U.S. troops could be in Iraq for a decade: commander

Some people think that anyone who disagrees with the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is either a bleeding-heart liberal appeaser, a George W. Bush hater, a blame America firster, an underminer of the troops, a traitor, or a geopolitical naif...

* Former members of his own cabinet have revealed that Bush planned to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his administration, well before 9/11. All discussions were about the how of doing it, never about the why, the justification, the costs or the wisdom.

* Bush claims he is fighting a war on terror in response to 9/11. But in the first eight months of his administration, his own top terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, could not get a meeting of cabinet-level security officials to discuss terrorism. They finally met, one week before 9/11, and then the meeting was 'hijacked' into discussing Iraq instead. In 2004, Clarke said "Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11." Clarke is a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, and also served in the administrations of Bush's father, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton...

* The administration continually relied upon Iraqi exiles, many of whom had not set foot in the country for decades, as sources for information about Iraq and as mouthpieces to justify the invasion. But it is unclear who was using whom. Ahmad Chalabi, the most prominent of these, intended to use the US military as a vehicle to become leader of Iraq. Despite being wanted for massive bank fraud in Jordan, Chalabi convinced neoconservatives that he was the "George Washington of Iraq". His Iraqi National Congress was the primary source for Bush administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda, neither of which was true. Chalabi gloated about how his influence led the Bush administration to war, and the Pentagon immediately flew him into Iraq following the invasion. The army of followers that he had promised would rally around him never materialized, and his party won zero parliamentary seats in the December 2005 elections. Ultimately, the United States accused him of providing intelligence secrets to the Iranian government and raided his offices...

* At the time of the invasion in 2003, the weapons inspectors were nearly done with their work, and only asked for a month or two more to finish. The Bush administration claimed that the threat of Saddam and his WMD was too grave and too urgent to wait. Bush's claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors is not only false, but masks the actual truth, which is that the administration told the inspectors to leave because of the looming attack, before they could finish their work and by so doing remove the rationale for that attack...

* To this day Bush says in his speeches that Saddam did not comply with the UN, that Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and that Bush had Security Council authorization to invade. None of those statements are true...

* When the WMD and al Qaeda link rationales for the war were exploded, the administration began arguing that its central purpose in invading Iraq was to bring democracy to the country and to the Middle East. At the same time, however, it has done next to nothing about Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been murdered in a clear case of ongoing genocide. Since the first requisite for being able to vote is to be alive, it is unclear how invading Iraq in the name of democracy could be so urgent, yet saving lives in Darfur of little concern and no action.

* The administration was told in advance by American intelligence agencies that there was a very high danger that Iraq could explode into ethnic chaos following an invasion. It chose to attack anyhow...

* Before the war, General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to govern this country of 25 million people during a post-war occupation. But since the administration was insisting that the war could be handled with far fewer troops and at far less expense, General Shinseki and at least one other general who made the same argument were publicly humiliated and had their long and prestigious military careers terminated for political reasons. Four years later, Bush is now 'surging' in Iraq by adding troops to the 140,000 or so that were already there, in addition to the 80,000 or so highly expensive mercenaries the taxpayers are funding. With the total now nearing 250,000 soldiers occupying the country, it is still transparently not enough to keep the peace.

* To say that there was never a plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq is technically incorrect. There was an extensive plan which the State Department had put together, working with experts and Iraqi exiles. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn't want the State Department to have the credit and control for the occupation, so he and Bush threw State's document in the garbage. Then there was no plan.

* Most of the Americans sent to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had no technical or professional training or experience in the work to which they were assigned. Rather, they were chosen because they were Republican Party loyalists.

* One of the most significant blunders the United States committed during the occupation was to dismiss the entire Iraqi Army, sending them home unemployed and armed, along with anyone associated with the Ba'ath Party, despite the fact that everyone who wanted to work at a professional level anywhere in Iraqi society had been forced under Saddam to join the Party. The first Chief Executive of the CPA, General Jay Garner, refused to purge all Ba'athists from Iraqi governing institutions, and instead sought to maximize Iraqi control of the post-war government as much as possible. He was quickly fired...

