WHere the Iraq war went wrong-

welsh

Junkmaster
Apparently, the Army's explanation- we fucked up the planning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92022118

So its officially a fuck up.

Nation
Army's Official Iraq War Report Cites Poor Planning

by Guy Raz

Morning Edition, June 30, 2008 · The Army's new official history of the Iraq war says its senior leaders failed to properly plan for the aftermath of the 2003 invasion. It's a conclusion that others have reached before. But this time, the Army — in a 700-page book released today — is criticizing itself.

Shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. Tommy Franks, may have sealed the U.S. military's fate in Iraq for the next four years.

Franks ordered the team that led the invasion — the Coalition Forces Land Component Command, or CFLCC — to leave Baghdad and to set up shop in Kuwait.

CFLCC was an operational unit run by some ovf the Army's most experienced commanders, known as "the dream team" among senior officers, including Gen. Jack Keane, who was the Army's vice chief of staff at the time.

"They had been together for about eight or nine months, almost a year, in preparing for the war, then executed the invasion, and now they were going to move to Kuwait and essentially just be a support headquarters. It seemed to be, in my judgment, very ill-advised to do something like that," Keane said.

With CFLCC in Kuwait, Franks assigned the Army's Fifth Corps to take its place. The only problem was that Fifth Corps was a tactical unit, trained to fight and defeat Saddam Hussein's army.

"It was a very conscious decision that was made by General Franks to do that, because in my assessment, he believed that the war was over and that most of the forces would be out by August. And therefore, he just needed a caretaker headquarters, if you will, on the ground to manage the redeployment of forces," said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the Fifth Corps commander at the time.

Sanchez's headquarters was understaffed and ill-equipped to handle what unfolded in Iraq.

"It did put us on a path during the first 18 to 24 months of having tremendous difficulties. It led to the enhanced insurgency, and to the tremendous instability that we faced in the country," Sanchez said.

The decision to place Sanchez's Fifth Corps in charge of Iraq may have been the single biggest military blunder after the fall of Baghdad, according to the Army's new official history of the war.

Franks was not available for comment.

The book, released today, is based on interviews with 200 senior Army officers involved in the invasion and its aftermath.

It's an attempt to expose the mistakes that were made — in the hope that they won't be repeated by future officers.

Retired Gen. Bob Scales, a former Army historian himself, says the book is remarkably candid. He calls it a "chronicle of failure."

"The Army's got a strong internal culture of self-criticism. Hidden from the general population is the passion and often the vitriol that goes on, particularly among and between officers, particularly general officers, over the conduct of operations," Scales said.

While the book doesn't single out specific officers for criticism, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the general officer corps — generals, the report implies, who failed to insist on better post-invasion planning.

"I think we could have asked tougher questions. ... Why didn't we ask 'What happens if the regime doesn't surrender?' " Keane said.

The next installment of the Army's official Iraq war history is due out in about a year.
 
People must remember though, that this is the military that look at themselves, I do not think that the politicians were completely innocent in the issue of the iraq screwupp.
 
Loxley said:
I do not think that the politicians were completely innocent in the issue of the iraq screwupp.

Hell, they were more to blame than anybody.
Let's strap them up in Kevlar and ship them out to another country to possibly die. Then, a lot more of them would be reluctant to go to war over a few fuzzy aerial photographs.

EDIT:
I reread this a couple of times, but still don't get it:
With CFLCC in Kuwait, Franks assigned the Army's Fifth Corps to take its place. The only problem was that Fifth Corps was a tactical unit, trained to fight and defeat Saddam Hussein's army.

They were stationed in Baghdad... What relevance does them being trained to defeat Saddam Hussein's Army have? Why wouldn't they be able to hold on the defensive? It's not like their guns or tactics were all of a sudden obsolete because of the transition. The ONLY problem seems like they had a lack of equipment.
 
Makagulfazel said:
Loxley said:
I do not think that the politicians were completely innocent in the issue of the iraq screwupp.

Hell, they were more to blame than anybody.
Let's strap them up in Kevlar and ship them out to another country to possibly die. Then, a lot more of them would be reluctant to go to war over a few fuzzy aerial photographs.

EDIT:
I reread this a couple of times, but still don't get it:
With CFLCC in Kuwait, Franks assigned the Army's Fifth Corps to take its place. The only problem was that Fifth Corps was a tactical unit, trained to fight and defeat Saddam Hussein's army.

They were stationed in Baghdad... What relevance does them being trained to defeat Saddam Hussein's Army have? Why wouldn't they be able to hold on the defensive? It's not like their guns or tactics were all of a sudden obsolete because of the transition. The ONLY problem seems like they had a lack of equipment.
And understaffed I think it says there. Biggest problem seems to be that the staff that was considered the collection of the best and brightest in the army was sent to relax in kuwait.

This might sound naive, but is there any reason why a tactical unit is worse than any other unit for policing iraq? Any US army dudes here that can explain the difference?
 
