What level?[/quote]Keep fishing mate, keep fishing. I ain’t taking the bait.
Is that what I am arguing? Please do not misquote me on this. Powell was the famous advocate of overwhelming force. Bremer is just one of many who saw the results of going into Iraq with a “light footprint” and who, based on his substantial direct experience watching the evolution of the Iraq situation, came to his own conclusion that if we had invaded with more troops and maintained order, the insurgency wouldn’t have found ideal conditions for growth.
Rather than acknowledge that Bremer likely based his opinion on near round-the-clock engagement with the evolving Iraq civil and military situations, you chose to dismiss it with saying he’s “ignorant”. However, calling it as it is, you’re attacking the guy when you dismiss him with no justification beyond saying he’s “ignorant”.
Yes, I saw your post already in which to said our troops are just “targets”. I suggest that you go down to Fort Bragg and tell the troops there they’re nothing more than “targets”.
Have I quoted you? 
Yes.
Powell’s doctrine, unless I am mistaken, calls for using overwhelming force to fight a war. The decision to fight Saddam’s armies with a smaller force was correct, in that a large force was not needed to defeat his armies.
Whether or not an overwhelming numerical superiority would have prevented the insurgency, however, is mere speculation.
Bullshit.
I have stated clearly that I am in disagreement with Bremer only on the matter of whether or not a larger force would have prevented the insurgency. Compared to the knowledge possessed by the troops on the ground, at street-level, yes, I consider Bremer to be ignorant in this regard.
All things are, after all, relative.
You are trolling.
You are deliberately misrepresenting my statements. I have not argued that our troops are mere targets, or “nothing more than” targets… I have stated clearly that they are targets for the insurgents-terrorists. Or, do you deny that the insurgents-terrorists target our troops?
I’ve got a cousin in Iraq who agrees that he is, among other things, a target.
I think your question is stupid.
Its irrelevent.
Victory over Saddam’s armies was achieved with a force that was criticized by some as being too small.
The Powell Doctrine is concerned with fighting the war… not with peace keeping. Had you bothered to read the information from the site you cited, you would have seen this:
So, no… the war in Iraq did not measure up to the Powell Doctrine.
But, so what? We defeated Saddam’s armies without the use of “overwhelming” numerical troop superiority.
The issue now is the insurgency… peace keeping. The Powell Doctrine does not even address this issue, except to say that the military should not be involved in the same.
[quote=“Tigerman”]The Powell Doctrine is concerned with fighting the war… not with peace keeping. Had you bothered to read the information from the site you cited, you would have seen this:
Oh, so you were one of the suckers who bought into the “Mission Accomlished” banner media stunt? Where was the official surrender by Iraq’s government? Where’s the end of hostilities? Oh, that’s right… you were probably too caught up in the “majesty” of the moment, with Bush prancing about in his flight-suit costume on the deck of one of our ships.
[quote=“Tigerman”]So, no… the war in Iraq did not measure up to the Powell Doctrine.
But, so what? We defeated Saddam’s armies without the use of “overwhelming” numerical troop superiority.
The issue now is the insurgency… peace keeping. The Powell Doctrine does not even address this issue, except to say that the military should not be involved in the same.[/quote]
The Powell Doctrine is a roadmap for how to avoid our troops getting quagmired by a third-world, tin-pot dictatorship. You keep forgetting that. By not listening to the Powell Doctrine, we’re stuck with the insurgency.
Uh… our military, even without overwhelming numerical superiority, easily defeated the Iraqi army.
According to the Powell Doctrine, we should then have taken our military out of Iraq.
What goal would have been accomplished by taking our military out of Iraq after the defeat of Iraq’s army?
Would there have been no insurgency?
I’m really at a loss trying to understand what point it is that you are attempting to make. :s
So, what exactly is your point? Do you have a point?
Please provide the date for final cessation of hostilities. Oh, you don’t have one? Right…
No, according to the Powell Doctrine, we should have gone in with overwhelming force. We did not. Still don’t have a final date for cessation of hostilities? No? OK, thanks for playing.
