A solution for Iraq

[Antilogic]

In hindsight going into Iraq was a mistake but you can't change what happened. The surge left Iraq in a better shape and should have (could have, might have) led the way to an overall victory in the region with a stable democratic government.

Instead the Obama administration made sure to leave Iraq defenseless and on its own, thus guaranteeing that it would end in the current disaster that we have now. The Obama administration also made sure to completely destabilize Libya. ...

I'm sick already of this "the surge worked!" meme. That strategy had several listed objectives, and many of the political ones like a power-sharing agreement between Sunnis and Shias, bringing the Kurdish region into the fold, and an oil revenue agreement failed. All that blasted surge did was delay the violence a little bit without solving any of the underlying problems.

What exists in Iraq now is a consequence of the failed surge, and a greater consequence of the failed war. It's all related.

From spring 2004 to spring 2006 I saw a lot of improvement. Our workers were still getting harassed, but not as much Their living conditions improved. Businesses became more established. Jobs were more available.

I suspect many of those workers are now dead. Thanks Obama.

Can you evaluate their living standards, job prospects, etc. in, say, 2001-2? Just to have another point of comparison?

Also .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why stop part way?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why stop part way?

Because you can see that nothing short of genocide is going to "work," and as a nation you would not want history to remember you as the next genuine horror after mid twentieth century Germany?

 

[JollyRoger]

Why stop part way?

Why start half-assed?

 

[FriendlyFire]

From spring 2004 to spring 2006 I saw a lot of improvement. Our workers were still getting harassed, but not as much Their living conditions improved. Businesses became more established. Jobs were more available.

I suspect many of those workers are now dead. Thanks Obama.

If only Obama had overthrown a democratically elected government with a military coup and installed a ruthless dictator who was prepared to use WMDs on hes own people. .... OH WAIT !
Seriously I doubt short of completely opened ended US propping up Iraq for the next few centuries, and even more massive US commitment. Iraq was pretty much a broken hell hole after 3 wars, 11 years of sanctions and several years of civil war.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm sick already of this "the surge worked!" meme.

Why? It's simply a fact.

If only Obama had overthrown a democratically elected government with a military coup and installed a ruthless dictator who was prepared to use WMDs on hes own people. .... OH WAIT !
Seriously I doubt short of completely opened ended US propping up Iraq for the next few centuries, and even more massive US commitment. Iraq was pretty much a broken hell hole after 3 wars, 11 years of sanctions and several years of civil war.

This is not a third world country, though parts of it seem like it. The money from oil has built a great deal. It needed repair, refit or replace, but mostly not ground up construction.

Four US bases were established with decades in mind. It would not be a low hazard assignment, but neither would it be combat. The basing, when we had it, was valuable as an influence on Syria. "Propping up" is excessive. Back up is more correct.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

Sell the bases to an American corporation. Problem solved.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why? It's simply a fact.



This is not a third world country, though parts of it seem like it. The money from oil has built a great deal. It needed repair, refit or replace, but mostly not ground up construction.

Four US bases were established with decades in mind. It would not be a low hazard assignment, but neither would it be combat. The basing, when we had it, was valuable as an influence on Syria. "Propping up" is excessive. Back up is more correct.

J

Gitmo, times four...except for instead of being surrounded by a basically toothless bankrupted enemy, they would be surrounded by a well funded enemy.

Sounds like a mind bendingly stupid plan...who thought of that one again? Who are they advising now? Oh, yeah, the next Republican presidential candidate.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why? It's simply a fact.

This is not a third world country, though parts of it seem like it. The money from oil has built a great deal. It needed repair, refit or replace, but mostly not ground up construction.

Four US bases were established with decades in mind. It would not be a low hazard assignment, but neither would it be combat. The basing, when we had it, was valuable as an influence on Syria. "Propping up" is excessive. Back up is more correct.

J

............ You do KNOW that Paul Bremer cheated outrageously in order to pull of the 2006 improvements right ? For example Iraq electricity

1) Instead of concentrating all power to a few areas everyone in Iraq got a few hours worth evenly. This decision of course did wonders for established business

2) Power pants were run at max capacity so that Bremer could report that Iraq electricity was improving to prewar standards. Then the day after this report most of the power stations were shutdown for maintenance

3) US power project which cost billions = went no where due to lack of Iraq expertize and constant attacks. Meanwhile Iraq power plants lacked funds and were pretty much falling apart.

So the US planned for a decades long modern state of the art power plant for Iraq too
And like everything about the postwar was ambitious, if not completely delusional.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

............ You do KNOW that Paul Bremer cheated outrageously in order to pull of the 2006 improvements right ? For example Iraq electricity

1) Instead of concentrating all power to a few areas everyone in Iraq got a few hours worth evenly. This wrecked of course did wonders for established business

2) Power pants were run at max capacity so that Bremer could report that Iraq electricity was improving to prewar standards. Then the day after this report most of the power stations were shutdown for maintenance

3) US power project which cost billions = went no where due to lack of Iraq expertize and attacks. Meanwhile Iraq power plants lacked funds and were pretty much falling apart.

Don't confuse him with the facts, he's made up his mind that invading Iraq was a brilliant move and no amount of looking at results can dissuade him.

 

[KmDubya]

Don't confuse him with the facts, he's made up his mind that invading Iraq was a brilliant move and no amount of looking at results can dissuade him.

No one is saying that going into Iraq in the first place was a great idea.

