Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trex
It's just a pity Washington didn't do much thinking about what had to happen post-Saddam before they launched. Another Marshall Plan and Iraq could have been an R&R choice for tired Yank troops. And it would have cost far less than the war.
|
Are you sure about that? Yes we sure as hell could have done a lot better than nothing after post Saddam but what we have today would have happened anyway. Our stupid inability to think ahead and the arrogant assumption that we would be seen as heroes by all Iraqi's just accelerated the problem. We just put a blindlfold on and jumped in with one foot. Jumping blind and one footed will always hurt when you land and fall. |
When it comes to winning conventional wars, nobody can match the USA. That is a given. But afterwards? My admiration drops off rather steeply, sorry.
It was clear as the fighting ceased that there was in most circles in Iraq a lot of relief that the monster was gone. People can accept a lot of short-term hardship in return for freedom, but the masses forget pretty quickly. From what I have read (and I will admit that I was not there), public opinion started dropping when it became clear that their lives were not going to improve anytime soon. Had the coalition moved immediately (with a plan as detailed as the invasion op plan) to get power back on, rebuild bridges, restore communications, restock hospitals, provide school supplies, etc, the average Iraqi would have been able to draw a good conclusion about the foreign invaders. Had there been a simple, clearly-stated roadmap, with firm deadlines, for the foreign troops to leave, it would have done much to diffuse the feeling that the USA were only there to seize Iraq's oil. Had the requirement for substantial security forces in Iraq to deal with the inevitable chaos been agreed to by the politicians (the generals seem to have seen it), then either there would have been far more coalition troops to keep intial order or else segments of the existing Iraqi army might have been maintained. Had funding been provided to the various minority churches for refurbishing their temples and shines, it would have brought enormous good will.
This sort of thing is not rocket science. I and a friend discussed it as the war was just starting. Truman's Marshall Plan kept Europe from going communist after WW2; a repeat would have done much to prevent the problems we see now. There are of course never any guarantees, but it was the best card in their hand - and they did not play it.
But then governments rarely miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. |
Careful with Marshal plan comparisons Europe vs middle East. when the US had won in Europe, they nevertheless had to deal with people a.) being totally down to the ground and defeated and depleted of any will to carry on, and b.) having grown up in a very similiar cultural society and history - after all, America shares more with Europe than with any other part of the world. In Japan, it was condition a.) fulfilled. but in Iraq, neither there was a people that was totally flattened on the ground, nor was raised in a cultural context that was close and familiar to that of the West. And after all, neither the US nor the West are seen as the guardians of the holy grail in the middle East anyway.
You can cream them with sugar and gold from head to toe, and you will still be considered to be a foreigner, a stranger, an outsider, and often: an infidel, because it is a Westerner creaming them. Not to mention that you (American, l I assume) are a close ally and supporter of Israel.
Comparison between Iraq and postwar-Germany, -europe and - Japan do not work and did not work from the beginning.