20 Years Later

[IUCrazy2]

I was totally for this in 2003. I was wrong. These guys are my generation basically. I am a shade older than they are but I had a bunch of friends and family that were involved in our Middle East adventures over the past 20 years and it has led me to a bit of a recalibration in how I view our role and the role of our military in the world. We are not nation builders. We can't export our way of life by the barrel of a gun to people who have a culture that is just fundamentally different from ours. Sadam sucked but what filled that power vacuum is arguably worse. In the case of Afghanistan, the guy we wanted was sitting in a compound basically protected by one of our "allies" in the region. We left and the guys we replaced walked right back into power.

We need to pick and choose where we are willing to spend our blood and treasure and when we do so, the gloves have to be off and there has to be a clear objective.

This was a big mistake. One I exhuberantly supported. I think this is what is giving people some pause about Ukraine when we hear the same people who argued us into that war basically saying "blank check".

 

[GiggityGoo]

We can definitely export or way of life via barrel of a gun, but Americans no longer have the patience for it, and it compounds the problem when proper expectations aren’t set at the beginning.

It takes decades and generations, but if you stick with it you get a South Korea. But alas, these days we tuck tail and give up. By the time we pulled out of Afghanistan, half the population was 21 years or younger and were overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. The Taliban was quite literally dying out and in another 10 years would’ve have been a non-factor.

But we form our foreign policy around political expediency, the long game is too tough.

Edit: As to Iraq. That is a different question, when the initial premise for invasion was shaky to begin with.

 

[IUCrazy2]

We can definitely export or way of life via barrel of a gun, but Americans no longer have the patience for it, and it compounds the problem when proper expectations aren’t set at the beginning.

It takes decades and generations, but if you stick with it you get a South Korea. But alas, these days we tuck tail and give up. By the time we pulled out of Afghanistan, half the population was 21 years or younger and were overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. The Taliban was quite literally dying out and in another 10 years would’ve have been a non-factor.

But we form our foreign policy around political expediency, the long game is too tough.

Edit: As to Iraq. That is a different question, when the initial premise for invasion was shaky to begin with.

US officials distorted statistics to mislead public about Afghan war, confidential documents reveal

An 18-year, trillion-dollar conflict was known to be failing from an early stage. This knowledge was concealed from the public. Craig Whitlock explains what has been going on behind closed doors

www.google.com

No, I don't think things were ever really trending well. If it was that country wouldn't have utterly collapsed in such a short time when we withdrew our support. The mission was originally supposed to be kill AL Qaeda, we let it morph into something entirely different.

 

[Sope Creek]

View embedded media

I was totally for this in 2003. I was wrong. These guys are my generation basically. I am a shade older than they are but I had a bunch of friends and family that were involved in our Middle East adventures over the past 20 years and it has led me to a bit of a recalibration in how I view our role and the role of our military in the world. We are not nation builders. We can't export our way of life by the barrel of a gun to people who have a culture that is just fundamentally different from ours. Sadam sucked but what filled that power vacuum is arguably worse. In the case of Afghanistan, the guy we wanted was sitting in a compound basically protected by one of our "allies" in the region. We left and the guys we replaced walked right back into power.

We need to pick and choose where we are willing to spend our blood and treasure and when we do so, the gloves have to be off and there has to be a clear objective.

This was a big mistake. One I exhuberantly supported. I think this is what is giving people some pause about Ukraine when we hear the same people who argued us into that war basically saying "blank check".

What role did W's lie about Saddam having WoMD have in your support for the war in Iraq?

It sealed my support . . . I was wrong also.

 

[IUCrazy2]

What role did W's lie about Saddam having WoMD have in your support for the war in Iraq?

It sealed my support . . . I was wrong also.

It was part of it and I kind of bought into the idea that if we toppled Saddam that we could move Iraq into moderation. It always seemed like the picture of Iraq we got was that they were progressive by Muslim standards and that they could possibly be an Egypt in the middle of the Gulf region.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ETA: I also don't know it it was a lie so much as a complete intelligence failure as to why we thought he had the WMD he did. We relied on satellite spying quite a bit and our human intelligence was coming from Ahmed Chalabi types who had a vested interest in not telling us the truth.

 

[Sope Creek]

It was part of it and I kind of bought into the idea that if we toppled Saddam that we could move Iraq into moderation. It always seemed like the picture of Iraq we got was that they were progressive by Muslim standards and that they could possibly be an Egypt in the middle of the Gulf region.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ETA: I also don't know it it was a lie so much as a complete intelligence failure as to why we thought he had the WMD he did. We relied on satellite spying quite a bit and our human intelligence was coming from Ahmed Chalabi types who had a vested interest in not telling us the truth.

