what went wrong in iraq?

Answer 1

People thinking that a bloodless war was possible. Maybe we need less smart bombs and more smart people.

Answer 2

Not an easy question. While, there’s more than enough blame to go around, some mistakes stand out as being more significant than others.

Unrealistic expectations. Some thought the war would be a cakewalk, the US forces would be greeted as liberators, a “Thomas Jefferson” would arise out of the populous and democracy would spring up overnight.

OSD tried to micromanage the military, particularly the Army. They lost sight of the objective which was to win the war, provide security, rebuild the country and foster democracy. Instead OSD set about trying to “transform” the Army. The Army may have needed some transforming, but you don’t do it during a war. It is not the time to experiment, to “take chances”. Keep taking chances and sooner or later it’ll bite you. Ground forces were cutt to less than a third of what was called for.

CENTCOM planned for the wrong war. Appears they thought it would be a quick, conventional war, major battles in the open, often with tanks, followed by entire units surrendering to the allies.

The ground forces were slow to recognize that the war the planned and trained for was not the war they were fighting.

Little or no thought was given to post-hostility operations (Phase IV). Without a plan, ground forces didn’t know what to do after Sadam was deposed and the statute was toppled.

CENTCOM had neither the troops nor the organization to provide the security and stabilization needed for Phase IV.

Each Phase IV decision was the wrong one: disbanding the Iraq Army; debathification etc. Just one disaster after another.

Sometimes you only get once chance to make it right. We didn’t even come close.

Answer 3

I have to say "they" must have known exactly what would happen. Maybe Bush didn't seem too bright so we didn't think he'd do much harm but his administration certainly had the experience to know what would happen. G Bush Sr. wrote a book about the chaos that would result. Rumsfield & Cheney both had previous experience with Iraq and the region. The result of so called "bad intelligence"(do you really believe our intelligence is so bad?) was the most powerful war president ever, and more infringement on constitutional and privacy rights ever. I think the war went just the way they planned.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring while in his jail cell during the Nuremberg Trials[

Answer 4

In my opinion, we did not beat them badly enough.

In WW TWO, we beat both Germany and Japan into the ground. They were devastated. When we moved in to occupy, they were totally dependent upon the Allies for food, water, medicine, materials to rebuild, etc. If they did not cooperate, they died. Having total control over the enemy, even so far as what he gets to eat, is a major incentive for them to behave and cooperate. The people also had to work hard just to rebuild their nation.

In Iraq, we moved in and were so careful not to damage much of the infrastructure, that dependency never came. They do NOT need the occupying forces to get them water, food, energy or pretty much anything else. They have no real incentive to cooperate. Their nation was barely damaged and they are not having to rebuild it, the USA is hiring outsiders to do it. Instead, the people of Iraq, rather than scrambling for food and water, rather than rebuilding what was damaged, have lots of time and opportunity to cause trouble. Which they are doing.

The win was too easy for the USA, the lose was too easy on Iraq. None of the things that usually come of war happened.
So now we have the Civil War of Iraq with the USA caught in the middle.

Answer 5

I will not argue the legitimacy of going to war in the first place, but will use as a premise the fact that we were going to invade the country.

1. The generals in charge who had battle plans and strategy in place were ignored. The one general who said we would need at least 100,000 more troops to secure the country was fired.

2.The Iraqi army was disbanded, but I don't believe it was disarmed. We didn't have enough troops on the ground to guard armories, and at least one was broken into and the weapons taken.

3. No plans were in place to quickly employ the majority of Iraqis on projects to rebuild infrastructure, etc. So there are a large number of idle people sitting around with nothing to do except to listen to leaders preaching hatred and vengence, who eventually became insurgents.

4. The saddest part of all is that the advise of professional, trained military personnell is still being ignored by the Adminstration. The Iraq fiasco was caused by the huberis of people who had never gone to war thinking they knew better how to do things than those who are professionally trained.

