Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Don't tempt me, Scraps didn't get it. 640181[/snapback] Apparently neither do you Obi Wan.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Maybe not, but it appears they had a better sense of what was required than those who are "planners". 640133[/snapback] Not really. It has more to do with the planners by nature being focused on the invasion rather than the post-war stabilization. The war planning was actually very, very good. It's the peace planning that was all !@#$ed up.
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Not really. It has more to do with the planners by nature being focused on the invasion rather than the post-war stabilization. The war planning was actually very, very good. It's the peace planning that was all !@#$ed up. 640197[/snapback] Well then its f*cked up. What is the point in going into a war of choice to transform a region if you don't adequately plan to win the peace?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Well then its f*cked up. What is the point in going into a war of choice to transform a region if you don't adequately plan to win the peace? 640213[/snapback] I tried to explain that, but I didn't do a very good job. Flight suit, nose bleed or whatever.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I tried to explain that, but I didn't do a very good job. Flight suit, nose bleed or whatever. 640247[/snapback] Heck McNamara couldn't figure that one, why should we believe that Rumsfeld could. You would have thought we would have learned, but learning takes a few brick walls when it comes to these can do kinda guys.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Don't be a tease. You know as well as I do it's groundhog day. Sum up my other posts. Oh, but I'm such a neo-con.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Don't be a tease. You know as well as I do it's groundhog day. Sum up my other posts. Oh, but I'm such a neo-con. 640286[/snapback] And I am such a liberal, still can't stand stupidity and lazy short cut-itis. You actually sound like your typical pragmatist, you want things to be better, know how to make a lot of it happen, willing to listen to good ideas, but suffer insanity, stupidity and things that have been tried and failed before with a lot of angst.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 And I am such a liberal, still can't stand stupidity and lazy short cut-itis. You actually sound like your typical pragmatist, you want things to be better, know how to make a lot of it happen, willing to listen to good ideas, but suffer insanity, stupidity and things that have been tried and failed before with a lot of angst. 640295[/snapback] I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. A lot of people know how to make it better, they just can't.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. A lot of people know how to make it better, they just can't. 640323[/snapback] Been there, done that, now trying to learn how to raise a son and another on the way, while starting my own business. No more control doing this either, but at least I get to think I am making decisions and have more influence over outcomes.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Been there, done that, now trying to learn how to raise a son and another on the way, while starting my own business. No more control doing this either, but at least I get to think I am making decisions and have more influence over outcomes. 640327[/snapback] I hear you. I'm not doing it anymore either, I've had my epiphany (spelling?). Has nothing to do with politics. I'm 49 years old, soon to be 50. I've been in war since I was 18. I'm not a fan of TV, but I watch it. Time to go do something else.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Well then its f*cked up. What is the point in going into a war of choice to transform a region if you don't adequately plan to win the peace? 640213[/snapback] Because traditionally peace hasn't been the responsibility of war planners. There's plenty of good historical examples of that. The invasion of Iraq, in that respect, was kind of a watershed event, in that it made military planners realize that, if you're going to wage aggressive and preemptive wars of conquest, war planning has to encompass the occupation as well (although the plan for invading Iraq did pay lip service to post-war issues...but it didn't, as far as I can tell, go into any detail.) If you think about it, it's really the first war the US has fought in which that became a problem. !@#$ed up? Yeah, sort of...but not really. Probably about par for the course, given the body of experience we have to draw on for such cases...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Apparently neither do you Obi Wan. 640192[/snapback] Yeah, I did.
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Yeah, I did. 640434[/snapback] Why you're so damned smart, why don't you reward yourself with a pickle juice dipped candy bar?
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Because traditionally peace hasn't been the responsibility of war planners. There's plenty of good historical examples of that. The invasion of Iraq, in that respect, was kind of a watershed event, in that it made military planners realize that, if you're going to wage aggressive and preemptive wars of conquest, war planning has to encompass the occupation as well (although the plan for invading Iraq did pay lip service to post-war issues...but it didn't, as far as I can tell, go into any detail.) If you think about it, it's really the first war the US has fought in which that became a problem. !@#$ed up? Yeah, sort of...but not really. Probably about par for the course, given the body of experience we have to draw on for such cases... 640399[/snapback] I'm not sure the body of experience is really that deficient. We've had models that were successful (Japan, Germany post WW2) and complete failures (Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal). We have continuing nation building projects (Balkans), and a handle on the history of the region (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq under British rule). In fact is was ba upon these experiences that Shinseki based his estimates. It was pretty obvious that it was going to take a lot of troops, time and money to turn out successfully. Given the history of the region, the role religion plays in the society, the tribalism and anti-Americanism, it was always an iffy proposition.