What others are saying is that we were making Iraq better post surge compared to pre-surge. It was going well enough that Vice President Biden said something to the effect of Iraq would be a great victory. This was the improving state of Iraq when Obama took over. Obama made sure that no continuing deal would be put into effect with Iraq and that we would abandon everything that we had built.

Obama made sure that the mess in Iraq would occur. Obama alone went in and destabilized Libya. Syria fell during Obama's watch. Obama threw long time ally Mubarak under the bus in Egypt

Like it or not your Nobel Prize winning genius Obama has made the world and especially the middle east a much more dangerous and unstable area. This is either due to total incompetence or it is being done on purpose.

 

[FriendlyFire]

This was the improving state of Iraq when Obama took over. Obama made sure that no continuing deal would be put into effect with Iraq and that we would abandon everything that we had built.

And the force of agreement signed by President Bush for all US to exit by 2008 signed by the democratically elected Iraq government ?

You are ware that the US already offered 150 Billion (IIRC) per year in US Aid to allow the US to station forces in Iraq was rejected by the democratically elected Iraq government. Essentially US was offering Billions of dollars for the US to the "privilege" of spending it blood and more treasure just to "prop" up the entire Iraq government.

Obama made sure that the mess in Iraq would occur.

Iraqis are completely blameless, no one saw that coming or predicted it would collapse like a house of cards.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, that hell hole was imploding like another house of cards which was then propped up by US money and blood.
Makes sure to blame who ever is left holding the bag for Afghanistan when it collapses after the US flushed down 20 years worth of blood and treasure into that place.

Obama alone went in and destabilized Libya. Syria fell during Obama's watch

Obama is an idiot, we all know that brutal dictators whom sponsor terrorism and slaughter there own people are the best government.
Thats why I suggest Obama back a military coup in Iraq and install a dictator into power again.

Like it or not your Nobel Prize winning genius Obama has made the world and especially the middle east a much more dangerous and unstable area. This is either due to total incompetence or it is being done on purpose.

Or you could actually read the news reports saying that Obama gave a free hand to Gates and Petraues in exchange for the promise that they would oversee US military policy in the Middle East.
None the less Obama as president is responsible for US policy. Either Obama was naive (most probable) or inexperienced and relied on old hands to set US policy.

 

[Antilogic]

Why? It's simply a fact.

It's not, read the rest of that post for a partial explanation as to why.

No one is saying that going into Iraq in the first place was a great idea.

Some GOP congressional leaders and presidential candidates, such as Marco Rubio, are touting that the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth it.

Like it or not your Nobel Prize winning genius Obama has made the world and especially the middle east a much more dangerous and unstable area. This is either due to total incompetence or it is being done on purpose.

I suspect there is some agency in the hands of the people actually living over there.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No one is saying that going into Iraq in the first place was a great idea.

A little denial of reality goes a long way, doesn't it?

The situation in 2008 was a vast improvement on 2000. That is a fact.

It is not a fantasy. Iraq 2008 was a huge improvement.

 

[Ajidica]

Why? It's simply a fact.

Not to be pedantic, but clearly the surge didn't work given that the region is routinely on the front page of the newspaper.

This is not a third world country, though parts of it seem like it. The money from oil has built a great deal. It needed repair, refit or replace, but mostly not ground up construction.

Iraq largely did need ground-up reconstruction. Ever since the first Gulf War and the asinine, arbitrary, and at times approaching criminal neglect sanctions* the Iraqi economy and infrastructure had been in a death spiral. Electrical and communication grids had been bombed, and the combination of sanctions and currency restrictions prevented their rebuilding. Lacking basically any ability to repair said infrastructure for ten years didn't help matters, and then it all got bombed again.

*For example, the most common and effective types of leukemia drugs were not allowed to be brought into the country on dual-use grounds, because apparently they could be used to create biological weapons. This argument was coming from largely the same group that had supported the 'dual-use' argument allowing the export of artillery tractors and chemical facilities on the grounds it could be used for farming and fertilizers rather than blowing up and gassing Iranians. I mean, when two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq resign due to a belief that the UN Sanctions 'satisfied the definition of genocide' or calling the effects of the sanctions a 'human tragedy'; there might be an actual issue going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/642189.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/183499.stm

 

[onejayhawk]

Not to be pedantic, but clearly the surge didn't work given that the region is routinely on the front page of the newspaper.

I bow to the voice of your pedantry

Except, it did work.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perhaps a clarification of what "worked/didn't work" means would be helpful. I think that the two sides are using the word differently. Short term effects, long term effects, specific goals, unintended consequences, etc. would help.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why start half-assed?

Exactly. Why start at all in this case? Even if you dump human rights considerations completely (and selling human rights as the reason for the attack is a tough sell), it never made sense.

But if you're going to suggest the opposite for dramatic effect, make the detail more entertainingly crazy.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Except, it did work.J

And it would have kept working provided that the US continue give Billions of dollars, weapons, arms and training to certain new "allies"
we'll call them "freedom fighters" as Republicans like to say.

....

You see the Iraqis would run half there electrical generators and the other half would be on maintance / repair.
Paul Bremer got the Iraqis to run all there electrical generators at the same time, just to get over that magical number of electrical generation was improving. They then had to be shut down for maintenance again.

Some people would call this total improving Iraqis electricity.
Other people would say this was "cooking the numbers"

 

[onejayhawk]

And it would have kept working provided that the US continue give Billions of dollars, weapons, arms and training to certain new "allies"
we'll call them "freedom fighters" as Republicans like to say.

No. Just maintain a presence.

What Republicans like to say that? I think you are making it up.

J