Ghosteh explains.... screwing up Iraq

[Summanus]

A simple explanation really: the occupation of Iraq is actually quite halfhearted. Back in the good old days, the evil invading countries used to not care about appearing brutal and barbaric and mean, because raping, pillaging and burning woul send a message to those others who would think of resisting.

Today, we have Bush sending this message to Iran - "You'd better not be like Iraq, or else we will crush you with - free democratic elections!'.

Brutality worked for the Mongols, it worked for the Romans, it worked for the Japanese, it didn't work as well for the Germans but that was their own bloody fault, and it definitely worked for the Russians who eventually invaded Germany.

In Iraq, however, the coalition is not crushing those who oppose it. In the Korean War, it would be fair to say that a great majority of the population of South Korea wanted UN intervention. It would also be fair to say that a quite substantive amount of the population in Iraq doesn't want the coalition there. Instead of burning the houses of those who shoot at them, the coalition now employs means which have the equivalent threat of tickling someone with a feather.

Now then, here are some crucial errors that have been made in Iraq:

1. The emphasis placed on Saddam's "command and control" infrastructure. Saddam kept the Sunnis under control. Now that he's gone, as well as the mechanisms which maintained order, while the basic troops were largely ignored, the actual instruments with which violence was conducted are still in tact. To analogise yet again, take an insurgent, give him a loaded Kalashnikov. Remove the part of his brain which controls hand-eye coordination, and start complaining when he can't control his shooting. This is squarely the fault of the hawks.

2. Buying into the doctrine of 'reducing civilian suffering during war'. This is self defeating. In war, the goal is to maximise civilian suffering, so that the populace realise they will be better off complying with your wishes. If there is a particular neighbourhood giving you trouble, cut the power, block their roads and starve them. Crush the will of those who would oppose you. Instead, we have coalition troops running around like nancy-boys trying to win 'the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people. Not only will this fail, but this doctrine has turned the armed forces gay. This is squarely the fault of the doves.

3. Trying to introduce democracy while the war is still going. No, no, no, no, NO! . Due to its divisive nature, democracies, on the balance of things, are weaker in wartime than other forms of government. You don't hear of "powerful military democracies". I am fairly certain that democracy was imposed upon the Axis powers after the war was over. Not only have the coalition instituted a prime target for the insurgents to try to destroy, if not disrupt, they have now reduced the capacity to deal effectively with the insurgents, and those who support them. Of the three, this is probably the worst, if not for its effects, than for the sheer idiocy of it.

In conclusion, next time we invade a country, make sure to do it properly

[NEWSBOT3]

oh, i wondered who this toss account belonged to.

[Summanus]

It was pretty bloody obvious actually

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

This is squarely the fault of the doves.

You misunderstand how these things work. Obviously the Americans could crush Iraq if they wished. They could after all eliminate the entire population of Iraq if they really felt like it. But they don't do that
(a) because they don't really want to
(b) outside a very narrow military framework, it wouldn't "work". Being able to achieve a goal and such a goal being desirable are two seperate things. They could increase the amount of violence used in Iraq, and dramatically so, but this would increase their costs elsewhere.

[JammyJim]

You don't hear of "powerful military democracies".

this line made me laugh......

genuinely laugh.

[MrL_JaKiri]

That would explain the level of intellect.

[JammyJim]

i didnt actually laugh tho....im just pretending. it did make me smirk tho.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You misunderstand how these things work. Obviously the Americans could crush Iraq if they wished. They could after all eliminate the entire population of Iraq if they really felt like it. But they don't do that
(a) because they don't really want to
(b) outside a very narrow military framework, it wouldn't "work". Being able to achieve a goal and such a goal being desirable are two seperate things. They could increase the amount of violence used in Iraq, and dramatically so, but this would increase their costs elsewhere.

Crushing a population and eliminating a population are quite different in this case. Would it not make sense to isolate a particularly bad neighbourhood, and overwhelm all resistance in it, in order to make it cow to your own will?

JJ - the United States is held back by it being a democracy. Essentially, democracies give countries a conscience. That makes it a lot harder to kill people, or other nations.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Would it not make sense to isolate a particularly bad neighbourhood, and overwhelm all resistance in it, in order to make it cow to your own will?

