10 Lessons the US should learn from Iraq defeat

I agree with the OP. However, there is another lesson that the OP fails to mention. If the homeland is attacked we should not invade and occupy the country from which the attack emanates. Instead, we should reach out and kill them all. That's the only way to be sure they don't attack again.

 

Assimilation accomplishes the same goal with fewer deaths. Japan and Germany have not attached us again since WW2.

 

Don't look for logic in the arguments of Anti-American xenophobes, Stekim.

Beyond the numerous issues referenced in the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, what does make logical sense is that defending the territory of and oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Gulf figured into the rationale behind the authorization of the use of force in 2002. As you surely recall, it was the defense of those same oil fields, etc., that led to the first Gulf War...

 

Well, its a capitalist country without an opposition. The Martians, doubtless!

 

I think it is adorable that Stekim is trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are sure to teach him a lesson though. He wont make that mistake again, heh heh.

 

And I was OK with the first war. But there was no even remotely real indication that Saddam and his incredibly weak armed forces were going to invade anyone. His neighbors were not asking us to help with any expected conflict. Based on the actual evidence at hand it was like W literally invented a threat out of nothing. Of course, we know in hindsight there was no threat, but I am not speaking from hindsight. I was saying this stuff before the war and during war.

 

So the U.S. controls the oil? Is that what you are telling me? You have to be more clear with me because I'm not very smart.

 

I think it likely, but, as I say, it will be well hidden. I'm quite sure it no longer helps the Iraqi people, whatever.

 

Well, I cannot very well change my position without some actual evidence. As for it not helping the Iraqi people, that is fairly common with oil money th world over. And Iraq is still not producing a great amount of oil.

 

I don't share the American obsession with 'evidence' straight from wikipedia, I'm afraid, and am reduced to arguing from likelihood. I had Iraqi friends in Saddam's time who disliked him very much but had no doubt that - like Tito - he inforced national unity, and that and saw to it that the people got some benefit from the oil. Nowadays, as a result of the illegal attack, the people are divided by religion and robbed ragged, vast numbers having been killed. The detail I don't have, but I think the facts are obvious enough.

 

That is fine. But you must admit evidence makes a far stronger argument.

Enough to keep him in power, no doubt. Always a good strategy.

I cannot say Iraqi's are better off now than before. It's more dangerous that is for sure. But we'll see how it turns out.

 

Other than to say that 'my' Iraqis certainly didn't want to keep Saddam in power, I've no problems with that.

 

you remind me of this guy

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcwX6Ay-g9Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcwX6Ay-g9Y[/ame]

 

First of all, one must first read the text of the Congressional Authorization to assess the rationale behind that authorization, and it involved numerous issues ranging from Saddam's serial violations of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreement to his failed plot to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush to his support of terrorist groups, etc., etc.

Secondly, while I agree with you that the Iraqi army did not appear to pose a threat to anyone outside of Iraq in 2002, I think it's safe to assume that Congress and the Bush Administration were looking beyond that point and the lifting of sanctions against his regime.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Saddam's ties to terrorists were his ultimate undoing. Those ties constituted a breach of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreement and they undoubtably concerned the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11. There's also been speculation that invading Iraq would lure al Qaeda out onto a battlefield that was more advantageous to the US/Coalition military than the guerrilla-friendly terrain in Afghanistan (the so-called "fly-paper strategy"), but I would never be able to confirm that conjecture. However, in the end, that is precisely what happened - AQ took the bait and were effectively defeated during the Surge/Awakening in Iraq...

 

Yes, I definitely get that impression.

Because Saddam was not already killing them before, right?

Why, you've given us your opinion. What more facts do we need?

 

1) The fact that they cannot invade us is not evidence that they cannot injure us.

2) You have no way of determining what their neighbors wanted, because their neighbors were not democracies. All you could determine was what the current RULERS of neighboring states may have wanted.

You seem to be saying that his word is not sufficient evidence for you. How dare you.

 

This is a good point, but the reason it's a "marketplace" in the first place is because everyone has a price. It's not about an honest sharing of ideas -- it's about who can sell a viewpoint the most effectively.

Most people don't have the first clue about how foreign policy works, which is why the public's opinion only matters from a getting elected perspective.

If you can make the average idiot paranoid, selling a war is easy.

 

Great point.

The USA lost. Let that sink in. .....

Think about it....

Now don't do it again!

 

The lesson to be learned here is that we are trigger happy and insane when we feel threatened.

So if you dont want it to happen again, make sure we dont feel threatened by you.

 

At least you admit that the usa is 'insane'

First step to recover. Now let the healing begin.

 

By foreign standards, oh yes. We are willing to do things they would never do.

The healing began years ago, after we deposed Saddam.

 

Ah now the usa paranoia.

It will be a long road to sanity, but you can do it.

 

Some people fit that description, but I wouldn't say our majority does.

All it really comes down to is a matter of distance.

If we still had a military draft, we'd probably be less interventionist, because all of us would have relatives in the armed forces.

Because only a relatively small portion of the population is connected to the military, it's easier for the "chickenhawk" effect to come into play.

It's much easier to advocate war when you don't have a son or brother in the military, for example.

9/11 obviously pissed us off, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with that. Bush did successfully capitalize on America's paranoia, but the good news is that we're considerably less paranoid now than we were in 2003.

 

We definitely crushed the Saddam regime and changed the balance of power in the new Iraq. We also determined that in fact there was no WMD threat from Iraq, by being able to putter around Iraq after the initial occupation. We also helped safeguard the Gulf oil supply flowing to the United States and the rest of the world.

If that's your definition of victory, then we won. If you wanted a little more out of your trillion dollars of spent taxpayer money-debt, then maybe you should look for a definition of defeat instead that includes the fact that Iraq has no stable government and increased Iranian influence, the propaganda boost to Islamic extremists worldwide, the wasted money and American and Iraqi lives lost, and the loss in international prestige to the USA.

 

Our last troops were sneaking out in the middle of the night so the locals wouldn't notice. Hardly a victory parade.


As an indication of the country the United States is leaving behind, for security reasons the last soldiers made no time for goodbyes to Iraqis with whom they had become acquainted. To keep details of the final trip secret from insurgents — or Iraqi security officers aligned with militias — interpreters for the last unit to leave the base called local tribal sheiks and government leaders on Saturday morning and conveyed that business would go on as usual, not letting on that all the Americans would soon be gone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/w...erican-troops-leaves-iraq.html?pagewanted=all