Well, if we had followed the Powell Doctrine, the war would have been over, no fertile grounds for insurgency to take root, and the troops would have been free to leave. However, as we did not follow the Powell Doctrine, the troops were not free to leave. I suppose Bush chose not to listen to Powell at the peril of our troops. That’s more than 1,700 U.S. troops who have been sacrificed in the course of the war. Thousands more maimed, left sightless, brain-damaged, etc. from the disproportionate number of head wounds caused by the upward blasts of IEDs.
There would not have been fertile grounds for an insurgency. And unlike the lukewarm/cold response we got from the Iraqi citizenry, they might have appreciated that we’d maintained law and order in the streets. By protecting average Iraqis from the looting and chaos Baghdad did descend into, we might have made Iraq a very hard place, indeed, for an insurgency to exist.
Mind if I jump into the fray?
Please provide the date for final cessation of hostilities. Oh, you don’t have one? Right… [/quote][/quote]
Tha antagonism for US troops being in Iraq will take years and years for the Iraqis that LIKE them there to get over. Some people will never get over it. They will die angry…it will take that long. Some morons in the US South are still pissed off about Civil Rights…they’ll never get over it.
No, according to the Powell Doctrine, we should have gone in with overwhelming force. We did not. Still don’t have a final date for cessation of hostilities? No? OK, thanks for playing. [/quote]
I think A) overwhelming force was not used because they didn’t want to leave a bad taste in the Iraqis mouths after this all has settled down. “Yes, they kicked our asses; but we got in our licks too.” And they did. Could this have been a “diplomatic war”, to change the regime and to allow them a face saving loophole (yes, as the cost of some US lives, BUT sacrificed for the much larger picture)? Distasteful, but…hmmm
B) Colin Fucking Powel isn’t on board any more. Times have changed dramatically since his fat ass was in a seat of power. he was dead on target in Hati and Gulf War I
Well, if we had followed the Powell Doctrine, the war would have been over, no fertile grounds for insurgency to take root, and the troops would have been free to leave. However, as we did not follow the Powell Doctrine, the troops were not free to leave. I suppose Bush chose not to listen to Powell at the peril of our troops. That’s more than 1,700 U.S. troops who have been sacrificed in the course of the war. Thousands more maimed, left sightless, brain-damaged, etc. from the disproportionate number of head wounds caused by the upward blasts of IEDs. [/quote]
Wow, this is wild. So we go in. Shoot em up, and then skeedaddle? Geez, why didn’t the Army think of that? Come on. Hello invasions from every side of Iraq trying to gobble up some pieces as fast as can be.
There would not have been fertile grounds for an insurgency.[/quote]
It would have been ripe for Arab invasion.
All the red gaurds that went to Syria would have jumped right back over and piecharted the whole country…while Iran did the same from the East, the Kurds from the North, and the clueless Saudis from the South…
The troops should not have left. I’m glad they didn’t. I hope they never do.
But “overwheming force” is not merely with regards to troop numbers. Powell (and Cap Weinberger) weren’t stupid when they were thinking through how to avoid a repetition of Vietnam-style quagmiring:
[quote]Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?[/quote]
Again, as per earlier discussion, the war fails to meet the Powell Doctrine on these supporting pillars. These ideas are not exactly rocket-science – one might wonder how one is supposed to “ignore” these and still win.
Well, I do not have the date in my recollection… but, I think it safe to say that it would be the last day on which the Iraqi army faught against US/coalition troops.
No, according to the Powell Doctrine, we should have gone in with overwhelming force. We did not.[/quote]
And yet we still defeated the Iraqi army with relative ease.
When did the Iraqi army cease fighting?
According to the Powell Doctrine, our soldiers should leave after the enemy army is defeated and NOT stay on to do peace keeping.
How the fuck do you arrive at that conclusion? Any evidence to support your theory?
Didn’t think so.
You don’t really understand the Powell Doctrine, do you?
Well, yes… Bush decided to keep the troops in Iraq, against the teaching of the Powell Doctrine.
I think that notion is idiotic.
You are awfully confused. You think we should have used the Powell Doctrine… i.e., employed overwhelming force to defeat the Iraqi army. However, the Iraqi army was often situated in locations near or among civilians. Overwhelming force would have resulted in much higher civilian (and military) casualties.
I doubt very much that such would endear our troops to the average Iraqi citizen.
We should have done more to prevent the looting and crime.
However, the insurgency, like terrorism itself, can only be defeated by reforming the Iraqi government and society. Unfortunately, that will take time and be costly.
