- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What should the USA have done after 11 September 2001?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:48 am to asurob1
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:48 am to asurob1
I look at facts and derive logical conclusions therefrom.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
2
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:52 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Do you play chess?
I play chess but prefer this game.
And, yes, I understand that US continued presence in the ME looks like a losing position most of the time.
But, as I also have said, the US will have to resign itself to the fact that we will have to go in there from time to time and destroy AQ-like organizations.
PS This image is just a fraction of the whole map.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:57 am to Champagne
quote:
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
We can certainly agree on that. What frustrates me with W beyond everything else is people in his circle never considered planning past the war stage. And it directly led to what we are seeing now.
To me, the biggest foreign policy error we have made since Vietnam was the invasion of Iraq. It completely knocked the middle east off kilter and we will continue to pay for that in blood and treasure for years to come.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:59 am to Champagne
quote:
I play chess but prefer this game.
Old school war gamer I see
quote:
But, as I also have said, the US will have to resign itself to the fact that we will have to go in there from time to time and destroy AQ-like organizations.
I agree, bitching about the past is just that...bitching.
We are now the police force in the Middle East whether we like it or not.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:02 pm to asurob1
quote:
To me, the biggest foreign policy error we have made since Vietnam was the invasion of Iraq.
You have set out a position that is essentially unassailable and irrefutable. I challenge anybody to make a case that makes you look silly by taking this position. I can't disagree.
That said, IMHO, both Vietnam and Iraq were/are winnable wars for the USA, but, the costs would outweigh the benefits, unless the USA would be willing to occupy those respective countries and help ourselves to the natural resources therein until the monetary costs of the war is paid in full, with interest AND monetary solatia/sympathy payments to the families of the US war dead.
The USA has always been unwilling to do that, even though IMHO it would not be immoral to do so.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:06 pm to asurob1
quote:
We are now the police force in the Middle East whether we like it or not.
We can go in, destroy AQ organizations when needed and get back out.
Nation-building probably can't be done in that part of the world in less than 20 to 30 years.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:06 pm to asurob1
quote:
But hey, I guess 4000 American lives and countless non-combatant Iraqi lives were well worth it so W could thump his chest and say he kicked someone's arse.
War is never worth it, unless you win.
quote:
There was no justification whatsoever to invade.
We just disagree. Any outlaw in charge of an agressive, large military force is subject to removal at international discretion.
quote:
Further, it took us off mission to deal with those people who actually had a hand in 9/11 and likely delayed us catching and kill OBL for years.
Again, I agree with the way we prosecuted both wars - I'm not defending the generals and the "nation building" that somehow crept into our mission package during the 1990s and eventually replace warfighting as our primary function. I bitched about then (nobody listens to lieutenants/captains), during the Balkans and I continued to bitch about it until the present (nobody listens to majors/lieutenant colonels).
quote:
You are a smart guy Ace, you well know this.
I know stuff you cannot possibly imagine, brah.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:15 pm to Champagne
quote:
That said, IMHO, both Vietnam and Iraq were/are winnable wars for the USA
This is the fallacy - the war was WON in Vietnam after Tet and won again in Paris - it was the weak-kneed, progessive U.S. Congress that refused to allow lame duck Ford to reinforce and support that victory. The war was lost with guys like Kronkite and others saying things about the war. That plus the progressive protestors conveniently forgetting that it was their guy, President Great Society that, effectively, invented the war to begin with and that Nixon agreed to wind it down (it was won), "Peace With Honor" - and actually kept to his timetable, with reasonable actions taken necessary to secure victory.
Now, do you want to blame Nixon for the war being lost after he engaged in all of his extra-Constitutional chicanery to secure victory in an election he almost couldn't have lost if he tried? Guilty as charged - he'd been in Washington so long, he thought he WAS the law.
The same thing happened with all the mucking about in Iraq. Iraq was WON. It was over - twice, really - the conventional part early on in 2003 and again after the surge.
That victory has been rolled back (and Afghanistan is in jeopardy) because our collective political will for victory is NONEXISTENT in the post-WWII era. Nonexistent.
And a big reason for that is the constant assault by progressives on any military action taken by a Republican in the WH - the reason being, they are perceived as so weak on foreign policy, they don't foresee - EVER - a Democratic President having a strong reputation on national defense.
Heck, 3 in a row weren't bad - FDR, Harry S and JFK. Since then, they're 0-fer.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:21 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
We just disagree. Any outlaw in charge of an agressive, large military force is subject to removal at international discretion.
So when do we go into North Korea? Several African nations have outlaws running them.
