Iraq in the Post-Bush Era

Does anyone know if we are on-schedule for all combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the summer?

And does it look like Iraq will have a new Prime Minister?

 

http://www.economist.com/node/16889410

 

So, does everyone here believe that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year? Neither the Iraqi government or the American government are attempting to change the plan to allow them to stay longer, and al-Maliki has reasserted control over the Iraqi government after the months-long power struggle that followed the latest elections.

 

I kept hearing that they're all supposed to be out by then, but I said that to someone with a lot of friends in the military who said that they've already got deployment dates set for after that (for Iraq as well as Afghanistan), so I'm a bit confused on the whole thing...

 

Yeah, we're on track to do so-I'm on Camp Ramadi right now, and the base's non-necessity businesses/buildings are closing at the end of march. This isn't limited to here; I've been to Camp Liberty (Baghdad) and Al Asad Air Base recently as well, and it's the same deal there.

 

I've long argued that Dick Cheney's personal primary motivating factor for pushing the Iraq war was likely not so much to *steal* its oil but to bring all Iraqi oil back online for global markets, specifically to scale up Iraqi oil production by opening up Iraqi oil reserves to western oil companies for major infrastructure investment.

Here's a new article from the British perspective, basically revealing exactly this to be the case, at least from their end:

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

In 2003, WSJ reported a meeting between Cheney's staff and oil company executives to plan for the postwar Iraq oil industry. Everyone denied this meeting took place, but if the American experience paralleled the British experience, we can now assume that the denials were a lie.

It took more than seven years for the Bush-Cheney strategy to really bear fruit, but it is at last beginning to pay off. Iraqi oil production will continue to ramp up for many more years as long as there is enough stability on the ground to lure and protect infrastructure investments.

The U.S. has benefited directly in the sense that Iraq is now our sixth largest oil supplier behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela. If Iraq's dreams of expansion come true, it could within ten years or so supplant Saudi Arabia as our third biggest source of imports (or second if Mexico's exports continue to decline).

Of course, we may never recoup the cost of the war in terms of the value of oil imports, but if the goal was to keep foreign oil flowing in the direction of the U.S., even at a net long term loss, the Iraq war was a resounding, far-reaching victory of immense significance.

 

Unfortunately the oil argument always got tied up by those on the left-wing who cared more about hitting the right, and the right's equivalent response was always sort of disingenuous by not looking into the overall point rather than the 'stealing' wording those people chose. Which meant the reality was getting lost on anyone except those who paid cursory attention when the headlines stopped rolling in.

To some degree, in hindsight, I can sympathize with those who supported the administration as a knee-jerk reaction (though far less than those like Hitchens or Wolfowitz who CARED about Iraq and were used): many people on the left were in the right, but only by chance and in the most general sense. For so, so many people had Bush Jr. been a Democrat rather than a Republican... or to be even fairer and ignore the parties altogether, were he an Iraq hawk but was otherwise a liberal, those arguing for and against the war would have flipped sides.

I don't sympathize with them too much, though: kind of just empathy for the losing side. Those who spew dogma (be it militaristic or pacifistic) can tend to earn my derision, and Libya has me moving the other way these days. Say what you want about Cheney -- and boy, will I -- but at least the man can think for himself. If he used a lot of Americans... al lot of Americans deserved to be used (this applies to any nationality, btw).


This is why I take your or Lowie's takes on these things much more seriously than, say, my sister-in-law, who I've actually LOST respect for as she's matured: funny how peer pressure can dumb you down and leave you more unwise when you are 22 than you were when you were 17. She's gone from having interesting opinons to basing her political compass on what Cheech and Chong were more likely to think (all the more depressing when you're reminded the comedians aren't exactly like thier characters).

I'm on the same side of that compass's axis as her as opposed to Mr44 or KK. But when we start talking politics, God don't I often wish it was the other way around. Rather than Left vs Right, I'd prefer it was sometimes Intelligence vs Idiodicy.

 

Obviously the equation changes a bit if you ask how the Iraqi people themselves benefited from the war. First you have the death toll, then you have the refugee crisis and the mutual ethnic cleansing, and the economy that was bombed back into the 18th century after having been sanctioned into the 19th and has not yet really begun to recover.

On the other hand you have regime change and oil revenues with no real upward limit in the medium term that will increasingly flow Iraq-ward in the years and decades ahead. The Iraqi people will inevitably benefit from these revenue flows, although it's unclear the extent to which they will go toward reinforcing and building democratic institutions or be shared broadly in the form of social programs and infrastructure projects aimed at providing greater economic opportunity for the as yet largely jobless Iraqi people.

