What mistakes has the Bush team made in Iraq?

Question

This is not quite the question you might initially think. I realize that there are a lot of people who think going in was a mistake. Or that we should have used more resources elsewhere.

I am really curious as to whether there are people with a military background or otherwise who would have executed the Iraq operation differently. People not opposed to the war, or who can at least look "militarily" at what has been done from March of 2003 onwards, and critique it with the benefit of hindsight. Take the stated goals of the Bush administration, and tell me how you would have achieved them differently. Strategy and tactics.

We might ALL learn something. Thanks!

Answer 1

Well the initial attack was a huge success. We defeated the army of Iraq in under 3 weeks. That is amazing HOOAH

What has followed should have been expected, but I do not think anyone could have seen the level of insurgency that has taken place.

Honestly I do not think that there is a perfect plan that could have accounted for it all. There were too many outside players. Iran and Syria, et al. We should have had a bigger focus on the borders of Iraq. Containment. Isolate the problem to make it easier to solve. We definitly should have secured all of the munitions in that country imidiatly. But then again most of the caches were hidden.
The hardest thing for a civilian to understand is that we are not at war with Iraq. We won that war. We are not fighting a uniformed army. And insurgent and civilian can only be destinguished by their actions. Women, children, men and women can all be terrorists. The war is unconventional to say the least.

We tried to fight a compationate war (oxymoron?) We let the media have too much influence over policy and tried to tippie toe around actual war. Basically, you can think of it as the US having had police forces throughout its history, yet there is still crime. Why? Becasue you have to be reactionary to the criminal. You cannot tell a criminal from a civilian untilt he crime is commited. We cannot attack an enemy position, camp, post, or base baecause they do not exist. there is no "front line". An insurgents weapon can be a cell phone used to trigger an IED. We shoot him or her and then its plastered on the news we killed an innocent civilian because they did not carry a conventional weapon.

It is very very complicated and often times civilians, especially media try to over simplify it and compare it to the norms of warfare. Impossible.
I have a few ideas of different approaches, but none can be proven and all have limitations and drawbacks. Our main goal now needs to be getting a new Iraqi security force up and running so that they can be the primary protectors of their nation. I want to see the Iraqi's take much mroe responsibility, we'll be there to help. They have taken steps towards true independence....but ultimately it will be up to them to survive

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.

It appears that the war’s advocates, Bush43, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfolwitz had unrealistic expectations. They thought it would be cakewalk of an invasion, the US forces would be greeted as liberators, a “Thomas Jefferson” would arise out of the populous and democracy would spring up overnight.

They gave no considerations to why we should go to war, what the objectives should be and what the exit strategy would be. There was no national strategy on their part.

Don Rumsfeld tried to micromanage the military, particularly the Army. He lost sight of the objective which was to win the war, provide security, rebuild the country and foster democracy. Instead he set about trying to “transform” the Army. The Army may have needed some transforming, but you don’t do it during a war. That is not the time to experiment, to “take chances” as he kept pushing for. Keep taking chances and sooner or later it’ll bite you. He totally dismissed the plans of the experts who had been planning for the contingency for years. Tommy Franks gave in to Rumsfeld, cutting the ground force to less than a third of what was called for.

Franks, Rumsfeld, and State gave little or no thought to post-hostility operations (Phase IV). If they did, they did nothing to plan for or implement it.

CENTCOM planned for the wrong war. The 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 they planned and trained for was not the war they were fighting.

Without a plan for Phase IV, 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 during Phase IV.

Each decision Jerry Bremmer (retired State Dept) made 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

Apparently, we did not do enough to secure the weapons and ordnance (explosives, mines etc.) that we captured during the initial military campaign. These weapons are being turned into roadside bombs and suicide bombs (called "improvised weapons") and are being used to kill civilians and troops.

Also, there was a delay in disarming the militias, which have developed into "death squads". They are being influenced by outside forces such as Al Quaida and Iran (it is suspected) to keep the sectarian violence going.

We also did not forsee the influx of foriegn fighters, so we did not control the borders effectively. This is why Iraq has become a safe haven for terrorists such as Al Quaida, when before it was not.

To do all of this, we would have required twice the number of troops, which in all probability would have forced us to reinstate the "draft". This would have been political suicide for the proponents of the war who assured us that victory could be achieved with minimal effort.

We did not comprehend what it was that was keeping that country together in the first place. That was "fear". Saddam Hussein held the country in his grip, and even gassed his own people for an assasination attempt.
Yugoslavia was the same under Tito, and it fell to pieces after his death. This was the cause of the Bosnian War. now it is stable as 2 seperate countries. Senator Joe Biden suggests that Iraq be split into 3 regions the same way (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis) and have 1 centralized government which splits the oil revenue. Not a bad idea.
Other than trying something like that, there is nothing we can do to stop these age-old grudges from working themselves out through a civl war, in which case, we need to put our bets on one side or another and get out of the way, unfortunately.

Answer 4

As I see it the miscues were:
1. Dismantling the Iraqi Army
2. Not enough troops during the initial invasion
3. Overly optimistic about Iraqi sympathy for US occupation.
4. Invading Iraq while still tied down in Afghanistan.
5. Going to war without the blessing of the UN.