Makagulfazel said:
With CFLCC in Kuwait, Franks assigned the Army's Fifth Corps to take its place. The only problem was that Fifth Corps was a tactical unit, trained to fight and defeat Saddam Hussein's army.

They were stationed in Baghdad... What relevance does them being trained to defeat Saddam Hussein's Army have? Why wouldn't they be able to hold on the defensive? It's not like their guns or tactics were all of a sudden obsolete because of the transition. The ONLY problem seems like they had a lack of equipment.

Imagine if you will. Your asking troops who are trained to seek out and kill/capture uniformed soldiers to: seek out non-uniformed soldiers, detect road side bombs, retrain the entire police and military force.

Oh and they were told to focus on working with political leaders. Not the tribal leaders who actually lead the people.

We didn't properly use the special forces guys who were supposed to do the above.

HOWEVER!

In the words of a marine who wrote the book "God Willing"(which is on his first tour).

Iraq is night and day from his first tour from his second. His first tour I believe was in 2003 and his second ended in early 2008 I believe.

I haven't read his book yet but I'm looking forward to it.

We failed to understand their culture, and we failed to put the right people for the job in the right places.
 
welsh said:
Where the Iraq war went wrong-

Just wait another five years, and people will finally start entertaining the notion that the whole idea was a fuck-up.
 
Wooz said:
welsh said:
Where the Iraq war went wrong-

Just wait another five years, and people will finally start entertaining the notion that the whole idea was a fuck-up.

What? You don't believe the reports of violence going down and the Iraqi economy rising?

Yeah, we started out with our hands in our pants going "DUR HUR HUR WE GOT SADDAM!" and thinking it was all over.

But since 06 we've been using a strategy that is working. At the time, we already knew the surge in violence was going to happen as early as 2004, so don't bother citing that. Al-Qaeda had it in their plans to lay low for a few years then attack strongly. We do know that.
 
I think a lot of folks think its s big fuck up.

One of the nice things about the US Army is that it can be self-critical, and in that way, learn. If you lose a battle but don't understand why you lost it, then you are likely to repeat the mistake. Its to the Army's credit that it is learning how to fight insurgency.

That said, I think this should also be interpreted as a criticism of the military, as an institution, of the Bush administration. After all, it was Rumsfeld who downsized the military and wanted a smaller, leaner force in Iraq. And Rumsfeld got the approval of Bush.

Accountability means responsibility- and I think that falls on the White House.
 
welsh said:
I think a lot of folks think its s big fuck up.

One of the nice things about the US Army is that it can be self-critical, and in that way, learn. If you lose a battle but don't understand why you lost it, then you are likely to repeat the mistake. Its to the Army's credit that it is learning how to fight insurgency.

That said, I think this should also be interpreted as a criticism of the military, as an institution, of the Bush administration. After all, it was Rumsfeld who downsized the military and wanted a smaller, leaner force in Iraq. And Rumsfeld got the approval of Bush.

Accountability means responsibility- and I think that falls on the White House.

Little two second comment.

Better words I have not heard for some time.

Welsh 08 :P
 
What? You don't believe the reports of violence going down and the Iraqi economy rising?

Irrelevant to what I said: The Iraq war is/was a fuck-up of gigantic proportions. Saddam's tyrannical regime could have been dealt with in another way than an unilateral invasion decision.

Ah Teen said:
But since 06 we've been using a strategy that is working. At the time, we already knew the surge in violence was going to happen as early as 2004, so don't bother citing that.

Proof?

Al-Qaeda had it in their plans to lay low for a few years then attack strongly. We do know that.

Here's a newsflash, buck-o. There was *no* significant Al Quaeda presence in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

Hold your horses on the "strategy is working" claim, just you wait until Sadr gets his shit together and starts another civil war, once the coalition troops are out of there. And nowaydays, you've got hundreds of different paramilitary organizations all over the place.

Needless to say, we're talking about a country with rich oil deposits in times when oil prices skyrocket over OPEC crisis records. There's a lot of money to be made, depending on who controls the oil fields.

Myeah. The future for those folks sure looks bright.

welsh said:
One of the nice things about the US Army is that it can be self-critical

This is a joke, right?
 
Wooz said:
Just wait another five years, and people will finally start entertaining the notion that the whole idea was a fuck-up.

I thought that was more or less established fact by now. I mean, not as established as - say - Bay of Pigs, but more established as totally pointless than Vietnam and Korea taken together.

W said:
This is a joke, right?

I wouldn't know, but why? I'd figure the USAF are comparatively pretty self-critical/adaptable.
 
Why? Here's why: It's obvious any army has to have some level of self-criticism, as an institution. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as "tactics" or "strategy".

However, I read Welsh's post as if the chief of staff had sat down, thought the situation over and unanimously declared: "Damn, George. It turned out that this war was pretty stupid after all".

I thought that was more or less established fact by now.

I don't think there is such a thing as an 'established fact' when you're talking about americans' opinion on a war their country participated. I'm pretty sure a lot of people think the war was/is necessary and beneficient, and freed the Iraqui people from an evil dictator.
 
