[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

An excellent article from the Washington Post. In this age of instant gratification, the expectation of instant solutions to everything (or just flip the channel) I was surprised to see a sane take on the timeline of the Iraq war, compared with historic conflicts. I think the writer makes some excellent points- positive views I don�t see expressed too often- the need for patience, not instant soundbyte gratification.

I agree with his conclusions- any past conflict could be deemed a failure if one were to harp on the daily negatives that occurred on the ground at the time- but history generally preserves the overall outcome. No matter what any of us choose to believe, the historic outcome in Iraq won�t be witnessed, nor accurately judged, until at the very least, 10 or more years down the road. Patience grasshopper.

History Proves We're Doing Fine

By Ralph Peters
Sunday, July 20, 2003

In the summer of 1945, occupied Germany's cities lay in rubble. Hunger and disease prevailed, and tens of millions of displaced persons foraged to survive. Criminals thrived on the black market. De-Nazification had barely begun. That July, three months after the war's end, no one could have foreseen Germany's political future, its economic miracle and astonishing reconstruction.

During the federal occupation of the South after the Civil War, a hostile, impoverished population lived amid ruins and cholera. Deadly riots and murders were common. The terrorists of the Ku Klux Klan enjoyed far greater support among the population than do today's Baath Party dead-enders in Iraq. Attempts to achieve inclusive democracy were frustrated for a century.

By historical standards, our progress in Iraq is extraordinary. While we cannot predict the character of the future Iraq with precision -- and we must have realistic expectations -- we already may claim with confidence that we will leave the various peoples of Iraq a more humane, equitable political environment than they ever have experienced. It will then be their own to improve upon or ruin.

With unprecedented speed, we overthrew a tyrannical regime that ruled 25 million people. A few million of Iraq's citizens had personal stakes in that regime as the source of their livelihoods and privileges. Should anyone be surprised if hundreds of thousands passively resist the occupation forces and some tens of thousands are willing to engage in or support violence against the force that robbed them of their power? Theirs is the violence of desperation, not of confidence. We face criminals, not a quagmire.

Yet the breathless media reporting of each American casualty in Iraq implies that the occupation has failed. Yes, every soldier's life matters. But we also need to keep the numbers in perspective. In one recent week, as many Americans died in a workplace shooting in Mississippi as were killed by hostile action in Iraq. The total casualties for the war and its aftermath hardly rise to the number of deaths on America's highways over a long holiday weekend. Considering the dimensions of our victory, the low level of our losses is something entirely new in the history of warfare. But the quest for daily headlines is not synonymous with a search for deeper truths.

Most of Iraq is recovering -- not only from the recent war, but from a generation of oppression. The Kurdish region is prospering, a model of cooperation, and the Shiites have behaved far better than initial worries suggested. The violence is isolated in the Sunni-Arab-minority region, a sliver of the country just west and north of Baghdad, which benefited most from Saddam's rule and has the most to lose under a democratic government. The absence of broad support for anti-coalition attacks is heartening. There is no general insurrection and there are no violent, massive demonstrations. Individual soldiers are assassinated, but our overall presence is not endangered. The resistance of die-hard elements should surprise no one but the most na�ve neoconservatives in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Meanwhile, our focus on micro issues such as individual casualties or a disgruntled shopkeeper's complaints obscures our macro success, both within Iraq and beyond its borders. Change has come to the Middle East with remarkable force and velocity. The notorious "Arab street," far from exploding, is the quietest it has been in decades. Syria has sharply reduced its support for terrorism as it weighs its future. In Iran, the young are encouraged by the atmosphere of change, while the bitter old men in power glance nervously at the U.S. military forces positioned to their east and west.

There is genuine if imperfect progress on the Palestinian dilemma. The necessity for American bases in benighted Saudi Arabia has faded. Arab intellectuals and journalists speak more frankly of the need for change than they have in four decades. And, depending on how the situation in Iraq develops, the United States may have the opportunity to right one of history's most enduring wrongs by fostering the establishment of an independent Kurdistan.

Instant judgments that the U.S. occupation is somehow failing, though politically gratifying to a few, are inaccurate, destructive and ill-judged. It will be at least a decade before we can read the deep results of our actions in Iraq, but the initial indications are that they will be overwhelmingly positive. By choice, we may retain a military presence there 10 years hence -- or we may be long gone. It is simply too early to say.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'd take issue with the thread title. History doesn't "prove" anything about today. But it is worth paying attention to. This is basically what I have been saying for weeks now. We should look at history not as an exact predictor of what will happen, but as a reality check on our own impatience. In reality, big things take time.