* The United States has spent half a trillion dollars on the war, so far. Estimates suggest that the number could rise to two trillion dollars before the war is over and the continuing costs of medical care and economic displacement are fully accounted for.

* America's army has been described by Colin Powell as "broken". Almost all our land forces are deployed in Iraq - a war of choice - leaving none for use in a real foreign crisis.

* Similarly, our National Guard and Reserve troops have been used in ways that were never intended to fight this war - along with about 80,000 highly expensive mercenaries - so that the president could avoid an unpopular draft. This means that Guard and Reserve troops and their equipment are unavailable for use in national emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina.

* As a result of the war, America is far more hated today throughout much of the world, especially the Mid-East, and is seen as a imperialist power. The Iraq invasion thus played directly into the hands of Islamic radicals like Osama bin Laden.

* America's own intelligence agencies concede that Iraq has become a giant factory for the minting of new terrorists, where almost none existed prior to the invasion.

* Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold since, and largely because of, the invasion of Iraq.

* Iran, a country whose government truly does despise the United States, has been an enormous beneficiary of the war. Prior to 2003, Iran was a natural check on Iraq among Middle East powers, and vice versa. Now Iran is enormously influential in Iraq and throughout the region, its growth in power alarming its neighbors.

* A very real possibility exists that the civil war now raging within Iraq will become a regional war, perhaps drawing in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Israel and others.

* Gas prices have doubled since the war began. The potential also exists for a global depression should further conflict limit the flow of oil to industrialized countries, just as these economies were damaged by OPEC doing the same thing in the 1970s.

* To this day, American troops in Iraq do not have sufficient body or vehicle armor, leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths. Communities across America have literally held bake sales to raise funds for purchasing armor for their own kids...

* Companies like Halliburton, meanwhile, in which the Vice President still maintains financial interests, have received multi-billion dollar contracts for work in Iraq, without having to competitively bid for them, and with the internal influence of Cheney's office in winning the assignments. Numerous scandals have emerged from these contracts, including billing for work never completed. $8 billion in cash, entrusted to the Coalition Provisional Authority, has gone missing in one incident alone.

* Before the war, when they were marketing it to the public and Congress, administration officials hinted that it would be quick, easy and cheap. After the invasion, George Bush declared, under a "Mission accomplished" banner, that fighting had ceased before the war had really even begun. It has now lasted longer than America's involvement in World War Two, and the administration has begun to talk about Iraq using the Korean model of a fifty-year occupation.

* The invasion of Iraq was supposedly part of an American 'war on terrorism'. But, today, the United States is protecting Luis Posada from extradition to Venezuela or Cuba, despite that Posada has bragged about blowing up an airliner and killing seventy-three people on board, as well as a string of other bombings of Cuban hotels and nightclubs. The government claims that Posada cannot be extradited to Venezuela because he might be tortured, even though Venezuela has no such reputation - but after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and the Attorney General's renouncing of the Geneva Conventions, the United States now does.

* None of the principals who decided to go to war in Iraq had ever seen combat themselves. George W. Bush used his father's influence to avoid service in Vietnam. John Ashcroft got seven draft deferments. Dick Cheney got five deferments, and later said "I had better things to do in the Sixties than fight in Vietnam". Neither Paul Wolfowitz nor Richard Perle nor Condoleeza Rice ever served, and Donald Rumsfeld never fought in a war. The only senior member of the administration who had was Colin Powell. Powell advised Bush to be cautious about invading Iraq, and was thus sidelined from discussions leading up to the war. George Bush's Secretary of State was not informed of the decision to invade Iraq until after Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, had been told by the president.

