when Kerry says that he would fight what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time more effectively and that he would avoid what he calls Bush's "catastrophic errors", he means he'd send in more troops?

He'd compound Bush's error of fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Indeed BPSCG, the next president, be it Bush or Kerry, has an incredibly difficult mess on their hands.

I find the Bremer quote startling. Do you? Surely you must agree that it's reasonable for voters to consider the past 4 years in deciding who should run the country for the next 4?

 

[varwoche]

what I'm really saying is what I really said ... the "more troops" mantra of the amateur war strategy boyscouts is baloney.

Here are some more of those pesky, baloney-laden boyscouts. Friggin' ameteurs they are.

 

[Crossbow]

Well no ... what I'm really saying is what I really said ... the "more troops" mantra of the amateur war strategy boyscouts is baloney.

No, the amateur war strategy was in starting a new war (Iraq) before the current war (Afganistan) was completed.

Furthermore, if one is going to occupy, dismantle, and then re-build a country, then one needs to make provisions for insuring security during the interim period. Hence, more troops will be needed at least for the short-term.

Wow! It is getting drafty all right.

 

[a_unique_person]

It would have been nice if he hadn't fired the Iraqi regulars.

They are a large part of the rebellion at the moment.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not at all. It seems quite clear, certainly in retrospect, that 1) we should have gone in with a lot more firepower and destroyed the Baath army rather than allowing it to melt back into the general population

It's delusional to think that you can just kill more Baathists if they're retreating into the civilian population and not fighting. Doing so would basically require accepting high civilian casualties. Seems like that's something opponents of the war have been complaining about quite loudly, and you wanted to make that several times worse? As for going in with more firepower, indeed we should have. But let's remember why we didn't: because of maneuvering by our "allies" the French and Germans. Bremer's comments relate to the lack of troops in Bagdad when we first arrived, which was a direct result of not being able to send the 4th infantry division through Turkey. And that, in turn, is because the French were going to veto us in the UN. The missing men were busy attending Kerry's global test.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/missing-men-attended-global-test.html

It was also the result of being more successful than anyone expected. US troops made it to Bagdad faster than anyone thought they would, including US commanders. No war plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, the amateur war strategy was in starting a new war (Iraq) before the current war (Afganistan) was completed.

That sounds nice, but it's actually a recipe for disaster. If terrorist sponsors know that they can avoid facing the music by prolonging violence in Afghanistan, what do you think their top priority is going to become? You guessed it (well, maybe YOU didn't), prolonging violence in Afghanistan. Considering the size of the border with Iran, you could potentially wait forever for Afghanistan to be "completed", even if the really important stuff does get finished. And the really important stuff is things like holding elections. Nothing we did in Iraq delayed that. Waiting for Afghanistan to be completed amounts to letting our enemies pin us down on one battle front without letting us open up another. And that's no way to fight, not if you're serious about winning. But then, so many people unfortunately aren't serious about winning.

 

[a_unique_person]

That sounds nice, but it's actually a recipe for disaster. If terrorist sponsors know that they can avoid facing the music by prolonging violence in Afghanistan, what do you think their top priority is going to become? You guessed it (well, maybe YOU didn't), prolonging violence in Afghanistan. Considering the size of the border with Iran, you could potentially wait forever for Afghanistan to be "completed", even if the really important stuff does get finished.

And that doesn't make you wary about fighting in Iraq. Strange logic, "It could take forever to finish Afghanistan, therefore we should forget about it, and start on Iraq, which will likewise go on forever."

Fact is, by starting Iraq, the US played right into Bin Laden's hands. It gave him everything he wanted, and more.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that doesn't make you wary about fighting in Iraq. Strange logic, "It could take forever to finish Afghanistan, therefore we should forget about it, and start on Iraq, which will likewise go on forever."

Fact is, by starting Iraq, the US played right into Bin Laden's hands. It gave him everything he wanted, and more.

But we didn't forget about Afghanistan. The important thing to do in Afghanistan is set up and hold elections, and that's still on track. And yes, "forever" is hyperbole. Fighting may continue for a very long time (again, Iran is a neighbor), but there will come a time when the Afghanis can handle the fighting on their own. In the mean time, we shouldn't tie ourselves down to only one front in this war. Iraq will likewise one day be able to handle the fighting on their own. And when they can, we will have won a MAJOR victory against the terrorists. They know this, which is why they're fighting so desperately, and why the Iraqi people have become their primary target.

