The Iraq War and social progress

[aelf]

Despite this, I see nobody heaping blame on the Netherlands and Romanias of the world for whatever occupations failures are being discussed (real or invented).

No.

More important point: The coalition? Seriously? the COALITION?
I guess the pain is lessened for each when the sting is spread for all.

I talk about the coalition and someone doesn't like it. If I talked about the USA only, someone wouldn't like it either. Guess you really can't please everyone.

 

[Rashiminos]

I talk about the coalition and someone doesn't like it. If I talked about the USA only, someone wouldn't like it either. Guess you really can't please everyone.

No, but I daresay there are reasons we're disputing where the blame lies. Some people may have particular facets(sides).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Despite this, I see nobody heaping blame on the Netherlands and Romanias of the world for whatever occupations failures are being discussed (real or invented).

You can point at us all you like, but we (Ze Netherlands) were more precise in our intelligence towards Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

 

[Patroklos]

You can point at us all you like, but we (Ze Netherlands) were more precise in our intelligence towards Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

There are two ways to take this.

1.) As is actually the case you agreed with the US, made no serious objections to the intelligence when presented, and voted for all the actions anyway.

2.) You really didn't agree with the intelligence, never said anything about it, and then authorized/advocated for/participated in an invasion regardless of this knowedge.

So, which of those excuses the Netherlands from sharing full guilt/credit for any events in Iraq? If the Us was lacking in this joint venture, why did the Netherlands not fill in the gap?

BTW, the Netherlands did some good work there no doubt.

 

[Patroklos]

i get your point ... but seriously do you think the US gave much attention to how the Netherlands or Romanians wanted to do the reconstruction and transition to Iraq control... seriously

Not only did they care, they gave them whole zones controlled solely by those nations. Granted the US wanted (just like everyone else) an integrated approach and coordination but the idea that the other nations had no say is ridiculous. Thats like saying the British had no say in Overlord because Eisenhower was in charge.

It is more accurate to say that the nations got as much say in the reconstruction as their participation in it warranted. Nothing says they couldn't have participated more.

Do you think the US would have objected to the Netherlands contributing a couple divisions instead of a reinforced regiment? I highly doubt it (assuming they didn't put the logisitics burden on the US, even then I bet they would have welcomed it).

the British and Australians have done things differently in Iraq and Afghanistan , with some success, while still working closely with the US, but the others were their just to support the US, like Japan who went unarmed (practically) and required Australians to guard them

Well whose fault is that, the US or those other participants?

And I don't see what your problem is with the Japanese contribution. Not all requiremnts in Iraq were for armor and infantry. We needed just as many EOD, engineers, military police, logisiticians and any number of combat services/combat support types as bullet hurlers. Compared to some other similarly sized and rich nations the Japanese contribution was amazing, especially when you think about historical circumstances that deployment was made against.

the Australians are there just because ... thats the deal... we go where the US goes

Hardly. They went for the same reason the likes of the Netherlands, Norway and Iceland went, they agreed with the operation.

even the British kept saying we stand WITH the US shoulder to shoulder, its a US adventure, they got help and support from just about everyone

The simple reality is that the rest of the world does not have the ability to conduct such operations without the US, that says nothing to the legitimacy or overall feasability of such operations. Thats just a fact of life, that does not mean they are being dragged kicking and screaming to the Iraqi border.

The intervention in Libya couldn't be (and wasn't) conducted without the US, so what?

and really what do you seriously think Iceland can do apart from lending support and legitimacy to this US adventure, that is what the US wanted,

What they can, which proportionally was a hell of a lot more than some others did. Iceland, a far away country with little resources but a big heart saw a just cause and a place they could do some good with whatever meager contributions they could muster. Good on them.

That is the ultimate irony of those who are against the Iraq operation while at the same time lauding international law and multi lateral action. This is EXACTLY what Iraq was, a broad based coalition of willing participants from across the globe and from ever strata of economic and military power, participating in a framework within which they are nominal equals in a political sense. Yet in the next breath you get "LOL ICELAND!!! TONGA, WTH!!!"

