WI: The Iraq War and Occupation Goes Complete Right

What if the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq goes completely according to plan? I don't want to hear that was a delusional and never going to happen. Pretend it does. What is the end game for the Middle East envisioned by the war?
 
You already waited too long to start it if you are going in 2003. In 2001 at least you had al-Masri and al-Zarqawi and their followers still in Afghanistan and you hadn't given the Republican Guard over a year to plan the plan what happens if the U.S. invades. OTL, they put more and more ammo dumps around the country, released 50K prisoners from jails and decided on only putting up a token fight in order to live to fight another day. At the same time Zarqawi was buying up safe houses and moving around Iraq setting the ground work for an insurgency.

Build up and invade right after September 11th and get lucky with Saddam doing something stupid right before hand of say sending the Republican Guard and several Army divisions towards Kuwait for some idiot reason as he did in the mid 90s at least once and you could pocket a large number of divisions in the field.

The occupation stays in the hands of the military and power is quickly transferred to Allawi to secure the country and Assad and Iran would likely decide its not the best of times to screw with the U.S. by adding to the problems there.

Jihadist problems will rear their head in time anyway, but the Iraqis will deal with the bulk of it once the police and army get their act back together. In the end perhaps 500 to 1000 coalition dead if you are counting accidents and natural deaths as well which the official numbers do.
 
It certainly sounds delusional, especially in hindsight, but it seems like the plan that George Bush and company put together was;

1. The US would invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein
2. All the Iraqi people would be grateful and happy to support the US occupying forces as they set up a US friendly government.
3. The US would have a large, friendly nation in the middle of the middle east to oppose Iraq and Syria

If that wasn't what he was thinking I would be curious what their plan was.

Cheney "Let's invade Iraq!"
Bush "Okay, that's on my bucket list"
Powell "What are we going to do after the invasion?!?"
Bush "Hmmm, ask me after the invasion..."
 
If that wasn't what he was thinking I would be curious what their plan was.

Cheney "Let's invade Iraq!"
Bush "Okay, that's on my bucket list"
Powell "What are we going to do after the invasion?!?"
Bush "Hmmm, ask me after the invasion..."

Not what happened. What happened was there was too many cooks in the kitchen. The U.S. Army had its own plan for post war controlling the country and the CPA had its own plan and Bush didn't get hands on early in taking control of things. Bush signed onto the U.S. Army's post war pacification plan, but the CPA gutted it and he didn't then intervene and fire the CPA. He did eventually get hands on and fire and move on those who was failing the war effort both generals, diplomats and even the Secretary of Defense and it did turn around the war, but only after the U.S. public had already decided wrongly that it was lost.

Bush put up after 911 a picture of LBJ pointing on a map to his generals for where to conduct air strikes and said this is not the kind of war President I am not going to be, but first term Bush let the various actors in the government run wild and didn't centralize decision making so only one general and one diplomat reporting to him was making the decisions.

Second term Bush finally did realize that problem and fix it, but it hobbled things for some time that he didn't take a handle on it early the way he should have.

That being said by 2003 you were not going to have all that good an outcome no matter what you do as the enemy both the jihadists and the Saddamists are ready for war. You have to go earlier and if you want the perfect situation and have something extra like Saddam lines his divisions up in southern Iraq sometime in 2001 for some idiot reason like saber ratting Kuwait as he did at times in the 90s and the war starts after 911 and like in 1991 it ends up a breeze for the U.S. Army to pocket these divisions out in the open and after the occupation stays in the armies hands with say someone like General James Mattis overseeing the early stages of the occupation.
 
Last edited:
We could've moved on and taken out the Iranians as well.

Not with how competent they are at playing the West.

They were ordering candle light vigils after 911 while Saddam was ordering public celebrations to be held and posters of the attack be put up. The mullahs are master chess players.

Iraq hails attack on US

The entire world - almost - has reacted with horror to the news of Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States - the entire world except for Iraq.

As condolences poured in from everywhere - even from Libya and Iran - Iraq rejoiced, saying the terror attacks were a "lesson for all tyrants and oppressors" and the fruit of American crimes. "America burns," read the headline of the country's official al-Iraq newspaper, which declared: "the myth of America was destroyed with the World Trade Center in New York."

Elsewhere in the Gulf, newspapers were unanimous in their condemnation of the attacks, but al-Iraq wrote: "It is the prestige, arrogance and institutions of America that burn." The paper said it would be difficult for the US to find the perpetrators of the attack, since America has made so many enemies. "Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these attacks," it said. "Brutal America, suffering from illusions of grandeur, has inflicted humiliation, famine and terrorism on all of the world's countries and today it reaps the fruits of its arrogant and stupid policy," said an official Iraqi statement.

The official statement, read on television Tuesday night, said: "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity. "The statement said the attack was, among others, a result of America's support of Israel. "The destruction of the centres of American power is the destruction of American policy, which has veered from human values to align itself with the Zionist world, to continue to massacre the Palestinian people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1540216.stm

The mullahs know when there is blood in America's eyes not to rub it in. They also know when America is divided and weak then its time to act like asses.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What if the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq goes completely according to plan? I don't want to hear that was a delusional and never going to happen. Pretend it does. What is the end game for the Middle East envisioned by the war?

A pro-American Maliki is installed, and various American contractors and subcontractors get to work rebuilding Iraq's oil industry.

Some sort of election is held, in which political Shi'a parties somehow dont dominate the government.

Iraq is somehow de-Ba'athified, without a system relying on the Ba'ath party's tight control over the army, bureacracy and secret police collapsing.
 
A pro-American Maliki is installed, and various American contractors and subcontractors get to work rebuilding Iraq's oil industry.

Some sort of election is held, in which political Shi'a parties somehow dont dominate the government.