But if you've been in the market for a way to classify Iraq as an American victory, strategic resource policy remains to this day your clearest winner.

But don't be too hard on your sister. My sibling is a Manhattanite elite earning $5 million a year in investment banking who despises Obama for demonizing the Captains of Finance even as Obama bailed them all out of bankruptcy to the tune of trillions. They simply cannot forgive Obama for needing to be saved by him. You have to love the siblings for their quaint notions.

 

I don't view it in terms of being right or wrong, but I think after the politics have been removed, the justification holds up. For me, there was one article from the Economist which outlined why we had to invade Iraq at the time, and I think was about as pure as one would ever see. It's been linked to before, but I can't seem to find it again. It was published before all the vitriol and political garbage from both sides, and it was right on the money.

I'm with you that I think the reasons why are almost more important than the conclusion themselves, but the perception over Iraq was an interesting response which I think might have been unique with regards to all other military involvements, save for Vietnam. Of course, Vietnam revolved around loftier social change set against the backdrop of a war. A lot of people tried to recapture that feeling with Iraq, but without actually becoming involved themselves, or wanting to bring about any kind of change, which is why for the most part, the Iraq protests fell flat. But Iraq was an investment. Considering that the US (and the UK) were involved in Iraq from 1991-2003, it's not difficult to think that the situation would be resolved in a matter of months. If anything, Cheney was "right." Except now, Iraq doesn't even register on the public conscience anymore.

The thing about Libya is that I don't think one single lesson learned from Iraq was then carried over to operation Odyssey Dawn. That's the part that should be frustrating to those who care. There's no targeted focus. The best capabilities aren't being used. The President certainly has failed at justifying the operation, and no one is reassuring the public or outlining goals. Iraq had clear goals, it just proved to more involved to meet them. Libya has almost no goals, but there's not as much involvement, which is why it comes off as half-hearted.

 

Who's "we", and what was the reason?
I'm curious. I can't think of a morally sound reason, and I think I've heard them all...

 

Saddam was removed about ten years too late; we took the leaders of former Yugoslavia to task for actions not terrifically different from Saddam's genocidal suppression of Shia Muslims and Kurds in 1992-1993. And then of course waging war on Iran & Kuwait and the millions of deaths that resulted to all three parties and I frankly don't see much of a reason for why Saddam wasn't frankly removed earlier; he'd certainly lost any vague sense of "useful to keep around" after his second failed war against a neighbor. The ideal time would have been immediately after Gulf War I; we already had a solid coalition and the masses of troops there (the US alone had something like 400,000 in theatre from just the Army, not counting the Marine, Navy, and Air Forces) that could have transitioned from wartime operations to peacekeeping/stability operations without a whole lot of effort.

But the Saudis would not allow that-they still viewed Saddam as a buffer against Iran, which is a pretty ridiculous point when you consider Saddam had been at least as much of a threat to them as Iran was ever going to be-and so we're stuck with a costly and too-late effort that should've been accomplished years ago.

 

But the Saudis would not allow that-they still viewed Saddam as a buffer against Iran, which is a pretty ridiculous point when you consider Saddam had been at least as much of a threat to them as Iran was ever going to be-and so we're stuck with a costly and too-late effort that should've been accomplished years ago.

There was probably a bit of that, but the cynic in me sees what is going on in Libya and the rising cost of oil right now that is disproportionate to the amount of oil that country contains and the fact that there is a lack of actual crisis in the most important oil-producing states (only a fear of one).

My thinking is that the Saudis as a rule do not want ANY Arab leader deposed -- Iran and Israel don't count -- becuase if that happens, it gives the local population worrisome ideas. And if the West sees fit to encourage those ideas... oh, whoops, guess who just cut oil production?

 

Who's "we", and what was the reason?
I'm curious. I can't think of a morally sound reason, and I think I've heard them all...

Actually, I think Gonk and Boba's previous two posts really hint at the reasons. I think where the perception over Iraq broke down was that a some people tried to shoehorn a truly binary standard of morality, where no such standard exists in the world.

War is simply the continuation of foreign policy, and I think it is ok to remove a belligerent dictator by force, especially if that same dictator is intent on destabilizing their respective regions as much as possible. The rallying cry for the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion was "no blood for oil," but realistically, that's exactly it. If a specific resource holds the key to everyone's standard of living, then conflict will arise to possess it, or at least control the influence related to it. In a nutshell, don't chant "no blood for oil," then hop in your Subaru WRX and race down to the Apple store to get the new I-Pad II. Or rather, it's fine if you do, just stop and realize that there are costs associated with the choice.