Now, I can understand if you think the Romania/Albania/Honduras/Georgias of the world were brow beat or coerced into supporting the invaion, thats just diplomacy. I think its unattested in most cases and does the good work the soldiers of those countries accomplished a disservice as well, but I can take the real politic tact as well as anyone else.

However, at the same time what was the US using to coerse the Netherlands/Norway/Japan/Singapore/New Zealand/Denmark into action with. These are all rich secure nations with no real need to placate the US to any such degree. They are not exactly known for their free and loose use of their military assets either. We can agree to disagree on the handwaving of the participation of the other smaller nations, but these guys?

they wanted a long long list of supporters for their position and they got what they wanted

The US would have gone in alone. The legitimacy of having a multilateral occupation was not for the benefit of the US. It was for the benefit of the international community itself, which once on board by and large turned against the US regardless of them embracing their multilateral approach and still fails to recognize the failings of that approach.

 

[Agent327]

Are you still on about the 1st Gulf War? It´s the 2nd Iraqi invasion that´s in dubio:

- flimsy pretext on deliberately false information (both by Bush and Blair´s administration)
- unforeseen negative effects (unforeseen and unanticipated by both US and UK).

So far I see no argument that nullifies that.

Now, the situation is at is, and everybody has to deal with that - both Iraq and the international community.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There are two ways to take this.

I bet there's lots more

1.) As is actually the case you agreed with the US, made no serious objections to the intelligence when presented, and voted for all the actions anyway.

2.) You really didn't agree with the intelligence, never said anything about it, and then authorized/advocated for/participated in an invasion regardless of this knowedge.

See, there are 2 more possibilities

3) I had no idea about the credibility of the intelligence, so I didn't let it weigh in too much on my decision whether an invasion in Iraq was justified or not. I had conflicting reasoning, since a. I didn't have enough information, and didn't take the information I got via the Bush Admin as gospel truth since they were very keen on going in, so were likely to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. b. I immensely disliked the way the political leaders used this for posturing, the prequel to the invasion made me sick. c. I really wanted Saddam Hussein out of power, and realised he wouldn't go voluntarily.

I was, and still am, far from certain what the correct course of action should have been. And no one on these here forums can convince me they judge the situation correctly since everyone here lacks the same information I lack.

4) Since the Netherlands had zero intell about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and pretty much anything else in Iraq, they were closer on the mark by chance than US's communicated intell. Comment was a little quip about that.

So, which of those excuses the Netherlands from sharing full guilt/credit for any events in Iraq? If the Us was lacking in this joint venture, why did the Netherlands not fill in the gap?

I don't give a rats arse about excuses, guilt or credit. This was about the well-being of the Iraqi people remember? What does it matter who is to blame/to be credited? Only thing you can do is look back and learn from mistakes made. What has to happen to do that is to acknowledge mistakes made.

 

[Patroklos]

I bet there's lots more
See, there are 2 more possibilities

Not based on your comment.

3) I had no idea about the credibility of the intelligence, so I didn't let it weigh in too much on my decision whether an invasion in Iraq was justified or not. I had conflicting reasoning, since a. I didn't have enough information, and didn't take the information I got via the Bush Admin as gospel truth since they were very keen on going in, so were likely to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. b. I immensely disliked the way the political leaders used this for posturing, the prequel to the invasion made me sick. c. I really wanted Saddam Hussein out of power, and realised he wouldn't go voluntarily.

Netherlands did have an idea about the credibility of the intelligence, unless you think the defense apparatus of the Netherlands had no opinion on the matter.

The Netherlands deamed it credible (based on what we provided which I guarantee you they vetted as best they could and via their own intelligence), the decided to include themselves in the operation, they are on the hook for the consequences. They are a reason for its failure (as you see it).

I was, and still am, far from certain what the correct course of action should have been. And no one on these here forums can convince me they judge the situation correctly since everyone here lacks the same information I lack.

