5 ms·

It is interesting to note how Ivan Rogers, someone who arguably understands Europe more than anyone else in government estimated it would take up to 10 years to

by weavie 8y ago

It is interesting to note how Ivan Rogers, someone who arguably understands Europe more than anyone else in government estimated it would take up to 10 years to come up with a satisfactory deal. But he was essentially pushed out as he was generally considered by the government to be too pessimistic about the whole affair.. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/post-brexit-trade-deal-could-take-10-years-still-fail-warns/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/post-brexit-trad...

arethuza 8y ago
I can strongly recommend Tim Shipman's "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" for an account of the post Brexit vote annus horribilis. The only thing to look forward to with Brexit is reading his account, some time next year, of the current antics.
- weavie 8y ago
  Agree. I have just finished reading it. It has left me wondering, are all administrations this shambolic - we are all humans after all - and this book is just a rare glimpse into what goes on behind the scenes, or is this just an exceptional circumstance? Maybe a bit of both. It would be interesting to read about what goes on behind a really well run government - should one exist..
duxup 8y ago
I recall a US general who thought it would take more troops and time than the POTUS wanted to manage the situation in Iraq before the invasion. He retired.... years later we sent in a ton more troops and arguably never accomplished the goal and it is still a mess.
- jopsen 8y ago
  In some way Vietnam demonstrated that you could add more troops and time and still not get what you wanted :) Did we know what we wanted in Iraq? Does anyone know what they want from Brexit? I'm not convinced any of this was well thought out..
  - duxup 8y ago
    True about Vietnam. With Iraq the issue was just the lack of manpower to maintain control security and manage various factions (providing them a sense of security). In Iraq more troops did actually (for the time being) provide a lot more control and stability that was sorely needed. Long term it may have been doomed to fail no matter what. I agree, the goals of both were not thought out and likely not attainable, ever.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      USA should have Saddaam 2.0 ready to take over. All top military and tribal people should have been bribed to go along. Democracy is hard and USA can't do it everywhere. Not that democracy yields great results everywhere. In a lot of countries it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        It might have worked to do what we did at the end of WWII to Germany and Japan: occupy in overwhelming force for at least a decade, changing both the culture and the machinery of government before we left. The US didn't have the political will to do that in Iraq, though.
        onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>changing both the culture and the machinery of government before we left If we invaded then for a 100 years, maybe.
        jopsen 8y ago
        The culture in Japan and Germany is very different... And the war that was fought was more even. Did the US every win in Iraq or did most of the Iraqies refuse to fight? Note. I not suggesting war is ever a solution to anything :)
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > Did we know what we wanted in Iraq? Saddam was a dictator with a history of reneging on promises, playing the international community for a fool, terrorizing his own people, who might be harboring WMDs [1], and who is vulnerable to an attack with overwhelming force. There was no competent planning of what to do after removing Saddam from power, though. [1] In retrospect, we know he wasn't. But at the time, he was definitely trying hard to play up the idea that he might have them, probably to try to gain leverage in international negotiations. Even the UN weapons inspectors had to conclude their report with "we couldn't find anything, but the Iraqis are being so shifty we can't be sure."

by weavie 8y ago

arethuza 8y ago

I can strongly recommend Tim Shipman's "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" for an account of the post Brexit vote annus horribilis. The only thing to look forward to with Brexit is reading his account, some time next year, of the current antics.

weavie 8y ago
Agree. I have just finished reading it. It has left me wondering, are all administrations this shambolic - we are all humans after all - and this book is just a rare glimpse into what goes on behind the scenes, or is this just an exceptional circumstance? Maybe a bit of both. It would be interesting to read about what goes on behind a really well run government - should one exist..

duxup 8y ago

I recall a US general who thought it would take more troops and time than the POTUS wanted to manage the situation in Iraq before the invasion. He retired.... years later we sent in a ton more troops and arguably never accomplished the goal and it is still a mess.

jopsen 8y ago
In some way Vietnam demonstrated that you could add more troops and time and still not get what you wanted :) Did we know what we wanted in Iraq? Does anyone know what they want from Brexit? I'm not convinced any of this was well thought out..
- duxup 8y ago
  True about Vietnam. With Iraq the issue was just the lack of manpower to maintain control security and manage various factions (providing them a sense of security). In Iraq more troops did actually (for the time being) provide a lot more control and stability that was sorely needed. Long term it may have been doomed to fail no matter what. I agree, the goals of both were not thought out and likely not attainable, ever.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    USA should have Saddaam 2.0 ready to take over. All top military and tribal people should have been bribed to go along. Democracy is hard and USA can't do it everywhere. Not that democracy yields great results everywhere. In a lot of countries it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      It might have worked to do what we did at the end of WWII to Germany and Japan: occupy in overwhelming force for at least a decade, changing both the culture and the machinery of government before we left. The US didn't have the political will to do that in Iraq, though.
      - onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>changing both the culture and the machinery of government before we left If we invaded then for a 100 years, maybe.
      - jopsen 8y ago
        The culture in Japan and Germany is very different... And the war that was fought was more even. Did the US every win in Iraq or did most of the Iraqies refuse to fight? Note. I not suggesting war is ever a solution to anything :)
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > Did we know what we wanted in Iraq? Saddam was a dictator with a history of reneging on promises, playing the international community for a fool, terrorizing his own people, who might be harboring WMDs [1], and who is vulnerable to an attack with overwhelming force. There was no competent planning of what to do after removing Saddam from power, though. [1] In retrospect, we know he wasn't. But at the time, he was definitely trying hard to play up the idea that he might have them, probably to try to gain leverage in international negotiations. Even the UN weapons inspectors had to conclude their report with "we couldn't find anything, but the Iraqis are being so shifty we can't be sure."