Answer 6

it is been indubitably proved that Iraq had really no longer something to do with 9-11. many of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, President Bush's fashionable Arab united states of america. to indicate that the Iraqi war change into retribution for 9-11 is grossly faulty. In idea, we invaded Iraq because the Bush administration confident Congress and the american those that Saddam had guns of mass destruction, and that Iraq change right into a right away probability to the safe practices of the united states--none of which change into authentic. when we invaded Iraq and placed no WMD, Bush determined that the offensive should be referred to as, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Then even as the civil war broke out between the Sunnis and Shiites, Bush then determined that it truly is a war on terror. those having a judgment of precise and incorrect and fairly paying interest can merely finish that the war in Iraq change into initiated below fake pretenses and that to proceed with this insanity is unthinkable. yet Bush retains to rigidity-feed us this war and pretends it is the first the front on terror. no longer something may be farther from the actuality. The war is an abomination, and history will coach that it change into and is the biggest blunder in defense force history.

Answer 7

Several things. First. the Iraqi army was disbanded too thoroughly; it should have been harnessed for civilian duty. Second, the ethos among the radicals in that area was not well understood: when you have lots of people willing to die for a cause, defending against them is difficult. Thirdly, the Sunnis and the Shias have been at each other's throats for over a thousand years, and it would have required a quite remarkable bit of statecraft to bring the parties together more effectively. All things considered, the Iraqi government internally has done fairly well at this -- but it has not been able to rally the people in the street to the cause very effectively.

Answer 8

Bush II should NEVER have invaded. In Saddam, he had a mortal enemy of Iran and Osama Bin Laden, so in a sense he had an ally in the Middle East.

The entire rest of the world knew how instable Iraq would be with Sunis, Shiites, and Kurds, and they IMPLORED Bush not to invade. This invasion was doomed and illconcieved from day 1.

If Bush had followed the advice of the CIA, who told him "Saddam was no threat and was all bottled up", in the first place, we would not be in this mess.

Answer 9

a better question is "Why do i think something went wrong in Iraq?"

think about what sources of info made you think that, and then you'll realize "What went wrong in Iraq?"

The Democratic Media + Congress fed you lies and shy'd away from unfavorable statistics and intelligence information.
And the public went along with it, and now we are stuck with this Congress that's trying to blame Bush for the Middle East's terrorists, and giving sympathy for Iran's President.
Now we cant even give the Army begging for troops any more troops. Why? Congress wont allow them to have any more troops.

If Congress allows Bush to apply his plans in Iraq, thus giving him more troops... (for many reasons i wont bother wasting your time with) this troops surge could help end terrorism in the Middle East.

checklist:

-Iran's younger generation wins its revolution against the Iranian president, then applying its capitalist democracy in Iran..
-Afghanistan is free of Al-Queda terrorists
-Iraq's new government allies with Israel and the US/NATO and declares it will help the US with any future attempts to cracking down on terrorists regime to repay its debt to America after liberating them from Saddam's terrorist Regime.
-Pakistan's Taliban gov't is overun by US/Iraqi/Afghan/British/French/Israel troops

However, if the Bush Administration starts to fullfill these steps, and show the increasing chances that all these steps will be fulfilled within the next 15 years...

how in the heck will the Democrats take over the remaining parts of the Government?
They wont, therefore, If Bush fails.. the Democrats win
If Bush succeeds (aka passes these plans for Iraq)... the Democrats Lose.

Not only will the Democrats lose the office in 2008, the # of positions they will hold in Congress will fall even lower then the # of positions they held before the '06 mid-term elections.

Dont believe me that the only reason Democrats deny Bush's Iraq policy is because of the fear that Bush will succeed?

Guess who wrote up the plan Bush is trying to pass in Congress...
General Patraeus.
Guess who voted (unanymously) for Gen. Patraeus almost solely because of his work on the plan...
Congress...
Guess who is refusing/afraid of passing the plan Gen. Patraeus created, and Bush is trying to get funds for....
Congress...

Make sense to you? Doesnt to me.

Answer 10

Nothing went wrong in Iraq, only the liberals and american media have to have something to talk about, if we were not over there they would be asking why are we not there, there's WMD's there and saddam is supporting terrorist worldwide

Answer 11

If they were actually trying to secure the country they should have secured the borders and policed who came in or out!

So........that leads me to believe they in fact wanted the Iranians to come into the country to fight on behalf of the Shiites to ensure a war with Iran!
It is in the Fascist economical benefit to have Iran helping the Shiite sectarian fighting to use that as a reason to go after Iran.
Furthering the US and UK interest in who controls the Middle East is the goal!