Powell Doctrine: Does the Iraq War Measure Up?

That’s a weak and idiotic argument… but, its one that you frequently employ when your other arguments fail.

But, hey… fine, if you want to go here… I guess the fact that the majority of US soldiers back Bush and the mission, and an even larger majority of those soldiers who have been in combat in Iraq back Bush and the mission… I guess, using your argument… that the Bush plan and mission is correct. :smiley:

And let’s get one thing clear… I am disagreeing with Bremer on this one particular issue-opinion. I think its rather childish of you to attempt to make it out that I am “attacking” him.

Get a grip, please. :unamused:

Reason. Just reason.[/quote]

What reason? Please explain how Bremer lacks adequate knowledge of the subject matter. Most people would see him as the main expert on the topic of what went right and wrong with the CPA.

No, I am only dismissing his opinion that more troops would have prevented the insurgency as “ignorant”. Please try to read more carefully.[/quote]

Well, he was there at the time. He was deeply involved in every bit of day-to-day management of both the civil and military aspects of what was happening there. Please specify the sort of knowledge you think he didn’t have.

It doesn’t take any experience in particular to understand that more soldiers on the ground amount to more targets for the insurgents-terrorists. I would have thought that even you could grasp this simple notion.[/quote]

You seem to be making the assumption that our invading troops were nothing more than “targets for insurgents” when they went in, i.e., that American troops were helpless. I don’t know anybody in the military who would agree with you there, but I guess if you want to smear our troops in the name of partisanship, I suppose you’re free to do so. Way to go, Tigerman!

Now, getting back to Powell’s notion of overwhelming force, it’s a simple notion that in the early days of the Baghdad capture, if we had enough troops to maintain discipline in the major trouble areas (Sunni triangle to keep down the Saddam loyalists, border areas to keep out the “foreign fighters”, etc.), the insurgency would never have gotten off the ground. Do you really have any grounds to call Bremer “ignorant” just because he holds a view that ties in with what everybody from the generals down to the troops have come to acknowledge is a problem?

You seem not to like the fact that Bremer is pointing out the obvious – more troops would have equalled more control and discipline in the early days. The Iraqi people would have been able to get on with their lives, water pipes and electric lines would have been fixed on a hazard-free basis, and the locals would have started to hail us as “liberators” instead of bumbling outsiders.

That’s a weak and idiotic argument… but, its one that you frequently employ when your other arguments fail.[/quote]

You’re the one calling Bremer “ignorant” despite his seemingly superior inside knowledge of nearly all aspects, civil and military, of the CPA period. You want to sit on your keister with a blanket dismissal of Bremer as “ignorant” but don’t even bother to support it. Pathetic.

So, instead of explaining why you feel qualified to dismiss Bremer as “ignorant”, you are going to throw in a non-sequitor. If a “majority” of troops are polled as saying that they “support the mission” then Bremer must be wrong? What is your point? Bremer supported the invasion as well, but he also says that we went in with too few troops.

You’re dismissing Bremer as “ignorant” without justification beyond your bizarre claim that U.S. soliders are only helpless “targets” for terrorists wherever they go. I think you owe our troops and Bremer an apology.

That’s a weak and idiotic argument… but, its one that you frequently employ when your other arguments fail.[/quote]
Both sides are equally guilty - even, perhaps especially, on Forumosa - of using the bullshit “If you weren’t in the military, shut up” argument. I’d name names, but they know who they are.

In this case, the reference to “combat experience” falls into the middle of a paragraph about the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and is not meant so seriously. The reference to the Distringuished Typing Order with poison-ivy clusters should have been the giveaway.

On the other hand, I think that a person would really have to be something like Alexander the Great or Douglas MacArthur before I’d think he’d earned the right to dismiss L. Paul Bremer as “ignorant.” And even then, only in a joking sort of way, I’d figure.

Mofangongren…I’m really surprized that you, of all people, are having such difficulty understanding this. But, I guess it is difficult to recognize hypocrisy when it bites you in the ass, eh?

