Bush Still in Denial

from JoeUser Forums


Last night when Bush admitted that a lack of troops was the major reason for the violence and failure in Iraq I thought Bush had finally turned a corner. Then Bush proved he is still in Total Denial by saying that the lack of troops that he admitted was his error were in 2006!

The issue is NOT the troop levels in 2006 and is NOT the lack of 20-30,000 more troops. The reason for the sectarian violence and the foreign terrorists are able to operate in Iraq is because we were unable to prevent these factions from establishing operating starting in early 2003.

The Iraq War had two basic phases- The engagement and defeat of Saddam’s Military and the occupation of a country of 27 Million people where factions existed that did not get along and that had held in check by force in the past.

When Bush sent 130,000 of the 500,000 military needed into Iraq he violated our military doctrine and set the stage for BOTH the violence among Iraqi’s as well as the establishment of foreign terrorists setting up operations in Western Iraq. The Iraq Invasion plans that called for 500,000 troops to CONTROL the factions in Iraq and prevent foreign infiltration are the result of decades of military experience and planning. In recent year that doctrine was termed the Powell Doctrine but in reality was developed by our military over decades.

I am very familiar with this doctrine since I completed training in the Army in areas such as Artillery Officers Basic, Combat Intelligence, Command and General Staff College and finally the Army War College. Bush IGNORED all the past experience and doctrine when he invaded Iraq with less then the Force Levels required to stabilize the country after the Saddam, Government Fell. The Clear and Hold policy that Bush touts today has been the policy. The issue was that we DID NOT have the troops to HOLD the hot spots where the former Saddam loyalists organized. We did not have the troops to prevent the death squads from first forming and then conducting operations. We could not prevent both Sunni and Shiite elements from using the weapons and explosives that were scattered in over 200 Ammo Dumps thought Iraq. We could not prevent al Qaeda elements from moving into western Iraq. We could not secure the infrastructure so the civilian population has electric and water or to develop the oil recourses to provide the needed funding to rebuild and operate Iraq after Saddam.

Over 2,800 of the American deaths and 20,000 of the injuries are because we were UNABLE to prevent the internal and external groups from conducting the attacks we see today. George W. Bush is incapable of looking at the facts and accepting the REAL reason why we have failed to establish order in Iraq!
politics
2,982 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

(The Iraq War had two basic phases- The engagement and defeat of Saddam’s Military and the occupation of a country of 27 Million people where factions existed that did not get along and that had held in check by force in the past.)

(When Bush sent 130,000 of the 500,000 military needed into Iraq he violated our military doctrine and set the stage for BOTH the violence among Iraqi’s as well as the establishment of foreign terrorists setting up operations in Western Iraq)

Col, I agree fully with your assessment. However, i would like to point out ONE main point most of the people somhow ignore. That is the age-old fact that any invading army will not be welcomed by the citizens of that country no matter what the reaosn of the invasion. Even if the invading army is replacing an existing occupier, sooner or later the citizens will turn against the new occupier. That simple fact is missing in many discussion of this war.

Somehow many people, unfortunately, think that if we invade other people's land for a good reason it changes the fact mentioned above. It doesn't. NO HUMAN will ever accept the invasion of his own land by a foreign army. why people ignore that, i really dont know. are we in denial? i heard some talking head saying this "increasing our troop level will make us look like occupiers" !!!!

My goodness....... people really say that?

So here is the sad fact. Whether it is 130K or 500K, we would have the same situatations we have now. Inusrgency resisting occupation. What made THIS invasion particularly stupid is the facts you mentioned about the factions in Iraq and the Nature of the people there. But, even if they were very homogeneous population, we would have the same resistance. In fact i think it would have been more intense. Now some of their efforts are directed against each other. if they were homogeneous ALL there efforts would have been directed at the occupying army, that is OUR ARMY.

Wars are very messy and violent and filled with disasterous battles and casualities. That is why Wars should never be a choice, they must be a necessity. like WWI, and WWII. only when we are attacked or about to be attacked should we start millitary actions against the attackers, not against someone who is just bothering us. Doing Diplomacy with millitary means should not be a policy. They dont call it Department of Defence for nothing. Its forces are there only for one purpose, DEFENCE. Not Invasion for achieving certain diplomatic objectives.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
First let me state I believe Bush made a strategic error to invade Iraq. He ignored some of the issues you pointed out and which people like Baker, Armitage and Powell warned him about BRFORE we invaded. He also over stated the danger Saddam posed the United States.

However after he made the error of invading a Moslem country with a non-Moslem army he failed to understand that only by force could the factions that hate each other in Iraq be kept from attacking each other. That is how the English kept order in Iraq and it is how Saddam kept order. If we had provided sufficient force to keep the factions from attacking each other and preventing the foreign terrorists from setting up operations we could have turned a more stable Iraq over to the new government two years ago and got out.

When ever we leave, I believe Iraq will under go a more violent period until one faction subdues the others or the country splits into factions. The real danger is if the fighting were to spread to other countries and destabilize the area. That is a very real possibility.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
he failed to understand that only by force could the factions that hate each other in Iraq be kept from attacking each other


Very true, not the whole story however. All their effort would have been aginst US. The mess will be even more for us.

No two ways about it. Once you get in a war it will be a terrible thing for both sides. Just dont get in a war unless you are forced to. Not to achieve an agenda or transform regions or block idealogy. You cant do that with force. never been done and will never be done. it is an impossibility. Only gangesters and bullies think it could be done. Armies can only defeat armies not idealogies or inter-regional conflicts or occupation-resistance. The problem in Iraq is that we are facing two battles none of them is winnable militarily. The resistance to our occupation and the civil war between Shias and Sunnies.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The speech of President George Bush is quite important and I for one would like to go beyond the partisan politics that is playing out on Capitol Hill.

First, Bush admitted that mistakes were made and he took full responsibility for the mistakes. I think this is the first time Bush has made a public confession of mistakes.

Second, he is certainly right when he say that this strategy outlined in his speech is a new one. I wish his minders had not been so smart and tried to sell his new plan as one of "troop surge" or escalation. I have myself written about the surge issue but that was before the speech. So what is new? (a) joint operations with US and Iraqi troops to cordon, secure and pacify Baghdad and then Anbar province. (b) A firm commitment from the Iraqi Governemnt that it will follow through with genuine political resolve on the ground and (c) The Iraqis have been told in no uncertain terms that this is Bush's last gambit and that politically it will not be possible for him to carry on in the face of Iraqi instrangience.

The Democrats are threatening to cut off funds for the troop "surge" without understanding the implications of the new doctrine. I certainly do not agree with the democrats when they say all this is more of the same. There are vast differences berween what Bush said in the past and what he says now. It is worth a shot and it may well work. All empires have made a tremendous sacrifice in blood and treasure to win empires and the democrats seem to think that by pulling the purse strings they can set the agenda of the new American Empire. It will not work.

Having said all this I come to the last point. The Bush Plan suffers from one fatal flaw that will yet unravel it: It stakes too much on the buffoon of the Green Zone, al Maliki. He can be an effective hangman but not a leader who can pull off what is expected of him. He cannot survive in power the moment he takes on the Shiaa mailitas and will try to undermine the Bush Planm from within. And so at the end of the day Bush will have to quit. But he will go down fighting.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The simple truth is that we do not have a military of a size to do the job without the Iraqi Military. I agree the question of , "WILL THE IRAQI ARMY and POLICE do their job", is KEY. I guess only time will give us that answer.