Another little step was taken today.

BAGHDAD, July 20 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has given a report to members of the U.N. Security Council urging them to endorse the new Governing Council created by the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq, calling it "a broadly representative partner with whom the United Nations and the international community at large can engage."

Annan's recommendation, which was delivered to Security Council members Friday but is not to be released to the public until Monday, is an important show of support for the Governing Council, a 25-member body whose members were selected by the occupation authority to assume responsibility for numerous day-to-day tasks.

Many Iraqis, including an estimated 10,000 people who turned out to protest in the city of Najaf today, have dismissed the council's members as puppets of the United States, and some of Iraq's neighbors have been equally skeptical. But Annan's recommendation could help to garner Security Council approval of the new Iraqi body, a key step in building international legitimacy and recruiting much-needed foreign aid. The Security Council is scheduled to hear a report Tuesday from Annan's special representative in Iraq, Brazilian diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello, and is likely to decide shortly after that whether to support the Governing Council.

Washington Post

[zigzag]

It's easy to get discouraged by day-to-day events but important to keep a long term perspective. And things could easily get worse before they get better. I just wish the administration had not invited unnecessary controversy by playing loose with the WMD rhetoric. But if things go well over time that will probably become academic.

[thunderous_funker]

Certainly Iraq 10 years from now may look like a success. I certainly hope so.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that in many respects the post-war plan has been surprisingly dodgy. And we can't blame it all on the guerilla factions either. Unlike the Haiti operation, no post-war police force was prepared or even planned for. They didn't even bother to ask for volunteers until weeks after Bagdad fell. Considering that the US has successfully managed similar operations before, I don't quite see how that kind of mismanagement can be glossed over.

The fact that the same units that fought the war are now being asked to deal with civilian problems is a major mistake. The Pentagon has never been bashful about pointing out the inherent problems with such scenarios and now we are seeing quite clearly the reasons why.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that in many respects the post-war plan has been surprisingly dodgy. Considering that the US has successfully managed similar operations before, I don't quite see how that kind of mismanagement can be glossed over.

The fact that the same units that fought the war are now being asked to deal with civilian problems is a major mistake. The Pentagon has never been bashful about pointing out the inherent problems with such scenarios and now we are seeing quite clearly the reasons why.

Agreed on Part 2, but I think there is a bigger picture. We were prepared for certain 'likely' scenarios (as spec. by the Pentagon), and when it became apparent early that none of those scenarios were being played out, Bush quickly appointed Mr. Bremer (counter-terrorism specialist) to be in charge of civil affairs.

I don't think we (the US) intended on the war lasting so short an amount of time. Who could...it set new world records (for whatever that's worth).

Fortunately, our administration and forces are flexible enough to adapt to the changing situation. I do agree that we cannot keep our troops in a policing formation. This newly-formed Iraqi militia should help with the insurgents.

It's only been a few months, and I think it's premature to call the reconstruction 'mismanaged', especially without a full-blown study. We'll see where we are after 6-months, and determine where to go from there.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
<snip>.....It's only been a few months, and I think it's premature to call the reconstruction 'mismanaged', especially without a full-blown study. We'll see where we are after 6-months, and determine where to go from there.

Fair enough. But I don't think that just because we fix our early mistakes a few months down the road excuses the fact that we made pretty huge mistakes in the first 3 months.

It may all turn out for the best, but the first 3 months have been pretty badly botched.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It may all turn out for the best, but the first 3 months have been pretty badly botched.

By what standards? Based on which reports? What reconstruction analyst has reviewed the case to date?

I'd like to see a detailed timeline of a similar occupation/reconstruction by which to judge. By my account, we are well ahead of post-WWII Germany.

Let's decide upon the standard first.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
By what standards? Based on which reports? What reconstruction analyst has reviewed the case to date?

I'd like to see a detailed timeline of a similar occupation/reconstruction by which to judge. By my account, we are well ahead of post-WWII Germany.

Let's decide upon the standard first.

I specifically stated that no having a police force waiting in the wings was a massive mistake. If we were careful enough to prepare thousands of police for the Haiti invasion (tiny tiny country) why did the administration suddenly find itself in downtown Bagdad watching looters and finally getting around to asking for volunteers.

That's not bad planning, that is the absense of planning.

Even if we accept that Bagdad fell faster than expected, it still doesn't explain why they hadn't even started asking for volunteers or making any kind of arrangements for police forces to be brought it.