It might make military sense in a narrow manner. I already said this. Essentially you're analysing the situation from one-dimension. It's more complicated than this.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It might make military sense in a narrow manner. I already said this. Essentially you're analysing the situation from one-dimension. It's more complicated than this.

SHOCK HORROR! I'm personally against the war anyway, and even being there in the first place.

If you'd like I can make another thread about why the whole thing has been a mistake and stupid debacle. But on the fundamental level, it is to be expected that 'the most powerful military on Earth' should be able to do a job properly.

It cannot.

If Iraq is successful, I envision it to be based more on the efforts of the Iraqi government in reaching out to the insurgents, as opposed to American military success.

[JammyJim]

No the reason overwhelming military force was not employed in the manner your speaking of was because of the inevitable consequence of totally destabilising the middle east. You cannot possibly invade a country (properly). overthrow its leadership and then take control like the colonial empires of the past. It doesnt work anymore and would cause so much anger it would be like fighting another vietnam.



"This is self defeating. In war, the goal is to maximise civilian suffering, so that the populace realise they will be better off complying with your wishes. If there is a particular neighbourhood giving you trouble, cut the power, block their roads and starve them. Crush the will of those who would oppose you. Instead, we have coalition troops running around like nancy-boys trying to win 'the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people. Not only will this fail, but this doctrine has turned the armed forces gay. This is squarely the fault of the doves"


The United States adopted a 'hearts and minds' approach to Iraq. Not a 'blow the shit out of everyone whos brown'

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

No the reason overwhelming military force was not employed in the manner your speaking of was because of the inevitable consequence of totally destabilising the middle east. You cannot possibly invade a country (properly). overthrow its leadership and then take control like the colonial empires of the past. It doesnt work anymore and would cause so much anger it would be like fighting another vietnam.

The United States adopted a 'hearts and minds' approach to Iraq. Not a 'blow the shit out of everyone whos brown'

And look where it got them. A 'hearts and minds approach', involving a foreign army, is either the stupidest, or funniest, thing I have ever heard.

And hence, as with Vietnam, the consicence of a democracy inhibits its success.

[JammyJim]

Britian has adopted a hearts and minds approach to combat operations for decades and by all accounts it works far far better than you can possibly imagine.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Britian has adopted a hearts and minds approach to combat operations for decades and by all accounts it works far far better than you can possibly imagine.

Yes, like the Falklands

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Yes, like the Falklands

POTW for sheer bizarreness

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Yes, like the Falklands

THAT WAS OUR ****ING LAND YOU RETARDED ****

It didn't need a hearts and minds approach - they're British citizens!

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Phang

POTW for sheer bizarreness

You nominate it, I'll vote for it.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Yes, like the Falklands

Don't forget Gibraltar........

~Vaio~

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by skiddy

THAT WAS OUR ****ING LAND YOU RETARDED ****

It didn't need a hearts and minds approach - they're British citizens!

You're right. It didn't need that approach because, as British citizens, they have neither hearts nor minds

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Summanus

You're right. It didn't need that approach because, as British citizens, they have neither hearts nor minds

You're aware that 'worst comeback' isn't actually a category in the Annual GD Awards, right?

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by skiddy

You're aware that 'worst comeback' isn't actually a category in the Annual GD Awards, right?

I just wanted some attention

[Cannon_Fodder]

vietnam was technically a military success, only the general population couldnt stand any losses and so forced the government to recall

britain hasnt necessarily adopted a hearts and mind strategy, rather a 'our forces use their minds, dont go guns blazing, think who we are shooting 'strategy as opposed to the americans 'ho ah lets own the place'

summanus, was that a poor troll there?

oh and communism > capitalism

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Summanus

You're right. It didn't need that approach because, as British citizens, they have neither hearts nor minds

this made me want to ban you :-(

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

You're right. It didn't need that approach because, as British citizens, they have neither hearts nor minds

Your now officially my favourite comedy GD poster. More please.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by sniborp

vietnam was technically a military success, only the general population couldnt stand any losses and so forced the government to recall

good grief, what?

there are other measures of success than collateral damage and civilian deaths, you know. for example, evacuating your embassy from a surrounded city after being given 24 hours goodwill by the other side is not, technically, a triumph.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by sniborp

vietnam was technically a military success, only the general population couldnt stand any losses and so forced the government to recall

britain hasnt necessarily adopted a hearts and mind strategy, rather a 'our forces use their minds, dont go guns blazing, think who we are shooting 'strategy as opposed to the americans 'ho ah lets own the place'

summanus, was that a poor troll there?

oh and communism > capitalism

Oh wait. Stop the press. We got a real expert here. When's your next book due out Musashi?