What we didn't know at the time was that the US had no plan for the aftermath of Shock and Awe. I had assumed we had something like a Marshall Plan ready.

Wrong.

 

[IUCrazy2]

What we didn't know at the time was that the US had no plan for the aftermath of Shock and Awe. I had assumed we had something like a Marshall Plan ready.

Wrong.

From a military standpoint it makes sense, the military blows stuff up. They aren't really designed to be nation building politicians in the field.

 

[Sope Creek]

From a military standpoint it makes sense, the military blows stuff up. They aren't really designed to be nation building politicians in the field.

Yep. We didn't have an all-volunteer military in WWII, after which the Marshall Plan was implemented. But then we had a culture more like Europe, too . . . .

I'm not sure that a drafted military would have made a difference. Just trying to think of why the Marshall Plan worked in Germany and didn't in the ME.

 

[UncleMark]

What role did W's lie about Saddam having WoMD have in your support for the war in Iraq?

It sealed my support . . . I was wrong also.

I gave Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt. Silly me.

 

[GiggityGoo]

I gave Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt. Silly me.

Same for me a Don Rummy. He was a stand up guy.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yep. We didn't have an all-volunteer military in WWII, after which the Marshall Plan was implemented. But then we had a culture more like Europe, too . . . .

I'm not sure that a drafted military would have made a difference. Just trying to think of why the Marshall Plan worked in Germany and didn't in the ME.

Because we are more culturally aligned with Europe than the Middle East IMO. I think a bunch of it comes down to that. Our government was based on hundreds, even thousands of years of mostly European experience from the ancient Greeks, to the Magna Carta, to the writings of Locke and Hobbes, and on and on. We have a shared understanding of the world through Christian foundations that underpinned us all. The Middle East is mostly Islamic underpinnings.

Lastly, I think Total War played a part as well. The Japanese had a different culture from us as well but they and the Germans were beaten into submission. Cities destroyed, commerce wrecked, basic civilization maintaining functions very dependent on their occupiers, their fighting age male population depleted...they didn't have a choice.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

View embedded media

I was totally for this in 2003. I was wrong. These guys are my generation basically. I am a shade older than they are but I had a bunch of friends and family that were involved in our Middle East adventures over the past 20 years and it has led me to a bit of a recalibration in how I view our role and the role of our military in the world. We are not nation builders. We can't export our way of life by the barrel of a gun to people who have a culture that is just fundamentally different from ours. Sadam sucked but what filled that power vacuum is arguably worse. In the case of Afghanistan, the guy we wanted was sitting in a compound basically protected by one of our "allies" in the region. We left and the guys we replaced walked right back into power.

We need to pick and choose where we are willing to spend our blood and treasure and when we do so, the gloves have to be off and there has to be a clear objective.

This was a big mistake. One I exhuberantly supported. I think this is what is giving people some pause about Ukraine when we hear the same people who argued us into that war basically saying "blank check".

I was for it, heck, even Rock was for it. We were all wrong. I trusted Colin Powell and Tony Blair.

Some of that is unfair in that I am not sure how reliable our Intel was. Did they know how reliant Intel was on Curveball? They should have been but maybe not.

Ukraine is different to an extent, it isn't American blood. And it isn't hard to imagine an invigorated Russia teamed with China as a serious threat.

 

[Sope Creek]

Because we are more culturally aligned with Europe than the Middle East IMO. I think a bunch of it comes down to that. Our government was based on hundreds, even thousands of years of mostly European experience from the ancient Greeks, to the Magna Carta, to the writings of Locke and Hobbes, and on and on. We have a shared understanding of the world through Christian foundations that underpinned us all. The Middle East is mostly Islamic underpinnings.

Lastly, I think Total War played a part as well. The Japanese had a different culture from us as well but they and the Germans were beaten into submission. Cities destroyed, commerce wrecked, basic civilization maintaining functions very dependent on their occupiers, their fighting age male population depleted...they didn't have a choice.

That part about Total War (which I've referred to as War of Submission) is a good one. What were Germany and Japan gonna do? Say no?

The ME is a very different culture. They don't aspire to a western economic model like Japan did in the 1920s and 1930s.

 

[larsIU]

Yep. We didn't have an all-volunteer military in WWII, after which the Marshall Plan was implemented. But then we had a culture more like Europe, too . . . .

