Iraq - I was wrong

I have seen a lot of people who initially supported the war in Iraq bend themselves into amazing contortions trying to square that with what has happened. I'm going to take a different approach. I was wrong. Nothing more, just wrong.

By way of explanation, not excuse, here are the details behind it:

• I believed, based on the various arguments floating around, that there were WMDs in Iraq. I didn't take what Bush said as gospel but the majority of those who should have had good intelligence on this, including the French, believe they existed. To me the big question was how far along were they. Turns out - nothing going on.
• I do think the initial fight to Baghdad was handled brilliantly. One of the better uses of military might in history (although not as good as Patton's race across France considering what each commander had to work with).
• But handling the "peace" (if you can call it that). This has to be one most incompetent military actions in the history of the human race. This is even worse than Vietnam because it was possible to win in Iraq while in Vietnam the best that could happen was to not lose.
• The Middle East has a history of only changing when a large outside force jars it in to action. I was hopeful that this would be a catalyst for a positive change.

I could argue that I figured Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield would never be this incompetent. I could argue that believing WMDs existed was a reasonable viewpoint. But all of that is irrelevant. We all make assumptions and educated guesses when reaching decisions on everything from what to order at lunch to what school to send our kids to.

And the bottom line is - I was wrong.

I also think this will go down in history as the most incompetently prosecuted war in the history of the U.S. With blame laid not just on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield but also on most of the top brass at the pentagon. A lot of the troops in Iraq are doing an amazing job considering their resources and rules of engagement. But their top commanders almost without exception have not done their job well.

In the Civil War Lincoln fired general after general (McClellan twice) until he found the ones who would fight. In WWII King immediately replaced Stark and Nimitz was bounced up to head the Pacific fleet. In the army Eisenhower was a Colonel when Marshall promoted him up over every general in the army to command in North Africa and then Europe. And none of these men were shy about removing those that were not good enough. Even Fletcher, the "hero of Midway" was reassigned to do nothing when it was clear that he was not good enough.

How many top brass have been removed in the Iraq war? Zero.

What do you think? Please comment.

trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

Comments

[bandit.three.six]

David,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's nice to meet someone who presents a rational point of view.

I'd like to rephrase my previous post along two lines that will (at least in my mind) help clarify the discussion.

1.) The decision to go to war.

This is one thing that I have mixed feelings about. At the time the decision was presented to the public, it was framed primarily from the angle of the WMD threat that Iraq posed. We were presented with input from the intelligence agencies from several countries that all pointed towards the presence of WMDs in Iraq. This created the perception that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and we acted.
We could argue with no end about biased intel reports and the movement of WMDs to Syria so let's just stick with what we can document. Intel pointed towards an iminent threat, we acted, no WMDs of significance have been found.
As you put in your original post, we were wrong. Not for trusting the president, but in the accuracy of our intelligence. All we can ask of any person is to collect as much information as time allows and make the best decision they can based on that information. I believe that this was done.
As a seperate issue from bad intel on WMDs, I personally believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq is reason enough to have acted and is the reason that I still support the war. This, however, is simply my personal observation.

2.) The prosecution of that war.

Now that the decision has been made and we are in Iraq, what should we do next? You don't seem to take issue with the conduct of the first few months of the war, the part that the administration called "major combat", so I'll focus on after the fall of Baghdad.
The course of action that you recommend would result in fewer troops being killed, but what else would happen? Based on my study of Arabic culture and history as well as my personal expereince, I believe the following would happen if we "got out".
a.) Terrorism and sectarianism would run rampant and civilians would die on a massive scale. This would result in one of two things, 1) PM Maliki would be forced to rule with an iron fist and become hated by the Western world for the force he would have to use to bring the situation under control, or 2) Iraq would revert to a terrorist breeding ground that would become the source of more American deaths and we'd be right back where we started.
b.) The perception of America would transition from one of strength to weakness. The use of force is much more acceptable in Arabic countries as a method of resolving differences and if we were to withdraw we would protray ourselves as weak and susceptible to being influenced by a stronger, more commited foe. This would lead to further attacks on American citizens.

