Teddy Ruxpin said:
Generally, my impression is that the British Army feels it was sold a bill of goods in Iraq and that American policy there has been disasterously wrong from the outset (or, at least, from the post-invasion phase)....
It is a feeling that I find I share: I'm hardly prone to anti-Americanism, but I feel pretty strongly that the US has made grievous tactical and strategic errors in Iraq from the outset that have exacerbated the global problem. The Brits feel that they've been merely along for the ride and that their advice (remembering that they occupied Iraq for many years) has been discounted or deliberately ignored - and I've heard this from a variety of sources at a variety of rank levels.
I find myself agreeing with this assertion. Thomas E Ricks'
"Fiasco", Gordon and Trainor's
"Cobra II", Woodward's books (the most recent one "State of Denial" being just released) support this notion - not only are opponents to the Bush Administration saying so, but senior military officials, government officials, and our allies. This is all buffeted by the recent CIA NIE that had almost nothing good to say.
I think Ricks' has it right when he points out that Iraq has been nothing but a series of lost opportunities due to bad strategy, starting from the pre-invasion politicking. Flimsy intelligence was allowed to be used for making important strategic decisions (although, to be fair, almost everybody believed Saddam had WMD because he made the point of pretending he did for his own reasons). As well, strategy from the beginning was marred by infighting and ideology taking the place of pragmatic advice by statesman (Colin Powell knew what he was doing) and Generals alike (Shinseki was right after all). Even after the case for terrorist links (which was shoddy from the start) and WMD (which probably caught most offguard), the third rationale of liberation was pissed away with Abu Gharaib and heavy-handed tactics (such as those by 4ID that are documented in the official USMC history of the campaign). Little to no Phase IV planning (such as disbanding the only two institutions that held the state together) and refusal to acknowledge what was happening on the ground (surrendering the initiative to opposing forces) only added to the problems.
Even when our American and British allies performed superbly on the tactical level, their efforts would be for naught due to continual strategic mismanagement. No amount of Petraeus' with the 101st in Mosul or McMaster's 3rd Cav in Tel Afar would make up for bad strategy. So yeah, I think the Brits can probably feel like they were sold a bill of goods that it WRT liberating Iraq.
I will make no illusion about the fact that I supported the invasion from the start - one can search back to my posts from 2003 to see so. I never bought into the anti-American, left-wing boo-hiss anti-imperialism line, which many did. However, I now believe that we've lost any chance to salvage what could have been with Iraq. The consistant and grinding casualties in country indicates to me that a good portion of the people their simply want us to leave. If this means we pull out of the cities and let them fight their civil war, then so be it. As the British CGS said, let's focus on where we can - in Afghanistan, where the original perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks lie, hiding in Quetta, Peshawar and the NWF Provinces.
Iterator said:
But the past is the past. Now (with no actual personal knowledge), I am not seeing an advantage for the US in having their forces so heavily involved in the fighting in Iraq. I say - draw down, and set up a couple of isolated bases (isolated from the population) and let the Iraqi situation wobble to some sort of equilibrium. The Americans may end up being allies (against Iranian influence) of many of the factions they are currently fighting against.
To me, that seems like a fairly reasonable COA. Of course, I said that years ago:
Infanteer said:
As well, getting tangled up in the populations of Iraq leads to another issue that I believe affects attitudes - the fact that American soldiers in Iraq do draw Jihadis out like a magnet. However valid some may feel the theory of engaging Jihadi forces in Iraq rather then in America is, I am sure that the citizens of Iraq do not appreciate the fact that their houses, markets, and mosques are being used as a battleground by US and Jihadi fighters. Sticking combat soldiers in cities seems to be burning more bridges than they're building.
I often wonder if a strategy of "sitting back" in the ensuing scrum would have been a more effective way to go about things. Leave the Tigris and Euphrates floodplain and move to the uninhabited desert of the West. Let Iraq iron out itself - they can come to their own conclusions on how to rule themselves. Someone was keen to point out that the people of Iraq were an ancient and complex civilization while we Westerners were living in huts and worshipping trees. Offer help if asked and don't pick sides and don't put your military forces in someone else's fight. Use Special Operations Forces to make forays into any Jihadi elements that can be identified and wipe them out quietly and effectively....
The occupants of the Middle East are a tough and proud people; they will recognize and respect the strength of Western and American might and resolve to undermine the threat of terrorism at it's center of gravity - the unstable geopolitical region of the Middle East. However, I do not believe they will respect us if we use the might and resolve to attempt to rebuild Iraq in our image.