I'm not sure that a drafted military would have made a difference. Just trying to think of why the Marshall Plan worked in Germany and didn't in the ME

I was listening to a semi recent Dan Carlin podcast when they (he and the guys from The Rest is History) were talking about something similar in how we give other countries weapons, ships, planes, etc. but they never quite make it work like we can. He compared it to ancient/historical fighting. He believes firmly that, pre gunpower, armies from a 1000 year history would have been competitive against one another. Roman legions probably would have wiped the floor with the Normans, the Khans would have destroyed medieval armies, etc.

But this was simply due to culture. The Roman people set aside resources to specifically have a standing army of conquest. The medieval armies, not so much. The Mongols and steppe peoples grew up on horses. Their entire way of life was centered around this animal and how to survive in bad climes via a nomadic lifestyle. Their hunting style mirrored their figthing style. They were in constant practice.

The Normans? Rich kids with swords alongside some poor schmucks with pikes and clubs. And that doesn't even take into account the leadership and scholarship aspects of Roman life or the training of the steppe peoples.

So when we give helipcoptors to Afghanistan and the taliban finds them, they very often can't even start them. They've never had the political or economic base to reach this level of progress. It's like watching Civilization 6 in real time.

 

[Sope Creek]

I was listening to a semi recent Dan Carlin podcast when they (he and the guys from The Rest is History) were talking about something similar in how we give other countries weapons, ships, planes, etc. but they never quite make it work like we can. He compared it to ancient/historical fighting. He believes firmly that, pre gunpower, armies from a 1000 year history would have been competitive against one another. Roman legions probably would have wiped the floor with the Normans, the Khans would have destroyed medieval armies, etc.

But this was simply due to culture. The Roman people set aside resources to specifically have a standing army of conquest. The medieval armies, not so much. The Mongols and steppe peoples grew up on horses. Their entire way of life was centered around this animal and how to survive in bad climes via a nomadic lifestyle. Their hunting style mirrored their figthing style. They were in constant practice.

The Normans? Rich kids with swords alongside some poor schmucks with pikes and clubs. And that doesn't even take into account the leadership and scholarship aspects of Roman life or the training of the steppe peoples.

So when we give helipcoptors to Afghanistan and the taliban finds them, they very often can't even start them. They've never had the political or economic base to reach this level of progress. It's like watching Civilization 6 in real time.

Hmmm . . . I thought the Marshall Plan was all about winning the peace, after WWII.

 

[larsIU]

Hmmm . . . I thought the Marshall Plan was all about winning the peace, after WWII.

Ahh, i'm wandering.

The Japanests wanted to be capitalistic. Hell, outside the Americas, they are one of the few countries that likes baseball.

Europe worked b/c most of the American ancestory at the time (and probably still) came from Europe.

We tried to "win over" the Afghans and Iraqis but weren't making any real change. What happened in Europe and Japan after WWII was real change. They go the message and were willing to receive it. Even in utter and total defeat.

I think we might have been missing the "total defeat" part in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, to be sure, I still don't believe there's any chance we make lasting change in either place. Their religious, cultural, and economic histories are just too different to accept and outside power as having their best interests at heart.

I firmly believe if there was an Islamic superpower who could police the middle east (without, you know, starting a war with us, Russia, or China), that would be the best possible scenario. And no, Saudi Arabia ain't it. It's probably Iran. Which we, of course, don't want to admit.

 

[Sope Creek]

We tried to "win over" the Afghans and Iraqis but weren't making any real change. What happened in Europe and Japan after WWII was real change. They got the message and were willing to receive it. Even in utter and total defeat.

I think we might have been missing the "total defeat" part in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, to be sure, I still don't believe there's any chance we make lasting change in either place. Their religious, cultural, and economic histories are just too different to accept and outside power as having their best interests at heart.

This. I agree.

BTW, I'd guess we did a "total defeat" war on Iraq. Al Quaede just employed a rope-a-dope strategy until we punched ourselves out, and by the time we did they'd morphed into ISIS.

 

[Harry Hondo]

View embedded media

I was totally for this in 2003. I was wrong. These guys are my generation basically. I am a shade older than they are but I had a bunch of friends and family that were involved in our Middle East adventures over the past 20 years and it has led me to a bit of a recalibration in how I view our role and the role of our military in the world. We are not nation builders. We can't export our way of life by the barrel of a gun to people who have a culture that is just fundamentally different from ours. Sadam sucked but what filled that power vacuum is arguably worse. In the case of Afghanistan, the guy we wanted was sitting in a compound basically protected by one of our "allies" in the region. We left and the guys we replaced walked right back into power.

We need to pick and choose where we are willing to spend our blood and treasure and when we do so, the gloves have to be off and there has to be a clear objective.