Hopefully they don't plan to 'liberate' anyone else, Violence may be necessary, but be above the board about why you're doing it so that the patriots don't feel like they've been arseraped by their own country because they believed in something greater than themselves, only to turn out to be a cash-grab.
 
Wooz said:
What? You don't believe the reports of violence going down and the Iraqi economy rising?

Irrelevant to what I said: The Iraq war is/was a fuck-up of gigantic proportions. Saddam's tyrannical regime could have been dealt with in another way than an unilateral invasion decision.

Ah Teen said:
But since 06 we've been using a strategy that is working. At the time, we already knew the surge in violence was going to happen as early as 2004, so don't bother citing that.

Proof?
Try reading books by US intelligence officers released after 2007. It's not plastered everywhere, just a mention here and there.

If you want me to find a reference. Piss me off enough, otherwise it isn't worth several hours hours finding the exact book from an exact author.

It's one paragraph in 8 potential books.

Its not widely published because it gives insight into how much we know or don't know.
Wooz said:
Al-Qaeda had it in their plans to lay low for a few years then attack strongly. We do know that.

Here's a newsflash, buck-o. There was *no* significant Al Quaeda presence in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

No shit. There was after the invasion. That and it wasn't just the plan for Iraq but also Afghanistan.

Wooz said:
Hold your horses on the "strategy is working" claim, just you wait until Sadr gets his shit together and starts another civil war, once the coalition troops are out of there. And nowaydays, you've got hundreds of different paramilitary organizations all over the place.

No, the war will never be over for the Iraqis, just diminished. Then again, Israel have to deal with the same and they are doing pretty well.

We shouldn't ever leave entirely. Neo-colonialism, maybe. Just like Germany and Japan bend over every time America wants something.

Just like our bases in Germany and Japan, Iraq is a strategic point in the region. Also a far more acceptable point than Saudi Arabia.
 
Wow. That is all I have to say. And that was yesterday. I guess it wont be long till we joes get our brief on this.... Oh, well, 8 months to go.
 
DarkLegacy said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

^ Cheney speaks for himself.

(Note, this is 14 years ago. They knew the outcome, 14 years ago.)

I think he forgot to mention how much he loves Haliburton and the cash his company gets from oil.

I hate how politicians do a 180 as soon as they get into office. Too bad we still allow lobbyists. If we didn't have those fuckers, it'd really be a decision by the people, as opposed to a decision by the corporations.
 
Wooz said:
However, I read Welsh's post as if the chief of staff had sat down, thought the situation over and unanimously declared: "Damn, George. It turned out that this war was pretty stupid after all".

Actually the bit from the article goes like-

CFLCC was an operational unit run by some ovf the Army's most experienced commanders, known as "the dream team" among senior officers, including Gen. Jack Keane, who was the Army's vice chief of staff at the time.

"They had been together for about eight or nine months, almost a year, in preparing for the war, then executed the invasion, and now they were going to move to Kuwait and essentially just be a support headquarters. It seemed to be, in my judgment, very ill-advised to do something like that," Keane said.

Instead, General Franks put the 5th corp in charge, a unit that was not appropriate for post-war occupation/reconstruction.

That's the problem- the US army has been institutionally orientated to fighting the most dangerous existential threat to the US- a major land war in Europe or Asia with a power rival like the USSR. It's a high tech army based on delivering a lot of firepower on targets. Civil-political reconstruction is a different kind of mission.

That's not to say that US hasn't done intervention. The US intervention in Haiti, or other interventions in Latin America, but often the US military pulls out shortly after it does the heavy fighting.

Its rather telling that the US army is tried to occupy a nation and lacked interpreters.

I don't think there is such a thing as an 'established fact' when you're talking about americans' opinion on a war their country participated. I'm pretty sure a lot of people think the war was/is necessary and beneficient, and freed the Iraqui people from an evil dictator.

I think its fair to say that there is a lot of debate about the merits of the war and that a lot of Americans are displeased. Why they are displeased, however, is a good question.

I personally think its a misinterpretation to think that Americans are squeamish about war, or even that the number of US dead is the problem. The US was not squeamish in going to war and was willing to accept much higher casualties than we've suffered. Furthermore, I think the fact that the US government had to sell the war isn't unusual. Roosevelt tried to sell World War 2 to the American people and even then it took the Japanese to get us in the war.

I think what frustrates Americans is that the war is still going on. What Americans don't like is losing and they don't like waste. To a lot of Americans the war has been a waste of money and lives and has shown very little of the promised return.

If you start saying "its US imperialism" a lot of Americans will look for another justification, because, deep down, Americans don't like the idea of being imperialistic (which might explain why they know so little about US policy in Latin America).

That Saddam was a bad fellow and was deposed was, for many, enough justification. My feeling is that the sanctions had failed and the US was not willing to tolerate Saddam + oil pressure.

That the US tried to take out Iraq at the same time Rumsfeld was trying to downsize and slim the military. That meant cutting corners.

Which is what gets us into trouble. You can't go to war on the cheap.
 
Back
Top