I was not talking about you personally, I am talking about the Netherlands.

They did have enough information to act apparently, and they did act.

4) Since the Netherlands had zero intell about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and pretty much anything else in Iraq, they were closer on the mark by chance than US's communicated intell. Comment was a little quip about that.

Got it, I took it to mean you had information to refute the intelligence. But that just brings us to the same place as #1. Your politicians and intel professionals looked at the same intelligence the US had, were convinced just as much as the US, and went in. If they looked at it and were not convinced, then we are back to #2.

I don't give a rats arse about excuses, guilt or credit.

Then join me in the condemnation of those who are apparently hell bent on making it all about the blame, not at all about the solution. Part of that solution is recognizing the complete failure of relying on multilateral initiatives to in and of themselves become the pancea of international problem solving. They are so vehemently brain washed by this notion they can't even admit Iraq was a multilateral initiative in the first place. A doomed to repeat sort of thing.

This was about the well-being of the Iraqi people remember? What does it matter who is to blame/to be credited? Only thing you can do is look back and learn from mistakes made. What has to happen to do that is to acknowledge mistakes made.

Part of knowing about the mistakes is knowing who made the mistakes = blame. People the world over have missed the boat on this, being blind to the fact that Iraq was one of the largest international initiates ever attempted and at the same time complaining how it wasn't an international initiative. In fact, they are saying it failed or was illegal in part because they maintian it wasn't a multilateral initiative. That's a problem.

It doesn't help when they deliberatly lie about the character of the problem, which was what that whole Iraqi university system thing was all about. You can't measure a success or mistake if you are manufacturing the original data you start with (or looking at it in a vacuum).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not convinced the intell was the reason the Netherlands supported, rather than deciding on political reasons. If they wanted to be convinced, they would be. If it was politically more opportune to not be convinced, they wouldn't be. Same goes for France and Germany who weren't. Same goes for every politician from every country

I guess that means 2?

 

[Patroklos]

It does.

Out of curiosity, what political end could possibly justify the Nethelands lying/vacating responsibility for the Netherlands? What did they need so bad?

 

[Arwon]

Hardly. They went for the same reason the likes of the Netherlands, Norway and Iceland went, they agreed with the operation.

Well, the very right wing governing party did. The people? Maybe not so much.

 

[Old Hippy]

The US would have gone in alone. The legitimacy of having a multilateral occupation was not for the benefit of the US. It was for the benefit of the international community itself, which once on board by and large turned against the US regardless of them embracing their multilateral approach and still fails to recognize the failings of that approach.

so why the lies and fudggy inteligence at the UN ... was it just because the rest of the world did not actually know what they wanted... good on the US going out of its way for our benifit, but still... by and large countries have not turnned against the US tho... they just recognized the stuff ups made in the early days

But it will be a much much smaller list the US can hope for in relation to Iran

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It does.

Out of curiosity, what political end could possibly justify the Nethelands lying/vacating responsibility for the Netherlands? What did they need so bad?

I never said they were lying. And I'm sure out of political reasoning they would feel they did the right thing. As I said, if you want to be convinced, it's easy to be convinced.

And I'm not sure (well, I think I am sure) the Netherlands had all what's required to verify America's claims independently. Quite difficult to call shenanigans on intell if you have nothing to check with. Easier to trust it.

 

[Agent327]

so why the lies and fudggy inteligence at the UN ... was it just because the rest of the world did not actually know what they wanted... good on the US going out of its way for our benifit, but still... by and large countries have not turnned against the US tho... they just recognized the stuff ups made in the early days

But it will be a much much smaller list the US can hope for in relation to Iran

The US would not have gone in alone: GW Bush´s administration did all it could to ensure that a broad coalition would support the liberation of Quwait - in stark contrast to what Bush jr´s administration did with the 2nd Iraq War.

The decision to attack Iraq was actually made in the wake of 9/11 - although no intel linked Saddam´s regime with those attacks, nor with al Qaeda, at that time. (And no evidence for this has been found since.)