Iraq is somehow de-Ba'athified, without a system relying on the Ba'ath party's tight control over the army, bureacracy and secret police collapsing.

The Shia religious parties were always going to win the first election or two with a PR parliamentary system. With a Presidentalist WTA system it is not so assured.

Obviously the Sunnis made things far worse for themselves in listening to Zarqawi and boycotting the election.
 
One of the first things that had to be done was to up the amount of troops on the ground.

Going in on the cheap would never have made it happen.

The early estimates were in the range of 300,000+

All that said and as mentioned: It might have been a good idea to figure out WHY invade and WHAT to do in Iraq.

Bremer did not exactly help the situation.

It also looks to me as though the entire 'dream' was into "let's liberate the Iraq people and they will have an election and be happy forever after when they have elected the one's we like".

For making a success out of it, it would also be necessary to involve the neighbors. Iran was/is a player and so was/is Syria.

There would be no way out it: Iran had to be a part of any solution.

How to engineer that is a bit tough, but as it has also shown, that would be a requirement.

The notion of also invading Iran "while we are at it" is far out. And for what reason?

Iran is in many ways too big and too important to not be a part of any ME solution. Has Obama managed to pull them into the world? Good question of which I shall reserve my judgment.

If Iran had been a part of the solution much earlier (Rouhani in much earlier), it could have turned out a bit different.

Ivan
 
One of the first things that had to be done was to up the amount of troops on the ground.

Going in on the cheap would never have made it happen.

The early estimates were in the range of 300,000+

All that said and as mentioned: It might have been a good idea to figure out WHY invade and WHAT to do in Iraq.

Bremer did not exactly help the situation.

It also looks to me as though the entire 'dream' was into "let's liberate the Iraq people and they will have an election and be happy forever after when they have elected the one's we like".

For making a success out of it, it would also be necessary to involve the neighbors. Iran was/is a player and so was/is Syria.

There would be no way out it: Iran had to be a part of any solution.

How to engineer that is a bit tough, but as it has also shown, that would be a requirement.

The notion of also invading Iran "while we are at it" is far out. And for what reason?

Iran is in many ways too big and too important to not be a part of any ME solution. Has Obama managed to pull them into the world? Good question of which I shall reserve my judgment.

If Iran had been a part of the solution much earlier (Rouhani in much earlier), it could have turned out a bit different.

Ivan

More troops solves nothing rather then create many more body bags unless you know exactly what type of war you are fighting. We were geared until 2006 for a conventional one. That would if anything create more anger based upon what we were doing at the time instead of a campaign based on COIN.

Like I said Zarqawi either can't be there or the U.S. Army had to fight the right war at the right time and it's easier to get rid of the former then fix the latter. Hell with the IS war the U.S. military is only now figuring out it acts like a conventional military force not an insurgency.

Our military is really poor at training our officers for all kinds of war instead of just having them get ready to fight the last war when compared to the British, German and French military academies at the start of the 20th century.

Oh and Iran is part of no solution and never will be as long as their goal is to spread the Revolution and it still is. The Bush WH reached out to them in 2004 and they got their hands bit. Short of saying hey Iran you can put your army in Iraq and we are leaving at a date certain which this current WH practically did they aren't going to not try to kill Americans in Iraq if they sense weakness. They key is for them not to sense weakness or division in America.

Still reading the riot act to Assad is far more important because pro-Iranian militia may have killed about 500 troops, but AQI with their rat lines from Syria killed more like 6 times that number of Americans and allowed Zarqawi to almost tear the country apart.

Scaring Iran and Syria into not destabilizing things would all be possible if went in right after 911 when Iran and Assad were afraid of American rage after the attack and the U.S. public wouldn't be so quick to be divided on the war when deaths start happening which are in any case inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Fully agree that more troops in itself is not solving anything. It is in the usage.

It also goes (of course) with the justification: Why are we here and what are we supposed to do?

Iran has changed since 2006. What was not possible before seems to be possible now. IF Iran had had the new president at that time, maybe?

Ivan
 
A good start might be to keep Bremer out of it.

Create an actual 'made in Iraq' government to operate through.

Recognize and support municipal and local elections.

Not dissolve the Armed forces.

Not turn debaathification into a witch hunt which pushed the Sunni into rebellion.

Not the wholesale ideological reform and renovation of the country, a project doomed to failure.

There's a bunch of things, all of which were antithetical to the powers that be.
 
The first point would be to have a plan for what to do.

It is often a good idea to have a plan and the 'after Saddam' scenarios were just lacking in any way.

It would have to involve the neighbors and it would be a great idea to also involve other powers.

After all, the success of Bush Snr was not as much the ability to deploy overwhelming forces, but to create an alliance (of all and sundry) and hold it together.

That was only possible as he had defined achievable goals, I think (e.g. a plan for what to do and what not to do).

Cold his 'Alliance of the Neighbors' could have been developed into a more formal gathering with a goal of 'cleaning up' the ME? That is a good question.

Cleaning up must also be defined in this context, not even sure what it could be after all.

Ivan
 
What if the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq goes completely according to plan? I don't want to hear that was a delusional and never going to happen. Pretend it does. What is the end game for the Middle East envisioned by the war?

Well, I'm sorry you don't want to hear that. Because it's true. There was simply no way that the invasion, as planned, with the follow up, as planned, could possibly 'go complete right'.

You'd need massively more troops, involvement, support, etc. Which would be a very different situation.
 
Well, I'm sorry you don't want to hear that. Because it's true. There was simply no way that the invasion, as planned, with the follow up, as planned, could possibly 'go complete right'.

You'd need massively more troops, involvement, support, etc. Which would be a very different situation.

You'd also need a new SecDef, because Rummy was an unmitigated disaster at the post.
 
Top