Iraq War a "major debacle, in doubt"

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt' - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON â?? The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies , a Defense Department research center.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.

The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.

"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."

"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"

The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld . It says that in November 2001 , before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq ."

Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney , bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."

" . . . the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."

In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.

Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that " Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."

The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley , saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."

Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

To read the report:

www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

But but but but..... "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

And America would be better off having saved $450 billion, 4,000 US lives, 7,500 security-forces lives, at least 82,000 Iraqi lives, their very international reputation, a balancing counter-force against Iran, the undiverted millitary forces that need to stand against real threats, not having had AlQaeda's recruitment efforts massively improved, and tens of thousands of wounded war vets whom now have to live with crippling injuries, often to the brain, for the rest of their lives without the real government support they deserve.

Somehow, I think even under Saddam hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's weren't being killed and dismembered. But then..... the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. *and repeat*

Gandalf_The_Grey Reviewed by Gandalf_The_Grey on 04-18-2008. Iraq War a "major debacle, in doubt" Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt' - Yahoo! News But but but but..... "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein." And America would be better off having saved $450 billion, 4,000 US lives, 7,500 security-forces lives, at least 82,000 Iraqi lives, their very international reputation, a balancing counter-force against Iran, the undiverted millitary forces that need to stand against real threats, not having had AlQaeda's recruitment Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

Somehow, I think even under Saddam hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's weren't being killed and dismembered. But then..... the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. *and repeat*

How soon they forget.......mass graves, torture chambers, people having their hands cut off for not trading with Saddam currency. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How soon they forget.......mass graves, torture chambers, people having their hands cut off for not trading with Saddam currency. :wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

Yep, I expected this to come up. But don't worry P4B, I didn't forget.


My issue here is the they're justifying the 2003 invasion with actions from the early 90's and down; of which we already declared war and smacked his ass down for it (twice). The slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds was a horrific, unforgiveable thing, but you can't use the pretex for a long-past war as justification for every new one. If liberating Iraqi's from torture was what this is really about, GW should have been on TV demanding that Saddam change their laws and practices, not disarming the weapons that nobody could ever find.

And yes, Saddam had his torture chambers and I hate that too. But there are many dictators, both of greater threat to America and torturing far more people, who would have made more sense to topple. When it comes right down to it: terrible as Saddam was, their situation was still far better than anywhere from 81,000 - 1 Million people dead, 2,000,000 displaced, God knows how many injured, and a whole region destabalised.


The argument here isn't about whether "the world is better without Saddam", it's about whether the Iraqi's and all of us are better with the consequences of invasion. Sometimes the solution to a problem aint so simple as bombing the shit outa the bad guys.

[Psycho4Bud]

GW should have been on TV demanding that Saddam change their laws and practices, not disarming the weapons that nobody could ever find.

He gave him and his boys 48 hours to leave Iraq. They decided not to and the other top officials made THEIR decision to go to war for Saddam.

There was another news story out today on how Al-Quada feels that Al-Sadr is the laughing stock of the world. Now if Obama and Clinton are REALLY after Al-Quada why would they leave Iraq? The top Iraqi Sunni's have denounced Al-Quada.

Now if the big bad U.S.A. already crapped on Iraq how can you, or anyone that feels that way, honestly say we should leave it for a civil war? "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Have a good one!:s4:

[fishman3811]

god p4b your such a fucking rightist ...when are you going to learn that war is not the right answer...

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

He gave him and his boys 48 hours to leave Iraq. They decided not to and the other top officials made THEIR decision to go to war for Saddam.

There was another news story out today on how Al-Quada feels that Al-Sadr is the laughing stock of the world. Now if Obama and Clinton are REALLY after Al-Quada why would they leave Iraq? The top Iraqi Sunni's have denounced Al-Quada.



Now if the big bad U.S.A. already crapped on Iraq how can you, or anyone that feels that way, honestly say we should leave it for a civil war? "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Have a good one!:s4:

Well sir, it's gonna be a big difficult to argue since I agree with you on this one. :thumbsup: :jointsmile: I think the only thing more heartless than invading Iraq, is to leave it. I made a point of underlining and bolding that part of the article btw.

The Democrats are being irresponsible and more to the point; selfish. Leaving the country isn't some act of mercy and peace, it's pure self-interest. "Well, we destabalised everything, blew the shit out of your infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of people.... erm, it's your problem now!" I honestly feel very unenthusiastic about this election. A switch from Rebulicans to Democrats, in my view, is jumping out of the pan into the fire. Of fire into the pan, either way it's gonna burn ya all to hell.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

god p4b your such a fucking rightist ...when are you going to learn that war is not the right answer...

god fishman you are such a fucking leftist....




"war is not the right answer"? So what, we should leave good fellows like Hitler and the such alone? That's waaaayyyy to big a blanket statement fishman, you can't tell me there are never genuine threats to defend our lands against.

[Psycho4Bud]

Well sir, it's gonna be a big difficult to argue since I agree with you on this one. :thumbsup: :jointsmile: I think the only thing more heartless than invading Iraq, is to leave it. I made a point of underlining and bolding that part of the article btw.

The Democrats are being irresponsible and more to the point; selfish. Leaving the country isn't some act of mercy and peace, it's pure self-interest. "Well, we destabalised everything, blew the shit out of your infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of people.... erm, it's your problem now!" I honestly feel very unenthusiastic about this election. A switch from Rebulicans to Democrats, in my view, is jumping out of the pan into the fire. Of fire into the pan, either way it's gonna burn ya all to hell.

Why thank you.......and by the way, GREAT POST!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[Dutch Pimp]

I think the only thing more heartless than invading Iraq, is to leave it. I made a point of underlining and bolding that part

Make them a U.S. territory?...we had that calf, now it's time to lick it...

[fishman3811]

i know im such a fucking leftist but oohh well you need the left to balance the right....but this whole iraqi mess is just like vietnam same war different area.if the people at the top who were in charge of iraq right after the ovethrow had any common sense or any idea of who they were dealing with then things could of been alot different by now...now iraq is a big fucking mess and the only way i see a solution is to either get out or send in 500 000 more troops to clean out everything and start rebuilding....cause right now we have a stalemate and NOTHING IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED