What military lessons have we learned from the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Question

Specifically, I am looking for answers that touch on the scenario where you have one country under the thumb of a powerful and ruthless dictator who really represents 35% of the people from a sectarian point of view with the rest of the country being really other ethnic or religious groups who are not conducive to working well together and are perhaps chomping at the bit to get at each other and settle centuries old grudges that the dictator had kept in check.

Take into consideration as well that neigboring countries who had been long time enemies of the invaded country would look to move in and take advantage of the power vaccum created unpon the deposition of the evil dictator to exert their influence on that countries affairs.
Finally, consider also that the invading country has enemis that might want to flock to the occupied country to make mischief and make try to disrupt the invaders' plans.

So .....in the future, if you were a military commander in chief, and y

what lessons would you take from the iraq experience in executing your approach to the next iraq like invasion?

Answer 1

our leaders new about these questions before and still they went to Iraq.
they didn't care about the answers then, I don't think they care now.

Answer 2

If one were to decide that deposing a regime was the best course of action, you can't shy away from the term "nation building". This was one of the gravest mistakes made after the initial successful invasion of Iraq. The administration rejected the responsibility of building a new nation to take the place of the old one. They tried to quickly prop up a central government and force it on the people from the top down. This strategy will never build a successful democracy. What should happen if such a mission is ever undertaken in the future, and it really shouldn't be any time soon, is that each town and village should be stabilized one by one. Services restored, leaders selected, police forces established. Our role should be as liasons to provide assistance they need to provide for their needs, help establish order in the short term and establish a relationship with the community. As each village is stablized a city government can be established. As roads become safer regions can come together to form broader district governments. Then when enough of the country is stable, a convention can be held to discuss whether or not to form a unified government. That way every community is providing for its own needs and defenses and everyone is part of the process. A true democracy can only be built from the ground up. It can't be forced on the people from the top down. They will fight it. A people more involved in their future will be more willing to defend it against foreign threats so the terrorists would find far fewer safe havens. The other part is patience. A situation like this is going to take time. Don't let whiney reporters talking about quagmires 3 weeks into the operation change your policy. Since this was not done right in the beginning it is very difficult to go back and do it the right way. Iraq will probably be torn by sectarian violence for at least 3 more years if plans were begun now to rectify the errors made 4 years ago. The only way to de-escalate tensions is to decentralize power giving more autonomy to local populations. But this would leave them more vulnerable to Iran and less capable against Al-Qaeda elements. So we might have to maintain a presence while they reorganize their government, but we can't do it for them. It is a big mess.

Answer 3

What I hope we have learned is to pay attention to the Colin Powell's advice, known now as the "Powell Doctrine", in the future. The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

Answer 4

Although you are trying to paint that Iraq was in a "civil war" situation that Saddam had well under control, you missed the atrocities that he ordered and executed on the Iraqi people. You forget that he Invaded a sovereign nation in 1991 (KUWAIT) and had yet to comply with UN Resolutions nearly twelve years later. You neglect the fact that we had no verification that he had ceased his production of Chemical and Biological weapons and that we had intelligence of his pursuit of necessary technology to develop Nuclear weapons as well as long range delivery vehicles. You forget that he used revenue from the illegal trade, violating sanctions of the international community to rebuild his military and to build lavish palaces for himself, his family and his political cronies, while his citizenry were for the most part in destitute poverty. Now not withstanding that, the lesson learned is to be cognizant of not only the political strife and military capability of the regime but to assess the impact of the theological differences as well as the probability of terror organizations taking an active part in trying to disrupt the establishment of a democracy.

Answer 5

Simple: you never will win wars by intervening into other country affairs where they are having never ending conflict. Like Vietnam. USA lost in Vietnam. USA will lose in Iraq. No doubt.

Answer 6

No one can ever win an unjust war.

Answer 7

never listen to british intel