Iraq if properly occupied

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if Rumsfeld was not made Secretary of Defense and Colin Powell was kept in the spot? Rumsfeld made major changes to the Iraq invasion plan and had no military experience, something which deeply worried fire-eaters like General van Riper, who was highly critical of the war plan prior to the invasion in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K._Van_Riper

Originally Powell, who planned for another invasion while still in the military, called for 450,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq until a new government, army, and police force could be set up to maintain order. What if this plan was stuck to and Colin Powell was calling the shots as Secretary of Defense?

This would prevent the post invasion chaos and looting, not to mention many caches of arms falling into the hands of militants. It prevents the rise of militias and retards or prevents the penetration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into the Shiite areas of Iraq.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're looking to make the initial Iraq occupation more successful, another thing you're going to need to change is the disastrous policy of "enhanced interrogation" making its way into military interrogation methods.

No Sec of Defense Rumsfeld is a good sign.
 
Not a pretty solution but it might have worked:

Don't try to form a democracy. Go in, kill Saddam, and replace him with Ali Hassan al-Majid. Boost his military with about 50k to 100k troops until his power is secured.
 

King Thomas

Banned
The Pinochet solution;get a dictator who will, on important matters,do what he is told.The bad thing about setting up a democracy in Iraq is;any Iraqi democracy that truely represents the will of the Iraqi people would either be anti-American or would soon become anti-American,given the damage America did to Iraq and the sanctions from earlier.
 
How about we go in in a blitz, try to get a surrender and not this irrational punishment victory. After order is established, we flood in food and clean water. Infrastructure is restored and improved. Honestly, we did it for Europe after WWII. Why can't we ever seem to do it with non-Whites (and yes, I do count Japan as White)?
 
How about we go in in a blitz, try to get a surrender and not this irrational punishment victory. After order is established, we flood in food and clean water. Infrastructure is restored and improved. Honestly, we did it for Europe after WWII. Why can't we ever seem to do it with non-Whites (and yes, I do count Japan as White)?

Because in Europe US wanted to increase the quality of life to prevent spread of communism among angry, poor people with little prospects of improving their lot (perfect breeding ground for communist ideas). Marshall plan was seen as worth it against potential loss. In Iraq there is no such need as there is no external ideology that feeds itself on poor economic conditions that poses threat to US values as communism did.
 

Deleted member 1487

Because in Europe US wanted to increase the quality of life to prevent spread of communism among angry, poor people with little prospects of improving their lot (perfect breeding ground for communist ideas). Marshall plan was seen as worth it against potential loss. In Iraq there is no such need as there is no external ideology that feeds itself on poor economic conditions that poses threat to US values as communism did.

Wahabism is not an ideology that we are currently fighting the war on terror against? Also, what about Iranian influence? Iraq is and was ripe for all of that especially as religion is a major component in our current struggle.
 

Niq

Banned
Only way I see invasion could had been better is if some slight changes had been made. This would had resulted in fewer casualties, more support for war, less costs, less loses, but great improvements would probably not had been made. War would still have no end in sight, lot of casualties, huge costs. Also usa has to set up democracy because otherwise that would piss of rest of the world. Usa just cant run around world making nations their satellite states without pissing off rest of the world.
 

Deleted member 1487

But even a democracy in name would still be a US puppet in action. Even today, though Iraq is forced to play the game of balancing several powers operating within their borders, the US is and will remain its patron for the simple reason that we are maintaining a troop presence there and are funding their military. When that stops and the violence starts, things may change, but until then the US carries the big stick and calls the tunes in Iraq.
 

Niq

Banned
But even a democracy in name would still be a US puppet in action. Even today, though Iraq is forced to play the game of balancing several powers operating within their borders, the US is and will remain its patron for the simple reason that we are maintaining a troop presence there and are funding their military. When that stops and the violence starts, things may change, but until then the US carries the big stick and calls the tunes in Iraq.
Sure. Usa has to get something out of attacking to Iraq. Military bases, alliance, oil, stocks, rebuild contracts. Going to war is no a charity, world greatest power does not go to war it it has nothing to gain from it. Also other powers of world had to get something from usa so that they would ok the war. China probably got to sell more stuff to usa with lower tariffs, Russia continued their war in Chechnya, some European nations participated in Iraq war, for some relations were damaged, maybe new loans were given to some nations of world, maybe more foreign aid etc.
 

Deleted member 1487

Right, so why would the type of government we established matter?
 