Look, you are the one who trots out the tired old cliche re chickenhawks and who pretends to respect the troops. Yet, AFAIK, Bremer was not involved in any of the military actions against the insurgents-terrorists. No. It was/is the troops who are most intimately involved on the ground with both the insurgents-terrorists and the average Iraqi citizen. It is the troops who are dealing with both the good and the bad at street level. And it is the troops who support the Bush plan and mission.

So, go ahead and illustrate your hypocrisy here again … Argue on the one hand that the so-called “chickenhawks” have no credibility to judge military matters while ignoring on the other hand the suppport of the actual troops on the ground.

Sure, Bremer is entitled to his opinion, as are you. However, if you are going to assign levels of credibility to opinions based on actual military experience, then I think its fair to say that the opinion of the troops on the ground count for even more than does Bremer’s opinion.

Its all relative.

What is it you like to say… yeah, that’s right… denial ain’t just a river in Egypt… :smiley:

As I indicated above, he was not involved to the same extent on the ground as were/are the troops.

That’s idiotic.

In any event, whether the soldiers are helpless or not has no bearing on the fact that while there they are targets. :unamused:

Speculation. Nothing more.

Uh… the troops support Bush and his plan and his mission. That they do not agree with every aspect of Bush’s plan 100% does not support anything you assert.

That isn’t obvious at all. Sure, more troops might have prevented looting… but, let’s be honest… there is no way to say with any degree of certainty that more troops then/now would have prevented the insurgency-terrorism then or now. Your assertion requires a leap that logic simply cannot make.

You’d have to be a simpleton to believe that. It isn’t difficult at all for one determined individual to create enormous amounts of havoc in the designs of the many.

Would you like to cite my statement referring to US military personnel as “helpless” targets?

If you cannot cite me, then I suggest that you stop misrepresenting my statements.

That’s a weak and idiotic argument… but, its one that you frequently employ when your other arguments fail.[/quote]
Both sides are equally guilty - even, perhaps especially, on Forumosa - of using the bullshit “If you weren’t in the military, shut up” argument. I’d name names, but they know who they are.[/quote]

Go ahead… name names.

Are you saying he didn’t live and work side-by-side with the military commanders throughout the time he was in Iraq? Are you saying he didn’t live in Iraq at considerable risk to his own hide? Please explain how any of the usual pejoratives applicable to chickenhawks should be applied to Paul Bremer.

Sure, he was in the streets. No, he wasn’t shooting at insurgents. However, when you get down to the meat of his comment about the lack of troops, his comments are based on a pretty thorough knowledge of Iraq and the evolution of its military and civil affairs. Putting him down as “ignorant” and resting on that case simply isn’t persuasive.

Meanwhile, please show me where “the troops” you so cavalierly claim as your support in attacking Bremer have spoken out on the issue of whether there were enough forces during the immediate aftermath of the Baath government’s collapse in the fall of Baghdad. You claim that they all must know the full evolution of the ground situation so much better than the “ignorant” Bremer, and yet you have provided not a single iota of actual evidence or consensus on the issue.

I’m not going to sink to that level, and I used to think you wouldn’t either. And I don’t want this to get into a series of personal shitfights and ad hominem attacks. Surely you don’t disagree that there are people on both sides of these arguments who use the “if you didn’t serve, shut up” type of argument.

[quote=“Tigerman”]

It doesn’t take any experience in particular to understand that more soldiers on the ground amount to more targets for the insurgents-terrorists. I would have thought that even you could grasp this simple notion.[/quote]

I’m not sure of the relevance of this comment. Are you suggesting that if only the US were to pull all of its ‘targets’ out of Iraq, there would be no insurgency because there would be no targets left?

Not at all. I am saying that he wasn’t living and working with the troops on the ground…

I’ve made no such statement. Are you having reading comprehension difficulties, again?

Please cite any such pejoratives I have used to describe Bremer… or drop this ridiculous line of argument.

Are you suggesting that Bremer was in the streets with the troops as they did the good work and the dirty work? Sorry, but I don’t think he was. And seeing as you don’t think people who have no combat experience are in a position to judge military matters, then it logically can be concluded that Bremer’s understanding of the street-level facts does not compare favorably to that of the troops on the ground.