[quote=“mofangongren”]But “overwheming force” is not merely with regards to troop numbers. Powell (and Cap Weinberger) weren’t stupid when they were thinking through how to avoid a repetition of Vietnam-style quagmiring:
[quote]Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?[/quote]
Again, as per earlier discussion, the war fails to meet the Powell Doctrine on these supporting pillars. These ideas are not exactly rocket-science – one might wonder how one is supposed to “ignore” these and still win.[/quote]
OK, oil would cover the first point. My only question then, MFGR, is if all the others were true, (and the Powell doctrine therefore fullfilled) would that make this war good, OK, acceptable? (note nothing in the powell doctrine says protect civilians – understadable having been written by Colin “Mai Lai” Powell.) BushCo just doesn’t kill efficiently enough? Is this really your position?
Also your earlier claim that
[quote=“mofangongren”]
…if we had followed the Powell Doctrine, the war would have been over, no fertile grounds for insurgency to take root, and the troops would have been free to leave…[/quote]
“if we had followed the powell doctrine, the war would be over” while logically valid, is also (more importantly) meaningless. Just like “If unicorns were found in Iraq, then Tigerman led the troops into battle and was awarded a purple heart.” Valid, but meaningless.
Just provide a date of final hostilities? No date? Probably you don’t have one because the hostilities never ceased.
Still avoiding the question…
You obviously don’t know what the Powell Doctrine is about. Please go back to the start of the thread. You can access a very helpful link that has a tutorial.
Temper, temper… why not look to the text on the right-side of the input window before responding this way. 
The Powell Doctrine was put together to avoid precisely the sort of quagmire that our troops are in now. Disregarding the Powell Doctrine and then getting smack into a quagmire sure makes Powell look pretty smart these days.
Looks like it’s somebody’s nap time…
Again, you don’t seem to understand the Powell Doctrine or the Weinbergian points. I urge you to go back to the start of the thread, where you can find a helpful tutorial.
I can’t tell you what “this” war would be if it met such criteria. It either meets criteria or it does not. I don’t think it does. I think we shouldn’t have been fighting this war because of its failure to meet both criteria within and without the Powell Doctrine, but this thread focuses on the Powell Doctrine aspects. Certainly, the efficiency of killing is not my position. Bremer would happen to be one who, based on his considerable experience in the civil and military affairs off Iraq, felt that inadequate troop strength going in led to an inability to maintain stability in the early stages. Bremer thought this helped provide fertile ground for the insurgency.
[quote=“s.b.”]Also your earlier claim that
[quote=“mofangongren”]
…if we had followed the Powell Doctrine, the war would have been over, no fertile grounds for insurgency to take root, and the troops would have been free to leave…[/quote]
“if we had followed the powell doctrine, the war would be over” while logically valid, is also (more importantly) meaningless. Just like “If unicorns were found in Iraq, then Tigerman led the troops into battle and was awarded a purple heart.” Valid, but meaningless.[/quote]
The Powell Doctrine was put together in response to the quagmire of Vietnam. It is somewhat significant that in disregarding the Powell Doctrine (seemingly deliberately), we have ended up in a quagmire. L. Paul Bremer, a person who otherwise received great trust from the Bush administration, is one person who seems to agree that application of the Powell Doctrine would have made Iraq inhospitable to the insurgency forces.
Its not necessary. The Powell Doctrine is concerned with fighting a war against an enemy army. The Iraqi army ws defeated. The Iraqi army stopped fighting. I don’t know what the date of that defeat was… but, we could ascertain that if it were important to this discussion. But, it isn’t.
True, hostilities have continued. However, the Powell Doctrine advises against using our military to act as peacekeepers. Thus, it is clear that the Powell Doctrine does contemplate continued hostilities, even after overwhelming force is used.
Thus, I still do not understand the point of this thread.
Well, I know that the Powell Doctrine, according to the site you linked to and cited, calls for our military to leave the field and not act as peacekeepers.
Do you deny that the Powell Doctrine states this? It is stated in the information you linked to and cited.
I’m not angry. I’m fucking amazed.
You do not understand the Powell Doctrine. The Powell Doctrine argues that overwhelming force, rather than proportional force (ala Bill Clinton) should be used to defeat an enemy army… the Powell Doctrine continues to teach that when the enemy army is defeated, our troops should leave and not act as peacekeepers. That is how the Powell Doctrine avoids a quagmire.
