3 ms·

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 k

by 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."
kalleboo 8y ago
> Does anyone know what they want from Brexit? It always seemed to me that this is what the referendum should really have been. Not "should we leave the EU" but "what should our relationship with the EU be?". The problem was that the politicians who proposed the referendum were convinced they could win and there would be no consequences.
- jopsen 8y ago
  So true.. It's easy to say "leave the EU" as rallying call. It's much harder to say: "tweak the EU so that this and that is a little different". But good things come when we improve them.. it's not always a solution to move you kids to a better school, when you could just improve the school :)
aries1980 8y ago
The Operation Iraqi Freedom had very sound objectives: https://dod.defense.gov/Photos/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2001241030/ https://dod.defense.gov/Photos/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2001241... and https://www.twincities.com/2010/06/22/angry-obama-summons-gen-mcchrystal-to-white-house-to-explain-slams-on-administration/ https://www.twincities.com/2010/06/22/angry-obama-summons-ge... .
- jopsen 8y ago
  I thought so at the time... In my defense I was 15 or so :) But why did set these objectivea in Iraq, we could have picked so many different places, with lot worse people than Saddam. Just saying, there is not of examples of wheels starting to spin and being hard to stop.
  - aries1980 8y ago
    The objectives are not the reason. According to the Wikipedia, the reason was a decade-long plot against Saddam, to support the Saudi interest.

by jopsen 8y ago

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."

kalleboo 8y ago

> Does anyone know what they want from Brexit? It always seemed to me that this is what the referendum should really have been. Not "should we leave the EU" but "what should our relationship with the EU be?". The problem was that the politicians who proposed the referendum were convinced they could win and there would be no consequences.

jopsen 8y ago
So true.. It's easy to say "leave the EU" as rallying call. It's much harder to say: "tweak the EU so that this and that is a little different". But good things come when we improve them.. it's not always a solution to move you kids to a better school, when you could just improve the school :)

aries1980 8y ago

The Operation Iraqi Freedom had very sound objectives: https://dod.defense.gov/Photos/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2001241030/ https://dod.defense.gov/Photos/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2001241... and https://www.twincities.com/2010/06/22/angry-obama-summons-gen-mcchrystal-to-white-house-to-explain-slams-on-administration/ https://www.twincities.com/2010/06/22/angry-obama-summons-ge... .

jopsen 8y ago
I thought so at the time... In my defense I was 15 or so :) But why did set these objectivea in Iraq, we could have picked so many different places, with lot worse people than Saddam. Just saying, there is not of examples of wheels starting to spin and being hard to stop.
- aries1980 8y ago
  The objectives are not the reason. According to the Wikipedia, the reason was a decade-long plot against Saddam, to support the Saudi interest.