This was a big mistake. One I exhuberantly supported. I think this is what is giving people some pause about Ukraine when we hear the same people who argued us into that war basically saying "blank check".

In 2004 Blix stated that "there were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction."

Hans Blix - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Silly me, I believed Hans Blix, back in late 2002, when he emphatically said he found nothing.

 

[larsIU]

This. I agree.

BTW, I'd guess we did a "total defeat" war on Iraq. Al Quaede just employed a rope-a-dope strategy until we punched ourselves out, and by the time we did they'd morphed into ISIS.

I'll kinda bow out (wish Ranger was still around) on did we totally defeat the Iraqis. I'd still say no.

We firebombed Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc. Not to mention the two A bombs. That's total destruction. That's a level of destruction where the citizenty actually questions their leaders as being misguided.

We just pissed everyone off in Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree though that our complete and utter lack of preparation for the "after" effects are what ultimately doomed us. But we'd have to agree to never leave Iraq or Afghanistan to make it work. And, again, I think our troops would be in ever present danger unlike the troops in SK or still in Germany. No offense to them but I'm not sure their deployements are especially dangerous from a military standpoint. And our loss in treasure would be even greater.

We should prop up Iran. Wait, tried that.
Saudi Arabia? Still trying. Not working
UAE? Insignificant
Iraq? no
Israel? Not Muslim

Iran/Saudi Arabia suck all the air out of the ME. We're "friends" with one and the other is apparently a mortal enemy. We should change our relationship with Iran.

 

[T.M.P.]

Because we are more culturally aligned with Europe than the Middle East IMO

Explain Japan then ...

The difference was industrialization infrastructure and education. Both Germany and Japan had industry and an educated skilled public. Iraq a majority of the rural populace is still living in the 19th century and they had no industry other than oil. Still don't ...

 

[IUCrazy2]

Explain Japan then ...

I did:

The Japanese had a different culture from us as well but they and the Germans were beaten into submission. Cities destroyed, commerce wrecked, basic civilization maintaining functions very dependent on their occupiers, their fighting age male population depleted...they didn't have a choice.

We fought a 4 year long "Total War" against Japan that involved fire bombing their population centers and dropping two atomic bombs on them. They were economically cut off and militarily bled dry. They were beaten into submission and then had a government imposed upon them. There were parts of Japanese culture that allowed for a clean occupation but that was after basically obliterating their country.

There are parts of Islam that would allow for the potential of rebuilding from the ashes as well, but we weren't doing that. If you are looking at militarily "nation building" a country, the question I believe you have to ask is how egregious was their behavior tbat makes you want to bomb them and was it egregious enough for you to wage a war of unconditional surrender or be annihilated on them. If not, you should probably be looking for a different way to resolve the issue.

 

[T.M.P.]

I did:


We fought a 4 year long "Total War" against Japan that involved fire bombing their population centers and dropping two atomic bombs on them. They were economically cut off and militarily bled dry. They were beaten into submission and then had a government imposed upon them. There were parts of Japanese culture that allowed for a clean occupation but that was after basically obliterating their country.

There are parts of Islam that would allow for the potential of rebuilding from the ashes as well, but we weren't doing that. If you are looking at militarily "nation building" a country, the question I believe you have to ask is how egregious was their behavior tbat makes you want to bomb them and was it egregious enough for you to wage a war of unconditional surrender or be annihilated on them. If not, you should probably be looking for a different way to resolve the issue.

Simply put, you can't Marshall Plan a nation full of illiterate goat herders ..

 

[IUCrazy2]

Simply put, you can't Marshall Plan a nation full of illiterate goat herders ..

Probably not, not without bombing the hell out of them.

ETA: And that wasn't Iraq. They were a decently "modern" population.

 

[Sope Creek]

Simply put, you can't Marshall Plan a nation full of illiterate goat herders ..

I don't think Crazy's saying that . . . at all. I think he's saying that (1) without a Total War approach (which he's saying isn't necessarily warranted without answering a question about how egregious the country's behavior was), a population won't be sufficiently subjugated to accept a Marshall Plan, and (2) you have to have a Marshall Plan to put into effect.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

The War you Don't see

 

[T.M.P.]

I don't think Crazy's saying that . . . at all. I think he's saying that (1) without a Total War approach (which he's saying isn't necessarily warranted without answering a question about how egregious the country's behavior was), a population won't be sufficiently subjugated to accept a Marshall Plan, and (2) you have to have a Marshall Plan to put into effect.

Yea, I get that ...

Wasn't arguing, even though I don't agree, just summing up and leaving the conversation but you had to draw me back in.

Going on repeat ..

Japan and Germany were industrialized educated nations. Iraq was/is not. This is an important dynamic.

