Why we failed in Iraq

a reply to: dfnj2015

There are no "extremists"

There are just those that disagree, your own idealism is what defines what is an extremist to you

a reply to: dfnj2015

He's one of those people who think anyone in the military should be treated like royalty or the Pope or something.

Literally this whole thought process invalidates your whole post.............

None of us want to be treated as royalty........the only thing we dont want, is people who have no freaking CLUE how things work in that part of the world, or what we had to do , to minimize us because they think they know better.......


You just said, you were a PACIFIST when it came to war........so you have no idea........so please.......dont tell me how I should have done my job, or what I had to do to keep my friends alive.........

Full stop........

originally posted by: dfnj2015
We spend a ton a money on the US military which did absolutely NOTHING to protect us on 9/11. In New Jersey, so many of my friends lost relatives it really bothers me. I tend to be a pacifist by nature when it comes to war. It seems to me every major war the US military action has ever been in response to some fabricated false flag attack or intelligence. So when the propaganda machine was saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and we were having an imminent threat of a nuclear attack I was very skeptical. I actually participated in the anti-War march in October 2003 but apparently Democracy doesn't work with Republican leadership. Contrary to what the intelligence community was saying the country's leadership at the time invaded Iraq with a complete disregard to the intelligence and what the UN inspectors on the ground were reporting.

So when my brother-in-law showed me this military training of Iraqi police it just made me think how ineffective and a complete waste of money we spend on the US military and the actions it takes.

It's not that I do not appreciate the sincere intentions of the people in the military. It's just that I do not believe the US military's Shiite doesn't stink and is beyond criticism. I think the soldier in the video has absolutely no idea of what is going on in Iraq at the time. He has no idea of the politics of the people he is talking to or trying to train.

I'm pretty confident in saying there is absolutely NOTHING the US military has done in the Middle East that has made us any safer or will prevent another 9/11 from happening. As far as I can tell the Iraq war was completely worthless.

As 82nd, I had to help train those same types of people in Iraq. Where do you get off claiming a soldier on the ground has no idea what's going on there and somehow you have a better understanding of the situation? He is trying to weed out those that are sharing information with militia groups that put our soldiers in harm's way. Then again, with your supreme internet knowledge, I'm sure you know best.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: chris_stibrany

originally posted by: dfnj2015
We spend trillions of dollars on the US military. Back in the late 90s the Gore commission on airline safety against terrorism said we should follow the protocols of ET AL. ET AL is an Israel airline. But the CEOs of the American airlines said it costs too much and all government regulation is bad. If the security protocols used by ET AL were put in place 9/11 would have never happened. How many trillions have we spent on the US military since 9/11 compared the 10 to 20 billion needed to implement the ET AL protocols.

The US military is a complete waste of money. WWII is over. We should close all our European military bases and open new ones on our southern borders. At least this way the money will flow into the US economy and it will keep the bad Mexicans out!

Are you crazy? As soon as we closed all of our European bases Russia would be moving in.

Let the Europeans defend Europe. You are the one who is crazy.

They ARE defending Europe, they simply asked for help training their forces. And I guarantee if we moved out, they would ask us to come back again.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Calling it a waste of money truly shows your lack of education or experience in the matter.

All military spending is pure socialism. It's stealing money from one person and giving it to someone else for the "public good". What I find so amazing about you military extremists is you never think military spending is socialism. It's funny how the people who are most outspoken against socialism are the very ones who benefit from it the most.

We spend trillions of dollars on the US military. A trillion is a 1000 billion. If we spent a few billion on airport security before 9/11 then maybe 9/11 would never have happened.

Take shipping ports as another example of where we are wasting money on the US military rather than doing what will make us safer. If the US adopted European port protocols where containers are scanned for dirty bombs at ports of origin then the US would be a lot safer. But the Republicans in Congress have blocked every attempt to implement European port security measures. Just like following security measures for airlines based on what ET AL did was rejected because of cost, one of these years a dirty bomb is going to go off in Port Elizabeth or Port Long Beach. And then we will adopt European protocols. But spending trillions on fighter jets and aircraft carriers will do absolute NOTHING to prevent the next 9/11 event.