As for the simplistic contention that Osama wanted us to invade Iraq, well, maybe, maybe not. But supposing he did want that, that doesn't mean it's not a mistake on his part to want that. After all, the contention is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and that made things worse for the US. But somehow, the thought never occurs to some people that terrorists can make strategic mistakes, that they can want us to invade Iraq and it can still turn into a defeat for them. Perhaps it's too much to ask of you to consider things from multiple perspectives, rather than your usual bias.

 

[a_unique_person]

But we didn't forget about Afghanistan. The important thing to do in Afghanistan is set up and hold elections, and that's still on track. And yes, "forever" is hyperbole. Fighting may continue for a very long time (again, Iran is a neighbor), but there will come a time when the Afghanis can handle the fighting on their own. In the mean time, we shouldn't tie ourselves down to only one front in this war. Iraq will likewise one day be able to handle the fighting on their own. And when they can, we will have won a MAJOR victory against the terrorists. They know this, which is why they're fighting so desperately, and why the Iraqi people have become their primary target.

As for the simplistic contention that Osama wanted us to invade Iraq, well, maybe, maybe not. But supposing he did want that, that doesn't mean it's not a mistake on his part to want that. After all, the contention is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and that made things worse for the US. But somehow, the thought never occurs to some people that terrorists can make strategic mistakes, that they can want us to invade Iraq and it can still turn into a defeat for them. Perhaps it's too much to ask of you to consider things from multiple perspectives, rather than your usual bias.

Your sentiments remind me so much of something that I know you don't want me to say. In the meantime, the US may get something it want's, Osama has something he wants. A bird in the hand.....

 

[CapelDodger]

from Patrick:

Numbers of troops are generally an issue when large conventional armies are fighting on traditional battle fields. Insurgencies on the other hand, being by definition a type of assymmetric warfare, are not much affected by just dumping in more troops ...

During the recent debate, when the subject was pre-war planning (or absence of same), Bush said the plan was based on the Iraqi army putting up more of a fight. Something akin to "We expected to kill more of them going in. Instead we're fighting them now". The plan, it seemed, fell apart when the enemy didn't co-operate. An insurgent war does take more boots on the ground to win than conventional battles, especially when you have a massive advantage in technology and armaments. But that possibility wasn't planned for.

What interests me is the way the PNAC calls for a leaner army than the one that was put together for the Kuwait War (400,000 or so?), and the way that this war was planned on the basis that such a force existed. The only scenarios that were considered were those that would respond to overwhelming firepower, maneouveribility and flexiblity of command-and-control. And the assumption was that the vision was the reality. That's the way it looks to me. It also seems that reality is not being allowed to seep into the White House.

 

[CapelDodger]

from BPSCG:

So when Kerry says that he would fight what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time more effectively and that he would avoid what he calls Bush's "catastrophic errors", he means he'd send in more troops?

Not send in but get in.He's made it very clear - not least during the recent debate - that he sees building a larger alliance that will contribute more to Iraq politically, militarily and economically as the key to success. Making Iraq not just a US project but a real Coalition project - perhaps even a UN project. That will involve making some concessions over decision-making in all three areas. The current administration is dead-set against that, so they are the ones that will eventually have to send in more troops.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:

If terrorist sponsors know that they can avoid facing the music by prolonging violence in Afghanistan, what do you think their top priority is going to become? You guessed it (well, maybe YOU didn't), prolonging violence in Afghanistan.

What have they learnt by prolonging violence in Afghanistan while the US goes to war elsewhere? That if you can hold out just a little while, the US will lose interest and get itself bogged down somewhere else. From bin Laden's arab-centric point of view the new war is much better than the old, since control of the Arab world is his real objective, not some one-ass dump like Afghanistan. The Taliban are a product of that dump and were never going anywhere, the remnants are going to keep the violence going until they're destroyed or victorious.

As far as elections are concerned, we'll see this weekend what they really mean. I've heard a figure of 10 million registered voters mentioned. Does anyone know what the eligible population is estimated to be?

 

[Crossbow]

That sounds nice, but it's actually a recipe for disaster. If terrorist sponsors know that they can avoid facing the music by prolonging violence in Afghanistan, what do you think their top priority is going to become? You guessed it (well, maybe YOU didn't), prolonging violence in Afghanistan. Considering the size of the border with Iran, you could potentially wait forever for Afghanistan to be "completed", even if the really important stuff does get finished. And the really important stuff is things like holding elections. Nothing we did in Iraq delayed that. Waiting for Afghanistan to be completed amounts to letting our enemies pin us down on one battle front without letting us open up another. And that's no way to fight, not if you're serious about winning. But then, so many people unfortunately aren't serious about winning.