Again, we did in Haiti so somebody in the State Dept. & Pentagon obviously knew how to do it. This wasn't a new idea.

That stands as a pretty remarkable fvck up in my book.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That stands as a pretty remarkable fvck up in my book.

Of course it does. Republicans are in power.

I ask for standards and you present me with none. Until then, any judgement of failure is baseless.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of course it does. Republicans are in power.

I ask for standards and you present me with none. Until then, any judgement of failure is baseless.

This isn't partisan.

I ask again:

Why didn't they plan for a post-war police force?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't think we (the US) intended on the war lasting so short an amount of time. Who could...it set new world records (for whatever that's worth).

It did???

It started late last year!

That's like six months!

-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Why didn't they plan for a post-war police force?

They did.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'd like to see a detailed timeline of a similar occupation/reconstruction by which to judge. By my account, we are well ahead of post-WWII Germany.

I think perhaps the situation is slightly different, say in the major cities:








Not to slight the Iraqis and their plight, but this wasn't WWII.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not to slight the Iraqis and their plight, but this wasn't WWII.

On the other hand, Iraq has no experience of democracy similar to Weimar to build upon. So the difference might be moot.

Comparisons are just comparisons. We shouldn't get carried away because no two situations are ever truly alike.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Comparisons are just comparisons. We shouldn't get carried away because no two situations are ever truly alike.

Word.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not to slight the Iraqis and their plight, but this wasn't WWII.

In the sense of overthrowing a regime and replacing all government, military, and financial institutions, helping construct a constitution, replacing/upgrading infrastructure, the scenario is more like post-WWII Germany and Japan than any other modern post-war situation.

You're right in the sense that the 'war' itself can't compare in scope and death to the World Wars.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Comparisons are just comparisons. We shouldn't get carried away because no two situations are ever truly alike.

Agreed.

However, would you agree that, if one is to judge US performance in Iraq's reconstruction, milestones deemed successful in past reconstruction efforts are likely to be goals with regards to Iraq's?

If those milestones are goals in Iraq, and the argument is that Iraq's reconstruction is a complete failure, how cannot those milestones be the primary determinants of progress.

With that said, I am simply looking for the one or two 'model' post-war reconstruction efforts -- ones that were deemed the most successful -- by which to compare the US effort in Iraq.

Without such a comparison to use as a standard, I argue that any judgement of failure is baseless.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
They did.

Oh really? Last I checked, 12,000 US soldiers were still patroling Bagdad as police.

Do you understand my point at all?

As soon as the shooting stopped in Haiti, the US had thousands of trained miltary police (many civilian volunteers) ready to deploy within hours.



Here is an article from MSNBC from May 19th talking about the lack of a police plan and mentions that the administration was still weighing whether or not to ask for international MP's.

A month after the fall of Bagdad and the administration still didn't have a clear plan for replacing troops with police.

Do they even have a plan now?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Agreed.

However, would you agree that, if one is to judge US performance in Iraq's reconstruction, milestones deemed successful in past reconstruction efforts are likely to be goals with regards to Iraq's?

If those milestones are goals in Iraq, and the argument is that Iraq's reconstruction is a complete failure, how cannot those milestones be the primary determinants of progress.

With that said, I am simply looking for the one or two 'model' post-war reconstruction efforts -- ones that were deemed the most successful -- by which to compare the US effort in Iraq.

Without such a comparison to use as a standard, I argue that any judgement of failure is baseless.

Well, I have said several times that the experiences in Germany and Japan are relevant. They are the models that I am pretty sure that the US is loosely basing its strategy on. I have reason to say that. I know a former undersecretary of defense and we talked about these issues in a seminar I took with him a few years ago.

On the other hand, i wouldn't look to stretch the analogies too far. The situations are different. In particular I wouldn't look to set artifical progress way points. Things will progressin Iraq at the rate at which they progress in Iraq. It doesn't matter how that compares to Germany, Japan, of for that matter, the Balkans. If we start forcing things by an artificial timetable, that is when we will screw it up.

To me the proper place for the Germany/Japan analogy is to know that it can be done. And that it takes time. There is also the historical fact that the process of democratization in both Germany and Japan were replete with mistakes, frustrations, and downright screwups. Yet our grandparents muddled through. We can too, if we don't lose faith and give up prematurely.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Oh really? Last I checked, 12,000 US soldiers were still patroling Bagdad as police.

Voila! There's your police force.

As soon as the shooting stopped in Haiti, the US had thousands of trained miltary police (many civilian volunteers) ready to deploy within hours.