Just cause you read internet web sites doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Summanus

...the United States is held back by it being a democracy. Essentially, democracies give countries a conscience. That makes it a lot harder to kill people, or other nations.

interestingly enough, we in the military have this 'cool' thing called basic training, where all democratic trains of thought are expelled, and mission etched in each military mind and honed where the words war, kill, shit, blowthe****up , etc. become extensions of democracy to secure democracy - we are here to secure democracy, not to practice it

trust me, a US marine will cold-bloodedly shoot an insurgent's brains off without remorse just like a tomahawk console operator on a US destroyer will be more than happy to push that 'fire' button

[zakoff]

Your analysis is complete nonsense. Your understanding of brutality in the past is rather far fetched too. Brutality can work both ways. It can work as a suppressive tool, scaring people into not reacting against invasion/oppression or it will create a moral outrage and increase reactions against invaders.

Brutality normally works when daily life is stable, for instance, in Russia it worked while the Economy was working pretty well. Brutality for Germany worked very well, they kept most of the rebellious populous in check. Look at the Czechoslovakia where they destroyed two villages after Benes ordered the killing of Heydrich. This stopped any similar direct assasinations until after Hitlers power started to decline.

In all Brutal regines, however, there is always a minority that is willing to fight. The 'freedom fighters' or the 'rebels.' These people will use the brutality as a pretext to use their own brutality whilst fighting the oppressive brutal regime/power. This is what is going on in Iraq, in my opinion, there is a large group of rebels who are causing the violence against the US. If the US retaliate with similar or even more extreme brutality they will push more moral outrage into the people of Iraq and therfore more people into rebel groups (just like what happens in Pallestine for instance). Also look at the fight in Fallujah, which was particularly brutal, this did not have the effect that people believe. Brutality does not repress a populations anger completely there is still a minority that will act on its hatred etc.

To your points
1) this is largely correct, the invaders failed to fully understand the structure of Iraqi society and certainly do not understand the Sunni and Shi`ite schism either and especially the political problems this may cause. However, Saddam had opposition within Iraq aswell, not everyone supported him and his brutal oppression doesn't stop oppostion - look at the Kurds for instance. It was clear that there would be a power vacuum once Saddam fell and that order would take a long time to be restored. One thing they have to accept is that the people fighting against them are NOT insurgents - they are infact rebels.

2) This has never really worked completely. In the more modern context due to the mass media it would be politically impossible to 'maximies civillian casualties'. Its not a good thing politically to have dead children spread accross the Newspapers. Death of Civillians also increases citezen unity against a common foe and obviously creates groups of rebels who are willing to use similar means to fight the invaders. I also disagree with your point about coalition troops. This is untrue, soldiers are killers and they are trained to break from normal civilisations moral rules. This is why wars are pretty horrible, because the moral boundries are already breached and the limits of this breach are often hard to control. This is why Armies and Soldiers often do bad things, because that is essentially their role in society. So the Coaltion governments cannot tell soldiers to go round and do good things in that way, it just doesn't work in all cases. There are always going to be a group of soldiers goes to far. I do agree that winning the hearts and minds of a native population is largely impossible during an occupation. however the answer to this is to appease them via Economic and Social regeneration. This was the way it worked within post-World War 2 nations, like Germany and Japan. Without the regeneration projects there would have obviously been the rebellious groups fighting the allies.


3) Democracy should only be created in stable countries. It is quite clear, in history, that democracies have their failings in periods of crisis (look at the Weimar Republic for instance). In the Middle East there are more problems that this with Democracy, there is no real evidence that it will work. The Coalition's elections were a political game, to keep support in the coalition nations, they were not a good thing for Iraq. I would agree that they have created a prime target for rebels and i would agree that it was an idiotic move.