While many can imagine political leaders making mistakes, most Americans find it inconceivable that an American president could actually put personal or political interests ahead of the national interest or the welfare of the troops, especially on so grave an issue as war and peace...

This is precisely why America's Founders so feared the concentration of political power that they created a system devoted to spreading that power out, through checks and balances, through federalism, and through guaranteed civil liberties. Often those institutional obstacles have been successful at preventing presidents from acting like kings, but sometimes not. During the George W. Bush presidency, Congress has been a side-show, and many of America's Bill of Rights-provided civil liberties have been shredded. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8128

 

While I use it for my work, the Failed State Index is not a hotly awaited product. Nonetheless, the 2007 rankings are out and Iraq has fallen, for the third straight year. It is now in second place, ahead of Sudan. Here's the explanation for the ranking:

"Despite billions of dollars in development and security aid and the continued presence of U.S. troops, Iraq's position in the Failed States Index dropped for a third consecutive year, leaving it ranked as the second most vulnerable country in the world," Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace explain in a press release. "Its score diminished in nearly all of the index's 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators this year, suggesting a broad scope of deterioration in the country."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3865

 

And if we hadn't "illegally invaded," Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq into the ground and starving children while plotting to revive his WMD. That would be your choice.

Where is there any eveidence that Saddam was reconstituting any, I repeat any WMD program that the US ever gave or sold to them to begin with?

You're little tidbit about starving children is so funny. Prove that statement with any factual link. Exiled Iraqi crap doesn't count. Between the garbage the exile Iraqis and doug feith's letter, there is nothing that proves your statement.

And I just love seeing the post from the pro-war side of the aisle, not professing this war was based on illegal......

george bush really wants us in Iraq for 50 years. Then the BIG OIL buddies and Halliburton will get theirs and george bush will of course get his. <:-)

 

"Nonetheless, the 2007 rankings are out and Iraq has fallen, for the third straight year. It is now in second place, ahead of Sudan."

You mean Zimbabwe isn't the worst?

What ranking did they have living under Saddam's regime?

 

The American people don't have the resolve to remain in Iraq for ten years. Nor does their purse-string. Sadly, the huge amount of terrorists the invasion put there will be there for the next ten, if not fifty years.

Other than bringing back the draft and allocating all available American resources - and even then - I fail to see a positive outcome for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And to think the twat that initiated this madness against the will of the world once stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished".

 

z - For crying out loud, even UNICEF says around half a million children died in Iraq during the period following the Gulf War until the liberation of Iraq.

Adverts - "the huge ( number ) of terrorists the invasion put there"

We didn't put them there but we're kicking their butts.

"I fail to see a positive outcome for the US invason"

No doubt.

 

The US will be in Iraq for more than a decade. There are costs to be recovered and profts made. Not to mention the enormous geopolitical advantages of having permanent super bases at such a strategic location in the Middle East.

The US has not gone into Iraq with a plan to withdraw.

Ultimately the fledging political support for the occupation will turn around and a majority of the American citizens will once again hail Bush as a visionary for seizing the opportunity that 9/11 presented to earn political as well as economic capital.

 

What an intelligent reaction (in comparison to most (but I won't name handles.)

According to the Failed States Index site:

This year’s index reveals that while failing states like Iraq and Somalia may suffer from poor governance, they are kept company by a number of countries ruled by long-serving strongmen who have presided over their nations’ collapse. Three of the five worst performing states—Chad, Sudan, and Zimbabwe—have leaders who have been in power for more than 15 years.

Transparency International is better known for its country rankings on corruption. But few investors are interested in failed states so the rankings are only really used by people looking to predict hotspots.

Certainly Iraq under Saddam was a failed state. But it wouldn't have ranked so low because there was no active conflict since its domestic politics did not threaten other states or regional stability. Now it has a number of conflicts threatening to spill over as evidenced by recent Kurdish nationalist incursions into Turkey, for example. Iran and Saudi Arabia are presumably providing various types of support to groups they have an affinity for inside Iraq as well inside.