Getting out would give us an immediate end to American troop deaths and a sense of security for a while, but the end result would be worse than continuing the mission.

I'd like to focus now on a much more tactical level rather than a strategic one. The rules of engagement don't force troops to be targets and react. In fact, the rules of engagement explicitly allow for troops to act first, all it takes is the verification of hostile intent. In previous conflicts troops had to be actively engaged and positively identify the source of the incomming before they could return fire. This is not the case in Iraq.
As a hypothetical example, if a patrol sees someone digging by the side of the road, they are well within their rights to attack and kill that person since they're likely planting an IED.
I know that it may seem as though troops are forced to walk the streets of Baghdad or Ramadi until they get attacked and then respond, but this simply isn't the case. The difference between a target and the targeted is who fires first and the rules of engagement don't prevent troops from firing first.

[David Thielen]

This is sort of a weird way to do this but I think it makes the most sense - so I am commenting in my own blog to answer the comment below.

I'm curious. What military experience do you base your observations on? I mean, you're passing judgment on military leaders as though you know how it should have been done, as though you knew three years ago how to best prosecute this war, way back when you claim you were wrong.

I have no experience in the military but I have read a ton of history and that includes a lot of military history. For example, one summer I took the family to follow the allied route of advance in WWII (which is fascinating). So my comments are based on a long study of history (it's the only thing I read for pleasure.

And where I claim I was wrong was in trusting the Bush administration, both that there were WMDs in Iraq and that they would prosecute the war competently.

What does this wealth of military insight say we should do now. Now that the "mistake" has been made, what should we do to make it right?

Get out. Sometimes actions screw things up so bad all you can do is walk away. One maybe possibility is this but I am not sure at all if it would work.

You also commend the troops while mentioning that the rules of engagement are somehow restricting the ability of the troops to accomplish the mission. Could you care to cite an example of that, moreover, could you recite the rules of engagement?

Very simple - what are the troops supposed to be accomplishing other than being targets and then responding. Because that is what most of them outside the FOBs and Green Zone are doing.

Another point that interests me is that you cite examples in history where a president hired and fired generals who didn't measure up to their expectations. One point that many liberals make is that the president disregarded and/or dismissed senior military officials who said we needed to send several hundred thousand more troops. Does this match up with the Lincoln standard?

It's the exact opposite of Lincoln. Lincoln fired those who did a bad job and kept those who did a good job even when they publically disagreed with him. Bush fires those who disagree with him and keeps those who are doing a marginal job.

[bandit.three.six]

I'm curious. What military experience do you base your observations on? I mean, you're passing judgment on military leaders as though you know how it should have been done, as though you knew three years ago how to best prosecute this war, way back when you claim you were wrong.

What does this wealth of military insight say we should do now. Now that the "mistake" has been made, what should we do to make it right?

You also commend the troops while mentioning that the rules of engagement are somehow restricting the ability of the troops to accomplish the mission. Could you care to cite an example of that, moreover, could you recite the rules of engagement?

Another point that interests me is that you cite examples in history where a president hired and fired generals who didn't measure up to their expectations. One point that many liberals make is that the president disregarded and/or dismissed senior military officials who said we needed to send several hundred thousand more troops. Does this match up with the Lincoln standard?

[Scott]

What about this contortion, Dave:

"I was wrong. I also think this will go down in history as the most incompetently prosecuted war in the history of the U.S."

How is this feat any different from those you scorn?

As you correctly noted:

"...the initial fight to Baghdad was handled brilliantly. One of the better uses of military might in history."

After Baghdad fell, the war was over. Then came the occupation.

What you're really saying that this will go down in history as the most incompetently prosecuted *occupation* in the history of the U.S.

How then is Iraq different from Viet Nam again?

-Scott