This isn't Haiti, and we didn't have 150,000 troops in Haiti. Besides, had the shooting stopped?

Here is an article from MSNBC from May 19th talking about the lack of a police plan and mentions that the administration was still weighing whether or not to ask for international MP's.

That is an opinion piece (noted by the large OPINION near the author's name). "Unless police, judges, and a civil administration are put in place quickly, the military occupation �creates a window of opportunity you�re never able to seize,� says James Dobbins".

That's a fine and dandy quote, but what the author conveniently leaves out (and what I want to see) is Jimmy Dobbins' definition of 'quickly'.

A month after the fall of Bagdad and the administration still didn't have a clear plan for replacing troops with police.

They had (and have) numerous plans, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. They also know what the actual situation is in Iraq. Jimmy Dobbins, Opinion Author, you, and I don't. We can read about it, but we don't truly know what's going on.

I see what you are arguing, I just disagree, and I feel such an argument cannot be definitively made.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In the sense of overthrowing a regime and replacing all government, military, and financial institutions, helping construct a constitution, replacing/upgrading infrastructure, the scenario is more like post-WWII Germany and Japan than any other modern post-war situation.

You're right in the sense that the 'war' itself can't compare in scope and death to the World Wars.

Point taken.

I just needed to point out that reconstructing Germany was a slightly larger undertaking, since many large cities had as much as 80% (!) of ALL buildings DESTROYED. Not damaged - leveled.

Just picked up on the "already farther along" bit, which I felt was inaccurate and a little unfair.

Anyway, time to move on.

-s*

[spacefreak]

Let me add this:

Do I think mistakes have been made? Yes.
Do I think we had a concrete plan? Yes and no.

Many plans are made and presented. Some plans can be semi-concrete -- like our plan for revamping Iraq's treasury, banking system, and currency. Other plans - like when to switch over to a police force - are touch and go.

There were likely numerous plans and proposals, some even debated in front of the President, regarding this cut-over point. Obviously, the President doesn't feel a police force is adequate enough given the violent attacks in certain cities. He receives estimates as to when the situations in those cities will be eliminated, and has delegated officials to develop, train, and have ready police forces to step in at that time to assume duties.

If we need more manpower (which we may), he determines the way to go about getting those bodies. The State Dept. will likely ask the UN to help, the Armed Forces will look into their assets. And those volunteer drives, etc...

I trust the President to make the proper decisions based on what is needed to be successful. Oh, and don't forget, our public is practically demanding that we do this as 'cheaply' as possible. Cost constraints affect the decision-making process as well.

[Sosa]

The situation in Germany and Japan is not comparable to the situation in Iraq. There are many reasons for this but one of the most important is that the opponents of the US in Iraq are not so much the Iraqis as radical or perhaps patriotic Muslims who do not tolerate the presence of US troops in the Middle East. These groups have not been defeated by the occupation of Iraq.

The arguments as to whether the US made mitakes in planning for the war is too me irrelevant. Even if the US had the perfect plan, with police units, massive aid, and even international support the guerrilla activity would continue. It would be only a matter of degree of activity. As it currently is most would agree that guerrilla activity is increasing. However it is not yet at a level were it would seriously threaten the occupation (ie Vietnam).

Will improved performance of the US in Iraq eliminate the guerrillas? No, because they are receiving support from outside sources as well.

Would improved performance of the US maintain the level guerilla activity at a non-threatening level? (Chechnia) I do not believe so.

Basically I do not believe there is anything practicable the US can do in Iraq that will remove the guerrillas and end the threat. This does not mean that the operation will be a failure, It all depends on what standards success is measured by.

I am highly doubtful that meaningful democracy will come to Iraq through this occupation. I am also doubtful that the US will be able to establish a friendly government in Iraq that will survive a US military withdrawal. Taking these as the objectives, I believe this war will end in failure.

However there may be other short-term objectives which the US had in mind. Based on this criteria the occupation may be a success in their eyes. Losing 30 men a month and $4B may be worthwhile when the goal is a secure supply of oil, potential base to eliminate other threats in the Middle East, elimination of the euro threat to the dollar, etc. (I'm sure there are others I know nothing about).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Let me add this:

Do I think mistakes have been made? Yes.
Do I think we had a concrete plan? Yes and no.

I can certainly agree on that. Considering that same official who did the Haiti MP plan (the idea is to NOT use fighting troops for post war security) presented to the Bush administration and Pentagon long before the war (and said he thought they agreed with him), I am surprised that this still doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Almost everyone conceeds that its a bad situation for the US soldiers to be in, but I don't see a clear plan for fixing it (other than re-hiring Iraq's old police and Ba'athists).