Iraq, like much of Sub-Saharan Africa, is a creation of cartography. The borders were drawn to suit the interests of the colonists. So a disturbance in one presents the very real prospect of engulfing a region since ethnic groups, such as the Kurds, are found in several nations that share borders.

Nobody recognized this when the domino theory was in vogue. Southeast Asia was inhabited by groups who had shared cultural histories which coincided with colonial boundaries and ultimately statehood. So what happened in one was much less likely to spill across the border.

 

I forgot to write that the Failed States Index is only three years old so it would not have ranked Saddam's Iraq.

 

Thanks for that.

Yeah, the Brits drew up the borders of "Iraq" with the express intention of promoting discord between the ethnic factions to easily keep them in line. They also went into Iraq as "liberators" - their exact words. Heh.

This is the main reason I opposed the war and why I immediately brushed aside the secondary notions of freedom and democracy (ignoring the,primary "WMD" fallacy) as sheer fantasy or even idiocy by certain idealitic Americans showing a total ignorance of the long and bloody history of the region.

One thing is sure that the current Iraqi "government", holed up behind an occupation armies' fortress is surely as much a failed state as Saddam's. Until the powers that be in America wake up to the reality that the only way Iraq will be stable is under either another brutal anti American Saddam-esque style dictatorship, or an anti American Islamic Iranian-style theocracy, then the delusions and the killing will continue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; what a disaster.

 

One might attribute this debacle to a misreading of history. Except there's no evidence anybody connected with the planning ever cracked a history book.

Nonetheless, it was all predictable given that Iraq was an artificial creation inhabited by groups who didn't like each other much and had stronger ties to kin across the borders than to each other. The icing on the cake was, of course, the fact the economy was natural resource dependent which also made violence more likely as different groups duked it for control of the potential revenues.

The arrogance with which this was pursued now leaves the United States with precious little international good will to fall back on. It was like, we're on a roll and you can either join us or get the hell out of the way.

 

Sarge, you realize of course what UNICEF and every other organization attributes these numbers to, right? The U.S. and U.N. embargo and sanctions. It rather duplicitous of you to say that Saddam is responsible for starving millions of his people while running his country into the ground while at the same time ignoring completely the reason there was no food or medical supplies to speak of.

 

And why did the U.N. impose sanctions on Iraq? Because Saddam was dangerous. Ultimately, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of these kids.

 

He was? Really? That doesn't seem to have been the case now does it? Administration officials both past and present may have believed so (or more accurately knew differently but portrayed him as such for their own agendas) but it is now manifestly clear that that was not the case.

And even still, are you defending a policy by the U.S. government that will unnecessarily devastate the innocent people of Iraq while leaving the regime virtually unscathed? Is that was passes for a just foreign policy these days? The leader does the crime so his oppressed subjects must do the time?

I do not entirely disagree with you that Saddam deserved much of the blame for the living conditions in Iraq, but to say that he is responsible for the Sanctions and therefor the starvation of the Iraqi people employs some rather dubious circular reasoning and smooths over the role the U.S. played in their deaths.

 

Dude sarge your a broken record. all you spew is kids this kids that sheesh. stop using kids as your defense for you littel babbling and one sided BS. if your such a bush fan why don't you go over there to iraq and fight. huh all you do is spew horse crap.

honstly bush started everything off on the wrong foot, and cause of that he has lost control over what he wanted to do. i agree and disagree with people on here and strongly disagree with you the most do to the fact that you let your support for bush and his brainwashing BS affect how you think and look at things.

and again for the love of god stop using kids as your excuse for this saddam crap ya sure he killed kids but you know what so do we. the only diffrence is that we (US) can hide ours better then others.

i normally don't type on here but after reading what everyone said sagre's broken record was to much.

oh and there's no way in hell we're gonna have enough money to stay in iraq for a decade.