But, we never got into a quagmire fighting and defeating the Iraqi army. And we could not employ the Powell Doctrine and simply leave Iraq to fend for itself… how stupid would that have been? What would have been accomplished by such a policy?
Its not necessary. The Powell Doctrine is concerned with fighting a war against an enemy army. The Iraqi army ws defeated. The Iraqi army stopped fighting. I don’t know what the date of that defeat was… but, we could ascertain that if it were important to this discussion. But, it isn’t.
True, hostilities have continued. However, the Powell Doctrine advises against using our military to act as peacekeepers. Thus, it is clear that the Powell Doctrine does contemplate continued hostilities, even after overwhelming force is used.[/quote]
Again, I urge you to read up on the Powell Doctrine further. Remember that Powell drew it up in response to the Vietnam war, in which we were quagmired. Having just fought a war involving conventional and insurgent forces, do you think Powell was only thinking of an old-style World War II battlefield?
That’s why I provided those helpful links to info on the Powell Doctrine. Go back and take a look.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Well, I know that the Powell Doctrine, according to the site you linked to and cited, calls for our military to leave the field and not act as peacekeepers.
Do you deny that the Powell Doctrine states this? It is stated in the information you linked to and cited.[/quote]
The Powell Doctrine is about how to keep ourselves from getting quagmired. Just because Bush chose not to listen to Powell and got us into a situation where our military was unable to disengage doesn’t mean that the Powell Doctrine doesn’t work.
Again, you don’t see that the war has continued. Must be the only remaining person on the planet who thinks the “Mission Accomplished” dog-and-pony show meant anything. 
You keep telling yourself that… meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in another quagmire. Bush decided not to follow the Powell Doctrine, a plan acclaimed by many as a common-sensical way to avoid getting quagmired, but you still can’t say anything against Bush no matter how obvious it is. If Bush disregarded the printed warnings on plastic bags not to play with them (“THIS IS NOT A TOY”), you probably say it was the bag maker’s fault he suffocated.
That’s the thing that seems so disturbing these days around the Bush administration – no accountability whatsoever.
[quote=“mofangongren”]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, [snip]
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. [snip]
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.[/quote]
I also understand, that in addition to Saddam Loyalists, and Foreign Fighters, the insurgency included folks who were just plain criminals taking advantage of the lawlessness. There were also unemployed/underemployed young men who became mercenaries - these guys may have been deterred from joining the insurgency had there been enough military to secure the country, so the economy could get moving enough to provide meaningful employment for Iraqis.
Bodo
[quote=“Tigerman”] [snip]
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.
[snip]
As I indicated above, he was not involved to the same extent on the ground as were/are the troops. [/quote]
I keep thinking to myself - the President is the Commander-in-Chief - the soldier’s role is to advise civilian leadership, but ultimately they follow the orders of the President. So, I don’t accept your logic here, Tigerman. I don’t agree that the Army following orders of the President necessarily equates with they agree with him or think his plan is a good one. In fact, didn’t General E. Shinseki (msp?) disagree?
Bodo
[quote=“Tigerman”]
But, so what? We defeated Saddam’s armies without the use of “overwhelming” numerical troop superiority.[/quote]
We are fighting Saddam’s army now - it seems obvious that their strategy all along was to melt away, and fight an asymmetric war - knowing they lacked the resources and training to fight a conventional war. They are fighting their war, on their terms - it wasn’t very smart to allow that - oops, I forgot, it was Bush’s plan.
Bodo
[quote=“Tigerman”][
I have stated clearly that I am in disagreement with Bremer only on the matter of whether or not a larger force would have prevented the insurgency. Compared to the knowledge possessed by the troops on the ground, at street-level, yes, I consider Bremer to be ignorant in this regard.[/quote]
If I understand this correctly are you saying that what Bremer claims (i.e. that more troops were needed) and what the troops think is different? Do the troops think that they had enough manpower? I know in another thread you posted some info on how the troops support Bush and support being in Iraq but that doesnt necessarily mean that the troops do not agree with Bremer.
That’s not what I have been saying.
The majority of US troops supported Bush in the past election. That, IMO, indicates support.