But your question highlights the disconnect. If you don't see a "morally defensible" rationale for Iraq, how about a pragmatic one? How about a policy-borne one? Look to any conflict in modern times-Falkland Islands, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Panama, Invasion of Haiti, Desert Storm, Strikes against Sudan, current operation in Libya, and so on....and "morally defensible" is always subservient to other goals that are linked to policy. I think Iraq was the first time critics tried to pretend that it was the other way around.

 

Hell, just the slaughter of the Iran-Iraq War was frankly reason enough to call for the removal of Saddam. This war happened solely to enlarge Saddam's power base by knocking off a prominent neighbor; it was an utter failure due to Saddam's usually bad reading of foreign opponents, and led to mass casualties, both civilians and soldiers, on both sides. Hell, by 1984 (the halfway point of the war) Iran had lost 300,000 soldiers; Iraq slightly less with 250,000.

Iran-Iraq War

 

Guys, I agree with all of those reasons. They're good reasons. Problem is... those weren't the reasons cited for going to war.

The decision to go to war was reached through lies, threats, and manipulation. You'd have to ask yourself: is it worth that? A dictator is bad, but is removing him worth unhinging the international community? Are you walking a just path if you reach your goals lying about them? The weak case that the US brought to bear for going to war divided many governments and ruined many a politician's career.

Besides that, the timing wasn't very opportune in the light of east-west relations; more so because of the lying about it.

And finally, didn't some international coalition already have their hands full with Afghanistan? Didn't the timetable that the WMD lie brought with it upset the timetable for an end to the war in Afghanistan?

Tactically, it's insane - even more with the good reasons than with the lies. What sense does it make to let a guy commit atrocities - and then to take action a decade later, just when you're all tied up?

I suspect the US knew that, which would be why they drummed up the lies. After all, a war needed to be fought! But I'd have preferred it if they'd remained honest and if the international community had been given more time to come to a decision. Saddam's big atrocities were a decade in the past - handing it to him wasn't a pressing matter.

 

Guys, I agree with all of those reasons. They're good reasons. Problem is... those weren't the reasons cited for going to war.

To be direct though, who cares how it was "sold?" Who cares if a single person is is a poor public speaker? There are some things that elected officials should be held accountable for, and there are some things they shouldn't be. If Bush was a horrible public speaker, that's on him. If he picked a single aspect out of a complicated situation and focused on it in order to try and make a political slam dunk, that's on him. If Kerry wasn't worse, Bush wouldn't have gotten re-elected. But it doesn't have to carry over into all realms of policy and foreign relations. Because as far as the other reasons go, Congress was involved. The intelligence community was involved. The UN was involved. Other nations were involved.

So in essence, you seem to be illustrating my above point. If Bush was more popular, or was actually able to manipulate the public more effectively, Iraq wouldn't have been given another thought. Or it seems to me, that what you are saying is that you're willing to set aside all sorts of valid reasons simply because you think Bush was a jerk. I know you're not from the US, but on the political side of things, there is truth to the idea that had Clinton or Obama been President (those who bookended Bush) and carried out the exact same action, it wouldn't have warranted a blip on the radar. The overall action in Iraq didn't act as some special bookmark of morality, nor was it ever meant to be. That is, unless someone can explain how missiles fired into the Sudan, or dropped in Eastern Europe, or launched against Libya are someone less deadly and more humanitarian that those that existed in 2003.

 

And finally, didn't some international coalition already have their hands full with Afghanistan? Didn't the timetable that the WMD lie brought with it upset the timetable for an end to the war in Afghanistan?

Actually, no-I was in Afghanistan in 2003-2004 and the only thing the Iraq invasion changed for us was stretching our deployment time from 6 months to 9.

 

Fixed

It's not because Bush was dumb that I was against the war in Iraq; that was the reason why I thought it was stupid he got away with taking office, and why I thought it was stupid he got reelected. No, I was against the war in Iraq because the war was fought at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons, which I explained above. You might not think much of lying to your allies and taking them on a rampage by way of threats and deceit, I do. I think it helps to build a world in which allies can't trust eachother, and in which the strongest nation lords over others.