You of course understand this never ends.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:30 pm to asurob1
quote:
So when do we go into North Korea?
1950 - 1953. China is their patron. You want me to say the world's not fair? The world's not fair. ETA: But if we did, it would be completely justified.
Also not straddling 3 of the 10 to 12 largest oil producing countries in the world, threaten a 4th, or challenge the ability of people to get oil out of the most oil-rich region on Earth.
You recognize a fundamental difference between unrest on the Korean Peninsula and in the Persian Gulf with regards to U.S. National Security interests, correct? I mean S. Korea is an ally, but, beyond that, we were fighting a "domino" theory in Asia that is obsolete.
quote:
Several African nations have outlaws running them.
And that adds to the list of Africa's problems. Honestly, we're doing what we can for the long-term security and stability of Africa, but we're really a decade away from those infrastructure changes to take effect.
quote:
You of course understand this never ends.
Of course. The geopolitical landscape is never static - it is always in a state of flux. It will remain so as long as human beings are involved.
If/when the Caliphate rules the planet - after a few generations or centuries, that, too, will change.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:36 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
1950 - 1953. China is their patron. You want me to say the world's not fair? The world's not fair. ETA: But if we did, it would be completely justified.
Oh I am well aware...but taking down outlaw regimes because they are evil opens up quite a box. And if that is the justification for taking out Saddam...
W attempted to throw a lot of darts against the wall hoping one would stick to give him justification for going in.
When none did the fall back has been...well Saddam sucked...
come on...really?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:40 pm to asurob1
quote:
Oh I am well aware...but taking down outlaw regimes because they are evil opens up quite a box. And if that is the justification for taking out Saddam...
I've never said that Iraq wasn't discretionary. I've never said that Iraq wasn't messed up worse than Don King's hair.
quote:
W attempted to throw a lot of darts against the wall hoping one would stick to give him justification for going in.
Meh. Violating cease fire agreements/UN sanctions and terrorist "enabling" were good enough for me. I just wish we would have cut him off cleanly, installed our own military dictatorship/provisional government, written their constitution and handed it over to them in about 24 months (an accelerated version of what we did in Japan) - and just skipped the nation building. Iraq didn't need nation building (maybe Afghanistan did, but from whose perspective? Ours? The Afghans? - but that's a different conversation).
Of course the Balkans didn't either - sadly, that template has tainted virtually my entire military career.
Nation building. Harumph.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:49 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Nation building. Harumph.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:04 pm to Champagne
quote:
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
I think some of their planners knew it would take that long but that the Neo-con true believers and the PR people who needed to sell the war overruled all those people because it would have been way, way, way harder to get congress and the public behind it. Look how the Generals who argued it would take 100s of thousands of troops to secure the country got forced out.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:31 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
the war was WON in Vietnam after Tet and won again in Paris
Ace, thanks for your input on the PoliBoard.
Special thanks to you for your input in this thread.
I have learned from your posts.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:41 pm to socraticsilence
quote:
I think some of their planners knew it would take that long but that the Neo-con true believers and the PR people who needed to sell the war overruled all those people because it would have been way, way, way harder to get congress and the public behind it. Look how the Generals who argued it would take 100s of thousands of troops to secure the country got forced out.
Brent Scowcroft advised against the Iraq invasion. He also advised against precipitate withdrawal from there, as well.
I recall my reaction to the news that the USA was going to invade Iraq. I was mildly puzzled. Invading Iraq in the wake of 9/11 was not an obvious COA at that time, so, I was mildly puzzled. I think that most of my fellow officers at the time had the same reaction.
In my most Humble Opinion, if we could gather all of those on the PoliBoard who self-identify as GOP or conservative, and we could send them all back in time to 2002 for the purpose of doing a thorough review and analysis of this decision (whether or not to invade Iraq and depose Saddam), I do believe that we would have reached a consensus that it was not worth the risk AND that it was on tenuous legal grounds.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:44 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
That victory has been rolled back (and Afghanistan is in jeopardy) because our collective political will for victory is NONEXISTENT in the post-WWII era. Nonexistent.
I am very glad that you point this out. I have secretly worried about this very thing for a long time. I recognize that it is quite true.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 4:50 pm to Champagne
elected bush/cheney for life!
Posted on 9/13/14 at 5:29 pm to blackjackjackson
quote:
elected bush/cheney for life!
I with that I could downvote you more than once.
Bush/Cheney had enough time at the helm.
I like both Bush and Cheney, but, their epic miscalculation on what it would take to win and stabilize Iraq is inexcusable.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 5:41 pm
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News