Sorry for the rehash, but I do think this has been a pivotal decision/failure that has contributed immensely to all the other problems facing the reconstruction.

I still have hope that things will turn out better for a majority of Iraqis. Although I fear that the US will impose an IMF/WB economic plan (often called The Washington Consensus) that will sow the seeds of failure for Iraq to be dealt with 10-15 years down the road.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Sorry for the rehash, but I do think this has been a pivotal decision/failure that has contributed immensely to all the other problems facing the reconstruction.

'All the other problems' are minor in the grand scheme of things. Find them (the problems), solve them, move on.

I still have hope that things will turn out better for a majority of Iraqis.

As long as we stick to it, things will turn out great. Perhaps it will take 5 years for all the systems to be put in place, but if we and the Iraqis work hard at it, Iraq can be a thriving nation in a generation's time. They have all the natural resources (and demand for them) they need to be a thriving nation.

25 million people. If you started counting right now, you wouldn't reach the number 25,000,000 before you died. That's how many lives will be improved drastically. How is this effort not noble?

That's where I am. It's just the right thing to do.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
25 million people. If you started counting right now, you wouldn't reach the number 25,000,000 before you died. That's how many lives will be improved drastically. How is this effort not noble?

That's where I am. It's just the right thing to do.

Don't count your chickens.

We're nowhere near the point in future where that can be established, or even assumed, as true.

And even if so, there is still the other fairly vital point:

Was it the United States' decision to make? By what right, if the closest thing to international approval was not given, or indeed even seriously sought?

-s*

[theolein]

I personally think all these comparison with the American civil war (please! It was a CIVIL WAR i.e. one country, one language, and the victors wanted unification. If the confederates had won, would they have spent any amount of time reconstructing the north?) or WWII. WWII was a long war that left close to 50 million dead. Russia alone lost 20 million and Germany around 7 million. The war lasted for 6 years and devastated one whole continent - Europe and large parts of another - Asia. The firebombing of the city of Dresden alone killed 35000 people in a firestorm that raged for 5 days and completely and utterly razed the city.

The populations of Europe were exhausted after the war and wanted no more fighting.

There was a formal surrender in Germany and Japan, whereas war wasn't even declared by the US/UK against Iraq.

This cannot be compared to that. I think it is simply ridiculous. The US pulled out of Somalia after 18 soldiers were killed, but no one is comparing Iraq to Somalia, are they?

The author's suggestion that the Shiites are well behaved is correct but he attributes that to the US/UK implicitly, whereas it seems it's the Shiites religious leaders who command discipline in their areas. There are already some of the more fanatic Shiites pondering whether to call out Jihad against the US/UK. And only time will tell if the Sunnis in Mosul and Kirkuk get on with their Kurdish neighbours or the Turks and the Kurds don't get in one another's hair.

On the other hand the death of Saddam's sons may break the spirit of the guerillas fighting against the US. Things may actually turn out well, cam down and the Iraqis might be able to hold their own elections soon. If the US/UK is incredibly lucky the Iraqis might even elect a government that would be friendly towards the US/UK. (But what if it isn't?)

There are thousands of factors as to what will come and only time will tell what will happen in Iraq. All else is speculation.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Some plans can be semi-concrete -- like our plan for revamping Iraq's treasury, banking system, and currency. Other plans - like when to switch over to a police force - are touch and go.

There were likely numerous plans and proposals, some even debated in front of the President, regarding this cut-over point. Obviously, the President doesn't feel a police force is adequate enough given the violent attacks in certain cities. He receives estimates as to when the situations in those cities will be eliminated, and has delegated officials to develop, train, and have ready police forces to step in at that time to assume duties.

If we need more manpower (which we may), he determines the way to go about getting those bodies. The State Dept. will likely ask the UN to help, the Armed Forces will look into their assets. And those volunteer drives, etc...

I trust the President to make the proper decisions based on what is needed to be successful. Oh, and don't forget, our public is practically demanding that we do this as 'cheaply' as possible. Cost constraints affect the decision-making process as well.

Here's an example of such a plan: Army Plans to Keep 145.000 Troops in Iraq

The plan calls for maintaining troops at their current level of about 145,000 by rotating in one-for-one replacements, defense officials said Tuesday.

The troop rotation plan has been sent to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for review and details were to be announced Wednesday. The plan calls for new troops to serve one-year tours, one official said, commenting on condition of anonymity.