You must agree that Afghanistan didn't get a big enough invasion army, and that the other war made sure it would never get it. That Afghanistan didn't get the attention it needed, because of that other war. And that the difficulties that allied nations had with the requests for support were made even more difficult by the sudden need for that other war.

 

Actually, it was when Big Army started to get involved that things started to get ugly-the SF/USAF/Northern Alliance combination absolutely cut the legs out from under the Taliban in virtually every engagement for the first six months; Osama only avoided capture at Tora Bora because of senior command incompetence. The few hundred SF/Rangers/CIA Special Operations Group soldiers who comprised the invasion force absolutely routed the Taliban to the point where by 2003 the Taliban were all but beaten; my deployment there featured all of two firefights against a total of six armed enemy. I personally think involving the conventional military in Afghanistan was honestly a bad decision; we were and are superb for a conflict like Iraq, but Afghanistan is a different story IMO.


Edit-the size of the invasion force was largely dictated by available basing around Afghanistan. Points of entry for Afghanistan in 2001 were extremely limited; the initial force had literally one airbase in Kyrgyzstan to initially use, beyond our own base on Diego Garcia, which is not close to Afghanistan by any means. If Iran had still been an ally, a large invasion would have been possible, but they're not and were not at the time, either. Another key factor was that SOCOM pushed hard for primary responsibility and were the first branch of service to come up with a tenable plan, which is precisely what led to such a route of the Taliban and AQ in 2001-2005.

 

Very well, I will heed your knowledge and will, from now on, argue the opposite of what I argued before.


Now if only Mr44 will get back here, and we can finish this decade-old debate.

 

Well, it is a decade long debate, one which has been examined around here before. Back then, it was also important to look at the types of forces being sent to each operation.

Just like with Afghanistan, Iraq opened with SF, Airborne, and Commando units. However, Iraq involved heavier units like the 3rd and 4th Mechanized Infantry Divisions, and the UK's 1st Armored Division, and so on.

Besides the SF units that Boba mentioned, Afghanistan involved lighter infantry units like the 10th Mountain Division, 101st Airborne, and the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, and so on.

While there was some overlap, from a logistics sense, simply making the claim that "Iraq took resources away from Afghanistan" is not accurate, because the types of units were organized differently. You could make an argument that fighting both simultaneously potentially extended the op tempo of any individual soldier, because the chance of a deployment was statistically greater, but those aren't exactly the same issue.

To simplify the example by setting aside both Iraq and Afghanistan: In the US military, the 2nd Infantry Division is tasked with the defense of South Korea. A specific soldier could be deployed to Korea for a year. When the US became involved in the Balkans, it wouldn't be accurate to say "but the Balkans took away from the Korean mission," because the units themselves were tasked differently. However, since you now have 2 deployments instead of one, a specific soldier might have to go on 2 deployments during their career, assuming they were assigned to units that were sent to both.

 

I haven't posted in a while, but I found something someone here might want to chew on.

This is almost a year old, but I thought it was pretty interesting: WikiLeaks? Inconvenient Truth about Iraqi Chemical Weapons

This is one aspect about the Iraq War that I think is still largely misunderstood because of the political cry "Bush lied." He may have been a bad president, and the Iraq War may have been handled horribly (especially if civilian death tolls are accurate and resultant of American force), but I don't think he lied about the intelligence he received regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I have gone back and forth between him being flat wrong, or that Saddam still had weapons he had not disposed of, but I argue, he didn't lie or go to war because of some giant oil conspiracy...though, some of the hawks in his administration may have, who knows. I know I'm in the minority here when I say that, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about the validity of the war. Just thought, if this article is true, doesn't it mean we found WMDs in Iraq during the Bush administration?

 

Well, none of the actual WikiLeaks links seem to work anymore, but even the missiles with 150-k range don't pose a threat to the United States itself, which from what I more or less vaguely recall from 8 years ago was what was being implied.

I tend to look at Bush's statements nowadays as being basically from a very cynical guy who looked at the American public's response to brutal acts of genocide all through the 1990s (which was one resounding pile of "who cares about people with funny names") and decided that we couldn't handle the truth about why Saddam needed to go. As we're currently proving quite handily in Libya.

 

Almost out of Iraq... less than two months!

 

Yeppers. I'm planning to start an "after-action review" thread when that happens; a review of the war from the initial rhetoric, to the invasion, to the civil war, the surge, the drawdown, and the final end of the war. The idea'll be to actually draw conclusions; the Iraq war is unique in Senate topics because it's literally the only one to have a beginning, middle, and end to discuss.