It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dick Cheney: Letting Iraq Military Disband Was Mistake.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Dick Cheney: Letting Iraq Military Disband Was Mistake.


www.newsmax.com

After the United States won the battle for Baghdad in the Iraqi war, the nation’s military essentially collapsed. And former Vice President Dick Cheney says maybe the United States should have prevented the military establishment from disintegrating once strongman Saddam Hussein was ousted.

“It may have been a mistake,” Cheney said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.

To be sure, what to do about Iraq’s military wasn’t all under U.S. control, the former vice president pointed out.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:





posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Of course the biggest mistake was to disband the Iraqi Army at the time and thought it foolhardy because the Iraqi known how to maintain order. Think how much cheaper it would have been to to simply pay the Iraqi soldiers their pittance and keep them from joining the resistance. Instead, the US used the incorrect post WWII model of "denazifying" and disbanding. That worked at the time because the Germans were a western culture, thoroughly beaten, and were occupied by millions of Allied troops.

Just like when we disbanded the Germany military after WW2, there was an insurgency until the 1950s.

www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 20-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


There could be some truth to what you say. Personally I think that they expected the Iraqi Army to put up more of a fight than they did and were not prepared for winning that fast. Rather than have large groups of potentially hostile people, behing your lines, with minimal forces to guard them, they decided to disband the Iraqi Army. 20/20 hindsight proved them wrong.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


There could be some truth to what you say. Personally I think that they expected the Iraqi Army to put up more of a fight than they did and were not prepared for winning that fast. Rather than have large groups of potentially hostile people, behing your lines, with minimal forces to guard them, they decided to disband the Iraqi Army. 20/20 hindsight proved them wrong.


Even though Saddam was tyrant(and everyone don't deny it). however he manage to keep some of the peace with law and order. I still believe that we should have let the Iraqi military go and maintain some order. After we did, insurgency arises.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
More of a side note...
but if you go to USA jobs... the government jobs web site and type in "Iraq"
guess what you get???

Search Results1-25 of 478


Current active jobs over there... a good many require small arms expertise too
edit on 20-9-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
That's our politicians.

They seem to be very good at making huge mistakes and creating massive problems, especially in the face of mass public criticism, when many of us were saying not to disband them in the first place.

And then 10 years later they come and say "oops".

I have no idea why anyone believes in government/corporate mouthpieces anyways. This is a pattern and it is repeatable and measurable.

Just go elect someone. Then in 10 years, they will apologize for messing everything up worse.

That is how government and corporations work. That's it's purpose. To relieve criminals of accountability and make sure that no one is ever responsible.

I just wish people would stop believing in their lies. That's all.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
More of a side note...
but if you go to USA jobs... the government jobs web site and type in "Iraq"
guess what you get???

Search Results1-25 of 478


Current active jobs over there... a good many require small arms expertise too
edit on 20-9-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)


Hey if you need a job you can easily get a gig running convoys in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The chance of death is somewhat high, but the pay is even higher. We are talking a few hundred grand a year for constant hard work.

Private contracting is a big big business.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
That's our politicians.

They seem to be very good at making huge mistakes and creating massive problems, especially in the face of mass public criticism, when many of us were saying not to disband them in the first place.

And then 10 years later they come and say "oops".

I have no idea why anyone believes in government/corporate mouthpieces anyways. This is a pattern and it is repeatable and measurable.

Just go elect someone. Then in 10 years, they will apologize for messing everything up worse.

That is how government and corporations work. That's it's purpose. To relieve criminals of accountability and make sure that no one is ever responsible.

I just wish people would stop believing in their lies. That's all.


The same thign in Vietnam, President Johnson kept on controlling what the military can do and cannot do. They think that they know how to fight a war than all the generals combined.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Demilitarization of a regime is often the most difficult and pivotol phase of "liberating" a nation. This is why USASF tend to water down the training of their guerillas as they are more than likely going to return and dismantle them when they try their own power grab. Case in point: nearly every South American country we have dabbled in.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Yeah I'd have to agree that letting them disband was probably a bad thing. We should have had some sort of program implemented to see what officers/soldiers were worth keeping and who wasnt going to be all that easy to deal with.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Hasn't NATO pretty well done the same thing as a first order of business in Libya? Nothing like doubling down on stupid, I suppose. At least Cheney could make the argument, however weak, that he didn't know what would happen. NATO sure can't say that. Bahh... Cheney has much to answer for and it's ironic he's a Christian. His own faith dictates how that day before ultimate judgement will likely go for him, and it won't end well, I'm thinking.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Naw... the Feds don't pay that much... KBR does... not the US...
still it's close... the offer they made me was as a Civilian liaison... training the MEK to do their thing in Iran...
$78 grand a year to start



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by trollslayer
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Demilitarization of a regime is often the most difficult and pivotol phase of "liberating" a nation. This is why USASF tend to water down the training of their guerillas as they are more than likely going to return and dismantle them when they try their own power grab. Case in point: nearly every South American country we have dabbled in.