Sir, I really have to disagree with you.

If one is facing many enemies, then one needs to secure one front before starting another. In the current case, the US forces are so widely split between Afganistan, Iraq, and other commitments, that they are unable to support one another which is a situation that is heading for failure and not victory.

 

[Jim Lennox]

Does anyone know what the eligible population is estimated to be?

Only a little arithmetic shows the figures are dubious.

Only 42% of those registered are women. That means some two-thirds of a million women are not registered.

The shortfall of women means the only way the 10m-plus figure for registered voters can be accurate is if every single male in the country has registered - at least once.

And that ignores an estimated one third of a million unregistered people in conflict-ridden parts of the south and south-east of Afghanistan.

So it is painfully evident that the registration process has been seriously flawed.

From here.

But this is probably evidence that everything is working out just how Bush planned it.

 

[Ziggurat]

What have they learnt by prolonging violence in Afghanistan while the US goes to war elsewhere? That if you can hold out just a little while, the US will lose interest and get itself bogged down somewhere else.

People keep saying that we've lost interest in Afghanistan, but it's simply not true. And Tommy Franks has said rather explicitly that it's not true. Who took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan? Not the US military. Rather, the press has, because it's mostly boring there. And that's a good thing. Elections are on schedule, almost all eligible voters have registered, and at this point there is absolutely nothing the Taliban can do to actually stop elections. And that will be the real victory against the Taliban, because it will do what they fear most: it will empower their former victims, most especially women. And there's nothing those gynophobic Islamofascists fear more than a woman with a vote. How's that for doing what Osama wants?

From bin Laden's arab-centric point of view the new war is much better than the old, since control of the Arab world is his real objective, not some one-ass dump like Afghanistan.

Sure, in a sense it is a more preferable location for a war for him. But it's still a war his side is losing. It's like lots of little mini Tets - the press reports the carnage, but never the fact that every engagement is an overwhelming victory for us, and that they're suffering casualty rates that they cannot possibly maintain. And why would they do this? Because they hope that it will play like Tet did: make us think that our victories are actually defeats.

The Taliban are a product of that dump and were never going anywhere, the remnants are going to keep the violence going until they're destroyed or victorious.

Not exactly. The Taliban were mostly a product of Saudi-funded madrasas in Pakistan. This is a global war.

 

[a_unique_person]

People keep saying that we've lost interest in Afghanistan, but it's simply not true. And Tommy Franks has said rather explicitly that it's not true. Who took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan? Not the US military. Rather, the press has, because it's mostly boring there. And that's a good thing. Elections are on schedule, almost all eligible voters have registered, and at this point there is absolutely nothing the Taliban can do to actually stop elections. And that will be the real victory against the Taliban, because it will do what they fear most: it will empower their former victims, most especially women. And there's nothing those gynophobic Islamofascists fear more than a woman with a vote. How's that for doing what Osama wants?



Sure, in a sense it is a more preferable location for a war for him. But it's still a war his side is losing. It's like lots of little mini Tets - the press reports the carnage, but never the fact that every engagement is an overwhelming victory for us, and that they're suffering casualty rates that they cannot possibly maintain. And why would they do this? Because they hope that it will play like Tet did: make us think that our victories are actually defeats.



Not exactly. The Taliban were mostly a product of Saudi-funded madrasas in Pakistan. This is a global war.

Sure the US can win easily, if they reeeeeaaaaalllllyyyy want to. All they have to do is use some nukes. No question, the US would win hands down. But, would they reeeeeaaaaalllllyyyy want to do that. As to a conventional war, the rebels won't fight that, and in a guerialla/terrorist war, the US can't win. You can't have a squad in every cave, every jungle and every town and shack. There is always somewhere for them to hide.

The only way to win is to have order, offer the people some hope, and show yourself to have some trust and integrity. The order is gone, the people have lost hope, and they sure as hell don't trust the US now, even if a lot of them might have had some hope after the invasion.

 

[c0rbin]

They are a large part of the rebellion at the moment.

Someone forgot to read "The Art of War" (not you, AUP)

 

[hgc]

...

Clearly Patrick, a poster on Randi.org has more knowledge and experience in determing how many troops are necessary.

Lurker

Considering the demonstrated intelligence level, he might actually be General Boykin.