Likewise, if you are going to argue that Bremer worked closely with the generals, I think we can say the same about President Bush.

You either really do have difficulty reading written English, or you are deliberately trolling.

I have made no such statements “attacking” Bremer. Rather, I have said several times that I disagree with his opinion.

I have requested that you stop misrepresenting my arguments.

Huh? You think that Bremer knows the actual street-level situation better than the troops?

It looks like you are arguing that the troops are ignorant, and that only the beaurocrats really understand what is going on. Is that a correct/accurate understanding of your argument?

I’ve had about enough.

I have stated three times at least that I disagree with Bremer’s opinion re this matter. I have stated explicitly that I am not “attacking” Bremer. Are you really too stupid to understand the difference between a disagreement and an attack?

I have already stated that I respect Bremer for his work and service, but that I disagree with his opinion on this particular matter.

I was reading an article on a CIA report this morning saying how the insurgency in Iraq was leading to a breeding ground for terrorists adept at urban warfare, kidnappings etc and that the inability of the US to put the insugency down is going to result in these skills spreading regionally and globally.

The big problem was that they allowed the insurgency to take off and that was due to a lack manpower to put it down in the beginning. Towns were taken, over ran and abandoned. In the wake of those troops leaving the insurgency was able to take hold. It was a strategic bungle.

Is America not only losing the war on terrorism, but infact aiding the terrorists by strategically bungling the effort? I think it is a fair question.

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“Tigerman”]

It doesn’t take any experience in particular to understand that more soldiers on the ground amount to more targets for the insurgents-terrorists. I would have thought that even you could grasp this simple notion.[/quote]

I’m not sure of the relevance of this comment. Are you suggesting that if only the US were to pull all of its ‘targets’ out of Iraq, there would be no insurgency because there would be no targets left?[/quote]

No, I am not suggesting that at all.

mofangongren and some others are arguing that more troops on the ground would be enough to remedy the insurgency problem. I do not think that the solution is so simple. IMO, more troops on the ground, and more engagement, would result in more casualties suffered.

History, and common sense, support my argument.

I would question that. How adept have they proven to be at warfare? They’ve had their asses handed to them every time they fight.

Sure, they are adept at terrorist acts. But, c’mon, how difficult is it to pull of a bombing in a marketplace? The notion that the situation in Iraq is a breeding ground is ridiculous, IMO. Fer chrissakes, the Pals have been using these tactics for how many years?

That’s an opinion only.

What shoud we do? Just crush all the areas with insurgent problems? Blow everything up, indiscriminately?

The only solution, IMO, is to effect change in the region. I’m sorry, but unfortunately, doing so will take time and will be difficult. There are plenty of people there who resist change and who have vested interests in moving backward instead of forward.

I think these people (Baathist Iraqis), unless we slaughtered them all in the beginning, would be a problem now. And then there are the terrorists coming in from outside of Iraq… they too have an interest in seeing that Iraq not undergo reforms. Do you think these people would just sit by on the outside and watch as Iraq reforms in a way that will likely bring pressure on their own areas to reform??

How can anyone say (with any degree of certainty) that we are losing? It was unrealistic for Bush to believe that the Iraqis would all welcome the US troops and reform… but, IMO, it is equally unrealistic for Bush opponents to claim that we are losing. The Bush-bashers have argued that we are losing and in support of this notion have cited increasing casualties. But, we have shown that increasing casualties normally occur when the enemy is engaged rather than appeased. We have shown that in WW2 and Vietnam, the US troop casualty rate increased as we were WINNING.

I think its fair to question the implementation of any policy… but, I think its also fair for others to point out the flaws in such arguments and to show where such arguments lack perspective and where contradicting evidence exists.

What level?

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“butcher boy”]

I’m not sure of the relevance of this comment. Are you suggesting that if only the US were to pull all of its ‘targets’ out of Iraq, there would be no insurgency because there would be no targets left?[/quote]

No, I am not suggesting that at all.

mofangongren and some others are arguing that more troops on the ground would be enough to remedy the insurgency problem. I do not think that the solution is so simple. IMO, more troops on the ground, and more engagement, would result in more casualties suffered.

