If you could change one decision about the War in Iraq, what would it be?

Question

Not including: "Don't start it in the first place." Anything else is fair game. Please explain why, and what effects you think it would have.

Answer 1

Not dismantled their police force and military. They were members of Saddam party obviously but that does not make them bad guys. You were either him or against him. It was self preservation to be a Saddam loyalist.

If we didnt have to rebuild their police and military from the ground up, we wouldnt have alot of problems we do. We are doing security check points and acting as police when thats what they should be doing at this point. At this point we shouldnt even be there.

Answer 2

If you could only change /one/ decision, "don't go in the first place" would be it - more than one thing would have to have been done differently to improve things.

Maybe a good contender would have been "don't disband the army" - I know, having a bunch of Ba'athists with guns patroling a country you want to turn democratic isn't a great idea, but it might have encouraged the Shiites to settle for a more equitable power-sharing arrangement in the new government (instead of skipping straight to civil war) and given Al Qaeda less of an oportunity to exand its influence.

Or, Tell Turkey: we go through your territory into the north /and/ you join the Coalition, or you get used to the phrase "neighboring Khurdistan." It think they might've gone for it. If not, going through with it and partitioning Iraq might have reduced the sectarian violence substantially.

And, of course, the ever popular "nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

Answer 3

These questions should be answered affirmatively before military action:

1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7) Is the action supported by the American people?

8) Do we have genuine broad international support?

I cannot in good conscience pretend at the answers to these questions, because I am not privy to what the Administration had knowledge of, at that time.

Answer 4

I think if they would have used the Powell Doctrine instead of Rummy's idiotic idea of winning a war on the cheap then we would already have the troops home by now. From the start I thought it was a stupid idea to try to take a country from its Capital out to its borders. Every successful invasion in history took small manageable pieces of territory first and moved in towards the Capital.

Answer 5

Initially to have send in a team of Special Forces immediately ahead of the requested quantity of troops to take out Saddam's regime.

That would have cut off the leaders from running, and then if we had the number of troops requested by the military to begin with, it would have been easier to stabilize large areas of land.

This would have prevented the spread of the Baath party and radical militia members, and would also have saved reckless bombing of the cities which created thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties.

Answer 6

I think we should have decided to win at all costs or not go at all. As many have said our troops are fighting a politically correct war similar to the British fighting the USA during our war for Independence. They came marching with their drums and big red coats and we picked them off one by one from the trees.

If we decide to put our troops in harms way than the gloves should be off. In war people die. It's unfortunate but we must win at all costs, or simply not enter at all. In the Marines you are taught to use as much force as is available to you to end the conflict as quickly as possible. Why would then go in and use kid gloves. No remorse...that is war.

Answer 7

I would have taken Colin Powell's advice and gone in with more troops from the very beginning.
It is clear now that too few troops are being used to go through a town and clean it up, and then the insurgents regroup when the troops have to leave.

Answer 8

I think they ought to just bomb them into next week and get rid of the damn terrorist once and for all. It seems like that's all they understand, that's been their only form of communication, look at the number of bombs since the occupation, we have bigger bombs so lets use them. That way we can bring our soldiers home and with no buildings to hide in the ones that are left will be easier to find.

Answer 9

Thats easy, when I decided to go to war I would have made my flanks were protected meaning the borders of Iran and syria were guarded and patroled by Allied forces preventing incursions and then going for Baghdad.

Answer 10

Disbanding the iraqi army and firing all Baathists. This guaranteed that (i) the insurgents would have a vast pool of manpower to draw on; (ii) the Sunnis would fear the change in government; and (iii) most importantly, that no governmental services would be performed, thereby alienating everyone.