The fact that you called me an extremist with no actual evidence, as well as think 'airport security' would have stopped 9/11 shows me that you are naive at best (I am betting you are a white male between 18 and 25 and either still in college or never went, with little work and life experience. )
Just look at TSA now, they have let through every patsy the FBI sets up with weapons, even if they are duds on purpose
.
Furthermore, I currently work in shipping, the US DOES scan containers at ports. They are randomly selected by customs and also sometimes targeted directly due to paperwork discrepancies.

To answer the OP,

I think "failed in Iraq" is a value judgment that doesn't match the stated mission. Or the real mission, for that matter.

The mission was to take out Saddam (and his tribe / ethnic group) from running the state of Iraq.

It is true that post-invasion Iraq is a 'failed state', a basket case. You assume that this is not part of the long-range plan. I think it is an error to assume such.

Saddam's daughter, Raghad, has always claimed that in the months preceding the US-led invasion (which was talked about internationally and at the UN for months before it happened), Saddam would not focus on the western forces that were telegraphing their intentions. His energies were focused on terrorist Shia insurgents, based in Iran and operating in south and East Iraq, with the goal, of overthrowing Saddam's Ba'athist regime (national socialist), and replacing it with a revolutionary islamist state in the mold of the Islamist Republic (of Iran) and a client state administered by Hezbollah (the "Party of God" based in Lebanon/Syria).

Iraq was never a true, organic state in the western sense of the term. From 1466 until 1918, it was just 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire, with about 20 tribes ranging over it, mostly nomadic. Iraq was invented by the United Kingdom, when it was pulling out of the ME, and needed a state without oil. At that time, "all the oil" outside of Saudi Arabia was believed to lie in Kuwait City. So the British installed a local strongman and called him "the emir of Quwait." They gave all the God-forsaken desert to a strongman that the French had driven out of Syria. The British called him "King Faisal I."

Iraq was a failed state from 1918 until 1979, when Saddam finally rose to the top. Fascism (national socialism, Ba'athism, etc.) is the fasted way out of that failure, and that's why Saddam worked.

The best policy would be to devolve Iraq into three states, with the North becoming "Kurdistan" and the south ending up as a client state of Iran. Neither of which is acceptable to the US state department-CIA. A Kurdistan would put pressure on Iran (with a huge Kurd population, much of it non-moslem), but also on Turkey (also with a large Kurdish non-moslem population), and that would damage our alliance with Turkey against Russia.

The fact is, the CIA has concluded a secret treaty with Iran, that paralleled Obama's public treaty with Iran.

Trump is jacking with that status quo, by refusing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons, and not withdrawing from Syria (which is what Obama had agreed to).

So, Iraq as a 'failed state' best serves the interest of USA and Iran in "the Great Game" of the Middle East.

Well said

a reply to: Graysen

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

the every day sh!t storms we had to endure

With respect you didn't have to endure it. It was a choice. Following orders is always a choice.

a reply to: dfnj2015

As far as I can tell the Iraq war was completely worthless.

The Iraq war taught lessons. One lesson being the bigger your gun the bigger the hole when you shoot yourself in the foot.

FOB Falcon was the big lesson. Try researching it and you will be endlessly led to videos of a much smaller event at a different location. This itself is a red flag indicating FOB Falcon was too massively tragic for the military mind to bear. The truth about FOB Falcon is tough, as they say, life's tough then you die.

We failed in Iraq because it was the worst war-related atrocity committed by a state since World War II (excluding the Congo Wars, which were also caused indirectly by the United States) led by none other than the U.S., Australia and Britain.

We failed in Iraq for many reasons, the fact that it was brought by a lie and a hoax being the largest single reason.