History, and common sense, support my argument.[/quote]

I think the problem here is that Bremer was talking about immediately after the invasion, before the insurgency had the chance to build up the head of steam it has today. This thread seems to be talking as if Bremer was talking about how to remedy the situation now, but that seems very far from the intent of his words. Now I think that what mofa was originally pointing out was that he felt the administration screwed up royally by trying at first to do it ‘on the cheap’. More troops then would have prevented the situation now.

As a side issue the argument that more troops only offers more targets and so increased troops is not the answer, is a little too fast. If this were the only consideration then you would indeed have to call for the total withdrawal of the troops. However this seems unlikely to defeat the inurgency. This is because, I presume, there are other factors involved than just the ‘target’ one. I would suggest that there is probably an optimal number of troops given various factors, including the ‘target’ one. It could well be that the optimum level of troops is about the same, more or less than are in theatre at present. For this reason I don’t think you can say that history etc supports your argument. Indeed as you point out later in the thread, more casualties often accompany the push to victory and so more casualties may be part of the necessary package.

[quote] We have shown that in WW2 and Vietnam, the US troop casualty rate increased as we were WINNING.
[/quote]

That reminds me of a guy in Australia called Allan Bond who you might remember won the America’s Cup. In his victory speech he said something like, “Australia was down and out at Gallipoli and we won that one.” Well we didn’t win that one at all, it was a bloody stalemate that eventually took a countless number of lives.

If Rumsfeld had listened to his military advises at the outset of the war then the insurgency would have had a lot more difficulty getting a toe hold, because the streets would have simply been better policed. I don’t think sending more troops now is nessasarily a good idea because the insurgency is too strong. In a real sense the US have been defeated by the insurgency especially if it enboldens more terrorist acts and as the CIA said spreads more terrorism globally.

The insurgents need to be stopped by the Iraqis themselves. That will take good policework, military assistance and a strong government.

Well, Gallipoli was not the US experience in either WW2 or Vietnam.

We did succeed in WW2 even as we took increasingly more casualties. mofangongren has argued that our increasing casualties in Iraq support his assertion that we are losing in Iraq. I do not think history supports his conclusion. Even in Vietnam, the NVA leaders have admitted that while we were engaging the NVA and taking our heaviest casualties we were also decimating the NVA and had them on the ropes… however, our political leaders decided to throw in the towel at that point.

Unless my memory fails me, at the outset of the war, the military advisors were arguing that we had too few troops to win the war (and Rumsfeld was right about having enough to win the war… the actual combat portion, that is)… I don’t recall them worrying at that point about the later insurgency.

I’m simply not convinced that this is true.

How long and how well were the streets of Belfast patrolled? How successful was that?

I’ll reiterate what I think… a few determined individuals can create lots of problems even for a heavily patrolled area.

Well, I agree that more troops is probably not the answer. But, I’m not certain I would characterize the insurgency as “strong”. Again, a few determined, back-to-the-wall type individuals can cause plenty of problems.

IF… IF…

Again, desperate people resort to desperate measures… the Japanese faught ferociously when they were near defeat. They resorted to kamakazi tactics that rally took a terrible toll on the US Navy. But, I think it would be odd to claim that increased casualties suffered by the US Navy at the hands of kamakazi pilots was an indication that the US was losing the war against imperial Japan.

And time. That all takes time.

Yet, so many of you seem unwilling to allow for this. So many of you seem to think that because the Iraqis have not yet established good policework and a strong government that the war is lost already.

I don’t understand this logic, really. I guess we should have surrendered immediately after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor??? :idunno:

mofangongren and some others are arguing that we are losing in Iraq and they support this assertion by citing increased US military casualties in Iraq. I have argued that more troops on the ground would not have been enough to prevent the insurgency at the outset nor enough to remedy the insurgency problem now. I do not think that the solution is so simple. IMO, more troops on the ground, and more engagement, would result in more casualties suffered.