Total war. ie "bomb them into the dark ages". Iraq never left the dark ages Same with Vietnam in the 60's. blowing up trees or sand just doesn't have the same impact that blowing up factories has.

WW2 was an industrial war, Allied factories vs theirs. The Marshal Plan was based on rebuilding their vast war industry into something else.

If we would have blown up every goat pen in the whole country it still wouldn't have made one bit of difference and would not have propelled their culture into the 21st century, they would still be and still are herding goats ..

 

[NPT]

It was part of it and I kind of bought into the idea that if we toppled Saddam that we could move Iraq into moderation. It always seemed like the picture of Iraq we got was that they were progressive by Muslim standards and that they could possibly be an Egypt in the middle of the Gulf region.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ETA: I also don't know it it was a lie so much as a complete intelligence failure as to why we thought he had the WMD he did. We relied on satellite spying quite a bit and our human intelligence was coming from Ahmed Chalabi types who had a vested interest in not telling us the truth.

I've often wondered how our intelligent agencies could have been so wrong. Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's WMDs and then Bush comes along and keeps repeating the same things.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's WMDs and then Bush comes along and keeps repeating the same things.

You get that from Facebook?

 

[Sope Creek]

Yea, I get that ...

Wasn't arguing, even though I don't agree, just summing up and leaving the conversation but you had to draw me back in.

Going on repeat ..

Japan and Germany were industrialized educated nations. Iraq was/is not. This is an important dynamic.

Total war. ie "bomb them into the dark ages". Iraq never left the dark ages Same with Vietnam in the 60's. blowing up trees or sand just doesn't have the same impact that blowing up factories has.

WW2 was an industrial war, Allied factories vs theirs. The Marshal Plan was based on rebuilding their vast war industry into something else.

If we would have blown up every goat pen in the whole country it still wouldn't have made one bit of difference and would not have propelled their culture into the 21st century, they would still be and still are herding goats ..

Oh. I thought you were being, um, dismissive of Crazy's post. I didn't realize you were extending his post.

 

[Sope Creek]

I've often wondered how our intelligent agencies could have been so wrong. Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's WMDs and then Bush comes along and keeps repeating the same things.

Link?

 

[Sope Creek]

I've often wondered how our intelligent agencies could have been so wrong. Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's WMDs and then Bush comes along and keeps repeating the same things.

One reference . . . and it wasn't regarding the same things: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ays-bill-clinton-george-w-bush-had-basically/

 

[NPT]

You get that from Facebook?

No, places like this.

 

[Sope Creek]

No, places like this.

View embedded media

. . . that's once . . . you said "repeatedly". Where are the others?

 

[NPT]

Several people in this clip....

 

[UncleMark]

I firmly believe if there was an Islamic superpower who could police the middle east (without, you know, starting a war with us, Russia, or China), that would be the best possible scenario. And no, Saudi Arabia ain't it. It's probably Iran. Which we, of course, don't want to admit.

Except that there's no monolithic Islam. That whole Sunni/Shia split makes it impossible. Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) hate each other as bad if not worse than they hate us or the West. Hell, just look at what they're doing to each other in Syria. And all you have to do is look at the civil war and how the lines were drawn in Iraq after the overthrow.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

What role did W's lie about Saddam having WoMD have in your support for the war in Iraq?

It sealed my support . . . I was wrong also.

It wasn’t a lie. You can’t lie about something you believe is true, and nearly every intelligence service in the world believed it was true, as did President Clinton and nearly everyone in Congress that saw the intel estimates. I’m tired of hearing that falsely called a lie. The legitimate argument was about what we should have done about it. With 20/20 hindsight many of us would have made different decisions.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I gave Colin Powell the benefit of the doubt. Silly me.

You should have. He was telling what he believed to be the truth.

 

[UncleMark]

It wasn’t a lie. You can’t lie about something you believe is true, and nearly every intelligence service in the world believed it was true, as did President Clinton and nearly everyone in Congress that saw the intel estimates. I’m tired of hearing that falsely called a lie. The legitimate argument was about what we should have done about it. With 20/20 hindsight many of us would have made different decisions.

As was posted earlier, the people on the ground who were tasked with determining if Saddam had them said they did not.

 

[UncleMark]

You should have. He was telling what he believed to be the truth.

He got duped too.

 

[GiggityGoo]

The “dissimilar culture and history” argument just doesn’t rate. It’s debunked by the U.S. support among the urban, young population. As much as people don’t want to accept it, our role should have been to provide security until the old guard and Taliban quite literally died out. Meaning 40-50 years, maybe forever.