X. Benedict Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Perhaps the best model may be the the Phillipines. Not sure, but it may have some merit circa 1900.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I'm not sure the body of experience is really that deficient. We've had models that were successful (Japan, Germany post WW2) We have very different interpretations of the postwar rebuliding, then. And, as I implied, the post-war phase was NOT planned militarily; most of that effort was coordinated through State, as far as I know. and complete failures (Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal). Not even remotely relevant. There's a huge difference between post-war occupation of a conquered nation, and post-war rebuilding of a country you're not even directly engaged in. We have continuing nation building projects (Balkans), That's all I can say to that. If the Balkans is an example of our institutional knowledge base, we're !@#$ed. and a handle on the history of the region (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq under British rule). That must be why we invaded a country in the region agains everyone's advice, alienating damn near the entire populace by treating Arab Muslims like misguided Americans who just need to nudged forcefully in the right direction. In fact is was ba upon these experiences that Shinseki based his estimates. It was pretty obvious that it was going to take a lot of troops, time and money to turn out successfully. Given the history of the region, the role religion plays in the society, the tribalism and anti-Americanism, it was always an iffy proposition. 640482[/snapback] Actually, it was never obvious it was ever going to work to begin with, no matter what the troops and money ("time" is another thing...but we're talking on the order of not even years or decades, but a couple generations). It's also not terribly obvious that Shinseki based his estimates on such considerations...the simple fact that his estimates were more accurate than the official ones does not mean he interpreted precedent and experience correctly, particularly in light of the fact that most of the precedent doesn't even apply (this is more of a colonial situation than any other occupation the US has ever undertaken...colonialism has different rules. The British are far more suited to this sort of thing that we are, due to their colonial history...and not conicidentally, the Brits made a better transition from "combat" to "post combat" and maintained the peace better than we have in central Iraq.)
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 We have very different interpretations of the postwar rebuliding, then. And, as I implied, the post-war phase was NOT planned militarily; most of that effort was coordinated through State, as far as I know. 640521[/snapback] Actually, Rumsfeld fought for it and won it. Bremmer reported to Rumsfeld. Not even remotely relevant. There's a huge difference between post-war occupation of a conquered nation, and post-war rebuilding of a country you're not even directly engaged in. I used post Soviet Afghanistan as an extreme. Ironically, the administration seemed come closer to this model prior to the war. That's all I can say to that. If the Balkans is an example of our institutional knowledge base, we're !@#$ed. That's one huge reason why I was against this optional war. Of course I the Balkans were ever brought up people would simply say Iraq is different. this is more of a colonial situation than any other occupation the US has ever undertaken...colonialism has different rules. The British are far more suited to this sort of thing that we are, due to their colonial history...and not conicidentally, the Brits made a better transition from "combat" to "post combat" and maintained the peace better than we have in central Iraq. To some extent I agree with this. However the Brits also benefitted from occupying a part of Iraq that stood the most to gain by Saddam's ouster. We similarly had smooth sailing in the Kurdish areas. If the Brits had to deal with central Iraq, I'm not convinced they would have been much better.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, Rumsfeld fought for it and won it. Bremmer reported to Rumsfeld. I was speaking specifically of WWII, and one of the reasons I didn't think it applied. Though if you want to be a insane neo-con and credit this administration with that rebuilding... That's one huge reason why I was against this optional war. Of course I the Balkans were ever brought up people would simply say Iraq is different. Iraq IS different. Substantially. As a matter of fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any similarities between the two beyond "They're foreign regions we have troops in." However, the fact that the Balkans and Iraq are different does not mean that either policy is defensible. They're not. They're just completely different manifestations of ass-!@#$ed stupidity. To some extent I agree with this. However the Brits also benefitted from occupying a part of Iraq that stood the most to gain by Saddam's ouster. We similarly had smooth sailing in the Kurdish areas. If the Brits had to deal with central Iraq, I'm not convinced they would have been much better. 640549[/snapback] Very true. However, if you read up on any of the details of how the British manage their zones, they do so significantly differently than we do (not nearly as ham-handed and overbearing, more willing to interact with Iraqis on their own terms...basically, everything they learned from ruling India with a handful of officers and men.) The institutionalized knowledge born of British imperial history is of significant (but not overriding) importance.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 I don't know that Shinseki or Powell ever went through a career cycle where they worked as an actual planner. Maybe not, but it appears they had a better sense of what was required than those who are "planners". As CTM pointed out, it wasn't the job of the military planners to worry much about that at the time. A whole LOT of military people knew that if things didn't go a certain way, the aftermath was going to be trouble. That's where I was alluding to the "original planners", essentially politicians who wanted to achieve certain goals, and laid out the objectives. It's kind of a running joke that the Pentagon was pretty well told "You get 100,000 people to do this thing - we don't care if it takes 50,000 or 150,000 - you plan using 100." I'm not saying that's true or anything...
Recommended Posts