No one, not Petraeus, not Bush, not McCain, not Hillary, not Obama, not Rudy, thinks we "win" because of any actions our military now can take, regardless of whom you side with. Fact is, WE ARE WAITING for the Iraqi's to get their collective, um, sh*t together, to seek an amicable political solution there.
Our military "won" their goal in a matter of weeks. Now, they are waiting and waiting and waiting...
Is this a lesson learned? Can we expect our military, in the future, to "win" politcal battles in foreign lands?
2007-09-17 01:01:24 · 13 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ofcourse it is a very difficult problem. It looks impossible to me.
2007-09-17 15:59:19 · answer #1 · answered by Flying Soldier 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that describes a significant part, but certainly not all, of the problems. Going back to the beginning...
If there was good intelligence about the social and political realities (sectarianism) of Iraq at the time, it doesn't seem to have been used as a basis for any plans and strategies. From the very beginning, it was like the old joke about the dog chasing the sports car... with no idea what to do with it if he caught it.
In the first few weeks of the invasion, I remember several military and political analysts asking about forward plans, reconstruction plans and exit strategies. No answers then; none now either. It's all been 'shoot from the hip' military tactics, with no clear military and political strategy for transition. It's as if our entire strategy has been tied to "We'll show them democracy, they'll love it, and take to it like ducks to water". As you point out, our military is holding the ball, with nobody militarily or diplomatically prepared to take the pass. I don't think the fault for that situation lies entirely with the Iraqis.
I heard an interesting news opinion yesterday, the person (can't remember who) said that the Iraqis are making progress, but that they do things differently. We expect actions to be accomplished with a 'top-down' approach. Progress for the Iraqis happens in a more 'grass roots', bottom-up approach, starting with the individual tribes. I think there's some sense in that. Perhaps our State Department has a good plan to assist the Iraqis in accomplishing goals in a manner that works for their culture? Or worse, does our Secretary of State not have a plan either?
2007-09-17 09:09:03 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greetings. in aggression there is no winning as such. We attacked because our president had a hard on for Iraqi oil. there was never a question of actually winning anything. When a big bully attacks a small child he does not win when he beats the defenseless child, he simply does it. Note, check history. U.S. has never actually won a war. Certainly not on its own. And there is no winning a war of aggression on a weaker nation without a military to defend itself with. Besides the goals of our government change more often then the weather here in the northeast. If you want to win you have to do it very rapidly, before the goal changes to something else.
2007-09-17 08:24:53 · answer #3 · answered by Rich M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not without effective planning they was not post war strategy the military was disbanded the infastructure was destroyed. they should of kept the iraqi army and not done as much bombing. The only people who can sort iraq out now is the iraqi people another lesson learnt you cannot impose democracy on a country when theres so many different factions in iraq its a power struggle civil war might be the only way there will be peace in iraq and after all the blood shed there could be a goverment just a bad as the bath party and saddam with very anti western views
2007-09-17 08:14:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are correct as far as it goes.
But there is one added factor. The view you outlined is based on a misconception. From the Iraqi viewpoint (never mind whether it is "right" or "wrong"--but how THEY see things) we are invaders and they are fighting to get their country back. So--if our political leaders expect them to start co-operating (get their sh*t together) they are going to be waiting a long, long time. The Iraqi government is seen as a puppet regime and has no legitimacy. It will last as long as we prop it up--maybe.
Look at history. Peoples under foreign domination do not stop resisting. A foreign power may be able to construct a superficial "peace" through a sufficiently harsh level of oppression--for as long as they keep the pressure on. But--the French were in Indochina for over a centryry, the british in India for over 150 years, and other European natiosns in many other countries for even longer. It made no difference.
2007-09-17 09:30:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Iraq you have the Kurd's, Sunni's and Shiite's all trying to take claim and run the country.
Among them, Iraq is their Country, but who runs it? While they go through their differences with each other - something they've never before done openly and safely among each other without much bloodshed... Going through the motions of learning trusting and respecting each other while they US and the Iraqi forces try to keep peace among all their people...
Well, if you didn't get that out of Patreus' or Crockers' testimony, then you're among many that seriously missed the boat.
Our military isn't there 'changing' Iraq. They're there to bring peace among their people while they get their political poop in a group.
2007-09-17 08:23:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lessons on nation building were learned 100s of years ago by the British. You need to be pragmatic and work with the power structures already in place. Eventually you can get the outcome you want and leave.
I don't think this Administration has as much respect for the lessons of history as they should have.
2007-09-17 08:09:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your Military is not there for Iraqi and their protection but for oil and control over Middle east.
But still watie the big distaster only start you will see that you have more to lose.
2007-09-17 09:02:01 · answer #8 · answered by Jane Doe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran, today, have just called Sarkosy of France a miniature Bush... This whole thing is smelling awful and now a Blair clone, see that with Bush on the way out and Blair gone he can take on the mantle of inflammatory commentary.....
The French people will have his b alls on a plate.... They have too much interests in Iran.
2007-09-17 08:14:14 · answer #9 · answered by Dream Realized 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Past great general have said all wars are political.
2007-09-17 08:05:39 · answer #10 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