35 dead in Iraq and the biggest US mistake

[Almighty Colin]

35 killed at a recruiting station for the new Iraqi military.

Now this brings up something interesting. The Iraqi army was disbanded in May, 2003 and former Ba'ath party members were banned from security forces. I think these, especially the first and less certain on the second have been the biggest errors in Iraq. I know these same questions came up during World War II. Would former Nazi party members be able to contribute to government and security? The trouble then, as now, is that the only people in the German government with any experience were Nazi party members.

Now one could make an argument that disbanding the Iraqi military eliminated the greatest danger to security and we'll really never know. What it did do is unemploy hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Iraqi men.

It will be interesting to see how well the newly forming Iraqi military will be able to maintain internal security.

[Winetalk.com]

well, let's look at it this way:
NOW Iraqi military have VESTED INTEREST in providing security to the country...and themselves.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 17 2004, 07:36 AM
The Iraqi army was disbanded in May, 2003.
Now that I think about it, I wonder what "disbanded" means. Seems that most of them went home by themselves at the start of hostilities.

[RawAlex]

Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part.

That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues.

What is that phrase about "sow and reap"?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 17 2004, 09:50 AM
Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part.

That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues.
Right, so which was the better choice and why? Also, what did it mean to disband the Iraqi military when in effect they seem to have went home by themselves en masse even before hostilities reached them?

[chodadog]

Disbanding was a good idea in my mind. Because now a pro-US government can rebuild the military and put people in the chain of command to reflect the view of the new government.

Although, i do think it's entirely possible that the existing army would have cooperated with the new government, but all it takes is a few high ranking persuasive officers and you've got a few renegade platoons running around shootin' shit up.

Disbanding was the better choice, i think. Safer.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Jun 17 2004, 08:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jun 17 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--RawAlex@Jun 17 2004, 09:50 AM
Colin, when the US ran the government out of the capital, at the same time, they disbanded the military - mostly, from what I read at the time, becuase they feared military people having weapons and a means to organize people who might be in opposition to the US. They did the same with the police forces, for the most part.

That is one of the contributing factors to the unstoppable looting and distruction that went on shortly after. No police, no military, and not enough US troops to replace them and keep order - and nobody had the desire to even try. Heck, the US troops were helping to pull down Saddam statues.
Right, so which was the better choice and why? Also, what did it mean to disband the Iraqi military when in effect they seem to have went home by themselves en masse even before hostilities reached them?[/b][/quote]
A better solution is to change the constitution such that once war is declared with clearly defined objectives required for victory, politicians have no say whatsoever in the prosecution of the war. Their next input could only be to pass a resolution claiming that objectives have all been met and peace is to be negotiated and surrender accepted.

Now, in light of that, just ask yourself what a non-political supreme commander of US Forces would do (and would have done) to meet the objectives in Iraq.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 17 2004, 10:05 AM
A better solution is to change the constitution such that once war is declared with clearly defined objectives required for victory, politicians have no say whatsoever in the prosecution of the war. Their next input could only be to pass a resolution claiming that objectives have all been met and peace is to be negotiated and surrender accepted.

Now, in light of that, just ask yourself what a non-political supreme commander of US Forces would do (and would have done) to meet the objectives in Iraq.
Here were the 8 objectives given by the Dept of Defense at the onset.

1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
2. Eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
3. Capture or drive out terrorists.
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks.
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction activity.
6. Secure Iraq’s oil fields.
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.

[Mike AI]

Patton hired many former Nazi officials to run things in occupied Germany. It was probably a mistake to go to the extreme with the ba'athist.

Another issue is it seems the people in Iraq and middle east in general seem to only respond to fear. We do not have the stomach - or at least the press and some american people to brutaly supress our enemies, so maybe some of the former regime people could have helped us with this.

It is ironic that the iraqi military did not want to fight their own people, yet the terrorists will slaughter "their own people" with a 2nd thought.

Seems to me like a cop out, that the soldiers we hired were pussys.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jun 17 2004, 07:26 AM
Patton hired many former Nazi officials to run things in occupied Germany.
Many germany commanders and officers knew that Germany could not win the war and were seeking a way out - I´m sure that many people in the Iraqi military had the same thoughts, why else was the US able to conquer the country on the battlefield so easy?

I think the US got "scammed" by exile Iraqis (who might have been supported by other middle east countries like Iran) to belive that it was possible to run the country without the former police, military etc.. with the object to throw the country into chaos, and prehaps break it up :unsure:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 17 2004, 11:41 AM
why else was the US able to conquer the country on the battlefield so easy?
Rumsfeld was telling the truth. A lot of guys got paid off. A lot of other guys just went home. According to Keegan's new book on Iraq, there were no real major battles in the march to Baghdad.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 17 2004, 01:47 PM
Rumsfeld was telling the truth. A lot of guys got paid off. A lot of other guys just went home. According to Keegan's new book on Iraq, there were no real major battles in the march to Baghdad.
Then the question must be, why did the goverment see them as enemies? I mean if they went home with no fighting, then logic would be that they would not attack the US trops once the war was over?

Ofcourse the goverment could be affraid of the message send to the iraqi people, if US trops started to patrol with former iraqi army/police, however didn´t they end up getting former army and police back in service anyway... why the delay? I`m sure that military leaders on the ground in Iraq were quick to see that Iraq needed the old army/police back, so it must be something political which caused the delay?