However, this does pose the question of what the Coalition should do. People, including myself, can only criticise the governments for the way they have acted in iraq. No one has really given a possible answer to the issues.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

interestingly enough, we in the military have this 'cool' thing called basic training, where all democratic trains of thought are expelled, and mission etched in each military mind and honed where the words war, kill, shit, blowthe****up , etc. become extensions of democracy to secure democracy - we are here to secure democracy, not to practice it

trust me, a US marine will cold-bloodedly shoot an insurgent's brains off without remorse just like a tomahawk console operator on a US destroyer will be more than happy to push that 'fire' button

In Russia, people didn't care that German civilians were killed by the thousands

In America, people do care that Iraqi civilians are being killed by the thousands. I wasn't referring to the capacity of the individual soldier to kill somebody, but for the nation to execute a war effectively and without dissent

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Summanus

In Russia, people didn't care that German civilians were killed by the thousands

In America, people do care that Iraqi civilians are being killed by the thousands. I wasn't referring to the capacity of the individual soldier to kill somebody, but for the nation to execute a war effectively and without dissent

in these contemporary times of the post WW2, we have this other 'cool' thing called human rights and the geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 - we are now, bound by this, otherwise it still wouldnt be a problem --

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

in these contemporary times of the post WW2, we have this other 'cool' thing called human rights and the geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 - we are now, bound by this, otherwise it still wouldnt be a problem --

No you're not. International law is optional at best, other than certain crimes deemed jus cogens , which can and should be prosecuted anywhere possible.

However, the nature of international law is that even if the US breaks such laws, nobody is going to pursue it.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

in these contemporary times of the post WW2, we have this other 'cool' thing called human rights and the geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 - we are now, bound by this, otherwise it still wouldnt be a problem --

Anyone who can name specific sections of the Geneva Convention really needs to get out and get a breath of fresh air. Unless ofc you just looked that shit up on google, which would be lame.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by CamelToe

Anyone who can name specific sections of the Geneva Convention really needs to get out and get a breath of fresh air. Unless ofc you just looked that shit up on google, which would be lame.

lol! i actually know some of them - i'm active duty category II, i'm bound and/or protected under this category (instruction on treatment of POW's)

i know i'm only opening doors to posters who will provide links to the mistreatment of iraqi prisoners - so i'm shutting up now

[CamelToe]

What does category II mean?

[demiGOD]

it means you're not supposed to be taking your prisoners' clothes off, sexually molesting them, and taking pictures all at the same time

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by sniborp

vietnam was technically a military success

And Santa Claus exists and lives on the north pole.

Who told you this, or is this something you made up yourself?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

in these contemporary times of the post WW2, we have this other 'cool' thing called human rights and the geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 - we are now, bound by this, otherwise it still wouldnt be a problem --

Didnt the Geneva convention exist before WWII ?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

And Santa Claus exists and lives on the north pole.

Who told you this, or is this something you made up yourself?

His point sounds silly, but in a very narrow sense, as I've mentioned, it makes sense. The Americans had more military victories than the Vietnamese. They killed more Vietnamese than they received casualities themselves. In most engagements they came off better than the Vietnamese.

Of course all of this is blazingly irrelevent given the wider context. You cannot analyse these sorts of questions without looking at the other side of the coin. Saying the Americans could do X or Y ignores the costs (political costs maybe, but still costs) they'd suffer as a consequence.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Didnt the Geneva convention exist before WWII ?

i think it got imposed in '49 - before ww2, definitely the geneva didnt exist, lots of brutal non-human rights crap happened during that war (not that human rights in our present wars are being practiced)

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

i think it got imposed in '49 - before ww2, definitely the geneva didnt exist, lots of brutal non-human rights crap happened during that war (not that human rights in our present wars are being practiced)

The First Geneva Convetion was in 1864. The Second extends this to the sea, the Third deals with POWs and the Fourth with civilians. The entire group was ratified in 1949, however, the first three were established before then.