Niq

Banned
Right, so why would the type of government we established matter?
Well there is balance between old Saddam Hussein and new possible ultra pro Usa puppet dictator. That balance is in democracy. Lets put it this way: Saddam Hussein in power, Usa owns 0% or Iraq, democracy Usa owns 50% or Iraq, merciless puppet dictator Usa owns 90%.
 
Because in Europe US wanted to increase the quality of life to prevent spread of communism among angry, poor people with little prospects of improving their lot (perfect breeding ground for communist ideas). Marshall plan was seen as worth it against potential loss. In Iraq there is no such need as there is no external ideology that feeds itself on poor economic conditions that poses threat to US values as communism did.

Uh... Global War on Terror? :rolleyes:
At least, that's the reasoning given ;)
 
I get that there's no big bad to fear there, since terrorism is, proportionate to WWIII, a joke. On the other hand, it would seem smarter to turn it into a stable political partner and market. Besides, the Marshall Plan proved both economically and politically advantageous. Why wouldn't it be the same in the Middle East?
 
I'm afraid we'd still have occupation problems with Powell - just fewer. We'd have enough troops on the ground, but his idea was to declare occupations somebody else's problem; he never had any occupation phase in Kuwait. Every baby-boomer-commanded war has had some kind of postwar badness - Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq II.

The problem with his version is that you need a whole lot of people with guns to replace the old police and army you're displacing until there's a half-decent replacement. Counterinsurgency, lotsa boots, and patience are what you need.

Kerblo and Thomas, you live in democracies, with more hope and a better standard of living as a result, right? Isn't it a tad, er, hypocritical to suggest that Iraqis should live under another dictator just because they might express their popular will? You, after all, are happily expressing your opinions; why should it be harder for them? Plus, it BARELY worked in South Korea and failed in Vietnam and Iran.

EDIT: Also, puppet regimes are trouble because they're more corrupt, and they cause lots of resentment on the ground. You tend to get unhappiness on the ground and counterrevolutions - that's how Cuba and Iran came to have their current governments; how happy are we about either of those regimes?
 

Typo

Banned
How about we go in in a blitz, try to get a surrender and not this irrational punishment victory. After order is established, we flood in food and clean water. Infrastructure is restored and improved. Honestly, we did it for Europe after WWII. Why can't we ever seem to do it with non-Whites (and yes, I do count Japan as White)?
What the hell do you think the US tried to do?

It got stuck around the "establishing order" part
 

PipBoy2999

Banned
The trouble in Iraq is that following the advance in Europe during WW2, a corps of 35000 civil-military affiars personnel were able to assume control of government functions until local governments could be stood up. Following the US army into Iraq was a force of some 30-odd mostly political appointees.
 
Kerblo and Thomas, you live in democracies, with more hope and a better standard of living as a result, right? Isn't it a tad, er, hypocritical to suggest that Iraqis should live under another dictator just because they might express their popular will? You, after all, are happily expressing your opinions; why should it be harder for them? Plus, it BARELY worked in South Korea and failed in Vietnam and Iran.

If we were in the business of doing the Iraqis favors we wouldn't have invaded them in the first place. Is saying we prop up another dictatorship while living in a democracy make me a hypocrite? No, it just makes me an asshole, a practical one though.

America has learned a lot about setting up middle eastern dictatorships since Iran. The Shah was too ambitious. He wanted a better Iran. The dictators we prop up now are only interested in keeping power. Look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Saddam was good until he started invading other countries. I think we could have found a man who shared Saddam's ability to stabilize the country yet didn't want to expand the borders.
 
I am having trouble understanding the phrase "properly occupied."

I was under the impression that it was one of the greatest military moves in history.

In less than seven years, the culture of a nation completely transformed to suit those of the occupiers. Democracy, though not perfect, was brought to a region where democracy was rare.

Except for the occasional horrific terrorist attacks, the occupiers face no 'Nam' like skirmishes/fighting and are training the domestic police in how to do their job correctly and non corruptly.

I know I sound like the raving mad Glenn Beck tea-bagger senseless old guy stereotyped conservative here when I write this -- but I honestly think the media wont describe or touch the success in the war because they would then have to vindicate a man they mocked for four years.

Obviously anybody here may criticize my views, but do it in a way that does not end in a flame war.

No matter who led the war, there would be arms trading, terrorism, and crime. How much depends on the success. I would say this could have gone better, but was pretty darn good to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Right, so why would the type of government we established matter?
It matters because the United States has to promote liberty. We go in and set up a democracy in spite of who they would elect, in spite of it being more stable for our interests because we believe in democracy.
 
Top