What kind of things that the US disbanded the south American military?

Yep, that was the single biggest mistake that Iraqi military was disbanded into our new military.

They should have kept the army and police together

Then let the Iraqis handle removing the Bathist from both at a later date.

2. I see why they disbanded them, because the 80% of iraqi's that were suni's hated the bathist



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Well in Germany we kept the police forces intact after weeding out the Nazi leaders and the war criminals. This is what we should have done in Iraq.

Post World War II we also had the US Army Constabulary in West Germany and Austria that operated alongside the German and Austrian police. US Army Constabulary units were mainly US Army military police but they also had infantry, armor/armored reconnaissance, and artillery units assigned as well. Basically Germany was divided into zones where each zone had a regiment sized Constabulary force and they basically went around acting as a show of force and helping the German police keep order. As I mentioned they also had tanks, light armor, artillery, and even horse mounted cavalry so they were ready for anything. It was actually a pretty neat concept that would have worked very well in Iraq. Sadly we never learn from the past ...

en.wikipedia.org...
www.history.army.mil...
edit on 20-9-2011 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, I don't want to hear a bunch of bull# about what we should have done.

What should have been done? Arresting that war criminal Dick Cheney would have been a good start at doing "something".

This is comical.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


Yes, agree, we didn't have enough troops. Rumsfeld didn't want large amount of troops;otherwise Americans would not support the invasion. 300,000 to 400,000 troops needed for occupation was known 10 yrs prior as researched by Central Command after Scwarzkoff left. It required 12 Army and 2 marine divisions. In late 1990's, the # dwindled to 8 Army and 2 marine divisions as added pressure from Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Gen Zinni narrowed it down. After invasion with 3rd ID, 82nd, 101st 1st MEF, we had 1st AD and 1st CAV in Kuwait. Additional 30,000 troops which was not used, led to further deteriation of Baghdad and LTG McKiernan head of CLLC in Kuwait was quite upset.

What should have been done to Iraq to prevent an insurgency?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I was refering to the era of the dirty little wars waged durring the Reagan administration. A cursory glance through any material on spec ops groups (in particular the United States Army Special Forces) will yield information on the time period. It is often akin to the statement made in The Dark Knight by Harvey Dent; "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Often after helping a coup or something similar the people we helped become corrupt and then are doomed to repeat the mistakes of their former enemies. This is why SF personell are given a budget to buy back arms they provided to their guerillas durring the conflict. This arises from the fact that we are often forced to choose between a lesser of two evils when arming a rebellion.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, I don't want to hear a bunch of bull# about what we should have done.

What should have been done? Arresting that war criminal Dick Cheney would have been a good start at doing "something".

This is comical.


We should have went into Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein's Regime from power in 1991 after Iraqi troops were thrown out of Kuwait. It would have been for the better for the world. More Allied troops would have been conduced with UN and Arab State support with a proper occupation. Then Iraq would have been a first class world economy instead of a mess they are in now.

Look at what we did in Japan and Germany. A proper occupation of it make those two countries first world class economies.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by illuminatislave
We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, I don't want to hear a bunch of bull# about what we should have done.

What should have been done? Arresting that war criminal Dick Cheney would have been a good start at doing "something".

This is comical.


We should have went into Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein's Regime from power in 1991 after Iraqi troops were thrown out of Kuwait. It would have been for the better for the world. More Allied troops would have been conduced with UN and Arab State support with a proper occupation. Then Iraq would have been a first class world economy instead of a mess they are in now.

Look at what we did in Japan and Germany. A proper occupation of it make those two countries first world class economies.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


I'd prefer we stay out of nation building. We are not god, nor should we be the world's police.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


IF we had stayed into nation building in Iraq then left after a few years, we would not been in the 2nd Gulf War we are in. I'm not saying we should but seeing this we should have done in 1991. For the better.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join