The most important points I thinK:
Keeping the Iraqi army intact meant the army's weapons and equipment were secure. They would still have an organized Iraqi force to maintain order. No disgruntled, unemployed officers and men waiting to be recruited by terrorists.

We had to few forces to secure the country and maintain order. Additionally, Afghanistan still was unsecured.

With the blessing of the UN fewer nations would have been reluctant to send troops. Lacking this the US and the few allies had to go it alone and as it turned out not enough to secure the Sunni areas of Iraq.

Answer 5

Well I am not in the military, but I am the daughter of an AF Col. and have had many discussions with him on this subject so I guess that qualifies me a little. He says the biggest mistake Bush made was keeping Rumsfeld on as long as he did and Rumsfeld made the mistake of not sending in enough troops in the beginning and underestimating the enemy's ultimate insurgence movement. He agrees with what Bush is doing NOW-but we are caught in the middle of a civil war and we have to assist the right side in winning that war or we will be forever paying a price for leaving the middle east too soon.

Answer 6

It's impossible to look at the situation purely from the operational standpoint without first looking at the intelligence that wasn't gathered that would have contraindicated invasion. With a little homework, the administration would have learned about the rift between Sunnis and Shiites before the invasion. The post-Saddam chaos may not have been avoided entirely, but at least our soldiers would not have been left with their ***** in their hands saying "I thought they were going to greet us as liberators".
A little more homework would have shown that the people of Iraq, while grateful to be free from Saddam's tyranny were not remotely likely to adopt democracy anytime in the near or distant future. Nor would they take kindly to an extended occupation of their country by a nation that openly and unconditionally supports Israel.
Proper intelligence gathering would have confirmed the likelihood that foreign nationals and enemies of the US would flood the country and form what we are calling the "insurgency".
It would have been easy to see that aside from deposing Saddam's Ba'athist Party, virtually none of the administration's goals were feasible.
Operationally, the Pentagon grossly underestimated the number of troops needed to stabilize the country. This had several ramifications. First, the "coalition" lacked the troops necessary to effectively close Iraq's borders. The bulk of the insurgents are from outside of Iraq. Second, there was insufficient military presence to control rioting and looting immediately following the fall of the regime. This is overlooked as a contributing cause of anti-American sentiments from otherwise grateful Iraqis. "You freed me from tyranny, thanks, but all my stuff got stolen because you weren't here to stop it.
This is a big one. Sending General Geoffrey Miller from Guantanamo Bay to Iraq, while simultaneously approving harsher interrogation methods for detainees in the war on terror. These methods included: removal of clothing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and good old fashioned beating. Miller was specifically asked to go to Iraq because of his success at "getting" good intelligence from detainees in Cuba. Subsequently, the MPs at Abu Ghraib were to take their orders from military intelligence who performed the "interrogations". The events that occurred after this policy change and appointment has irreparably harmed the image of the United States of America forever. It also functioned as fast burning fuel to the growing insurgency.
The US has not been firm enough with the new Iraqi government to address the inequality of representation for the Sunnis. We have allowed the Shiite majority to shut out the Sunnis in this so called democracy.

Answer 7

I believe the only mistake he has made that I know of is that he should of started with more troops over there and just wipe the terrorists out before they had time to run to different locations.

I very much support this war and most of the good that is happening over there is never reported by anyone except the troops. and I know many in my family and friends that have gone over there and every single one of them have said that they are needed over there and that people thanked them. A good friend of mine who ultimately lost his life for the cause and backed it 100% said a child brought him a homemade US flag. Bush is not causing the terrorism over there the Terrorists are! They want the country to summit to there rule of oppression. Saddam killed over a million of his OWN PEOPLE and a million of other countries people with nerve gas, rape rooms, and other weapons of mass destruction in the 1990's. and said many times he still had them and was threatening to use them again. If Bush (like Clinton did) just sat back and did nothing we would probably have had a much worse attack on this nation than 9/11. during the Clinton years Clinton refused to do anything about the 6 terror attacks on the US and the united nations. Clearly talking does not change terrorist hearts. People seem to forget that the terrorists want to kill us. and have killed many of us. The terrorists want to defeat us and the freedom we stand for! If we back down now they will see us as cowards (as they have said on video many times) and will strike our homeland again. We need to support and pray for our troops! How can we say "I support you, but not what you are doing".

Answer 8

they have been banned simply by fact they are scumbags in each and every sense of the be conscious. George Bush President of u . s . of america is a guy without honor. He has unfold shame on u . s . of america, it somewhat is shape, and it somewhat is human beings. it somewhat is a comparatively embarrassing subject for each good American. This guy has spun thoroughly uncontrolled and he desires to be stopped in the present day. President Bush has decreased and discounted himself to not something greater then an insignificant "pedofile" and "conflict criminal." convey Bush to justice now and could God Bless u . s . of america!

Answer 9

the bush administration if they had to invade(which they didn,t) should have done more homework. im in 9th grade and i learned that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other. Bush thought they were together. he also thought they had weapons of mass destruction. or maybe that was a cover for going in there. we went in there not knowing what kind of weapons they enemy would use. we didn,t know they had armor piercing missles. but to answer your question our biggest mistake was invading.

Answer 10

He got a gentlemen C in Geography. That was big mistake years ago. Now he doesn't where all those countries are, and the people hes paid to tell just decided one day that they wouldn't