Good LA Times Article - Iraq War

CPT. SURF

From yesterdays La Times. I agree with most of what is written. Opinions?




Post-traumatic Iraq syndrome

The war is lost. Americans should begin to deal with what that means.
By Christopher J. Fettweis, CHRISTOPHER J. FETTWEIS is assistant professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. These opinions are his own.
June 12, 2007

LOSING HURTS MORE than winning feels good. This simple maxim applies with equal power to virtually all areas of human interaction: sports, finance, love. And war.

Defeat in war damages societies quite out of proportion to what a rational calculation of cost would predict. The United States absorbed the loss in Vietnam quite easily on paper, for example, but the societal effects of defeat linger to this day. The Afghanistan debacle was an underrated contributor to Soviet malaise in the 1980s and a factor in perestroika, glasnost and eventually the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Defeats can have unintended, seemingly inexplicable consequences.

And as any sports fan can tell you, the only thing that feels worse than a loss is an upset. An upset demands explanation and requires that responsible parties be punished.

The endgame in Iraq is now clear, in outline if not detail, and it appears that the heavily favored United States will be upset. Once support for a war is lost, it is gone for good; there is no example of a modern democracy having changed its mind once it turned against a war. So we ought to start coming to grips with the meaning of losing in Iraq.

The consequences for the national psyche are likely to be profound, throwing American politics into a downward spiral of bitter recriminations the likes of which it has not seen in a generation. It will be a wedge that politicians will exploit for their benefit, proving yet again that politics is the eternal enemy of strategy. The Vietnam syndrome divided this country for decades; the Iraq syndrome will be no different.

The battle for interpretation has already begun, with fingers of blame pointed in all directions in hastily written memoirs. The war's supporters have staked out their position quite clearly: Attacking Iraq was strategically sound but operationally flawed. Key decisions on troop levels, de-Baathification, the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the like doomed what otherwise would have been a glorious war.

The American people seem to understand, however — and historians will certainly agree — that the war itself was a catastrophic mistake. It was a faulty grand strategy, not poor implementation. The Bush administration was operating under an international political illusion, one that is further discredited with every car bombing of a crowded Baghdad marketplace and every Iraqi doctor who packs up his family and flees his country.

The only significant question still hanging is whether Iraq will turn out to have been the biggest strategic mistake in U.S. history. Vietnam was a much greater moral disaster, of course, and led to far more death and destruction. But, just as the war's critics predicted in the 1960s, Vietnam turned out to be strategically irrelevant. Saigon fell, but no dominoes followed; the balance of Cold War power did not change.

Iraq has the potential to be far worse. One of the oft-expressed worst-case scenarios for Iraq — a repeat of Lebanon in the 1980s — may no longer be within reach. Lebanon's simmering civil war eventually burned itself out and left a coherent, albeit weak, state in its ashes. Iraq could soon more closely resemble Somalia in the 1990s, an utterly collapsed, uncontrollable, lawless, failed state that destabilizes the most vital region in the world.

Hopefully at some point during the recriminations to come, the American people will seize the opportunity to ask themselves a series of fundamental questions about the role and purpose of U.S. power in the world. How much influence can the United States have in the Middle East? Is its oil worth American blood and treasure? Are we really safer now that Iraq burns? Might we not be better off just leaving the region alone?

Perhaps at some point we will come to recognize that the United States can afford to be much more restrained in its foreign policy adventures. Were our founding fathers here, they would surely look on Iraq with horror and judge that the nation they created had fundamentally lost its way. If the war in Iraq leads the United States to return to its traditional, restrained grand strategy, then perhaps the whole experience will not have been in vain.

Either way, the Iraq syndrome is coming. We need to be prepared for the divisiveness, vitriol, self-doubt and recrimination that will be its symptoms. They will be the defining legacy of the Bush administration and neoconservatism's parting gift to America.

Liam Byrne

It might raise some pertinent questions, but there's a sentence in there that defines the problem with America's attitude .... :mad:

Is its oil worth American blood and treasure?

The CORRECT question is whether Iraq's oil was worth ANY blood - American or Iraq or anyone else's, right down to David Kelly in the UK who committed suicide after being ridiculed for telling the truth!

With all the American reporting focussing on how many THEY have lost, rather than the overall body count, and continue to gloss over any Iraqi civilian (or even other) deaths caused by the invasion, there's no hope for them.....

To listen to American media, you'd swear that the ONLY deaths were a couple of thousand American soldiers, rather than the 220,000 + who have actually died :mad:

wes

Liam Byrne wrote:

It might raise some pertinent questions, but there's a sentence in there that defines the problem with America's attitude .... :mad:



The CORRECT question is whether Iraq's oil was worth ANY blood - American or Iraq or anyone else's, right down to David Kelly in the UK who committed suicide after being ridiculed for telling the truth!

With all the American reporting focussing on how many THEY have lost, rather than the overall body count, and continue to gloss over any Iraqi civilian (or even other) deaths caused by the invasion, there's no hope for them.....

To listen to American media, you'd swear that the ONLY deaths were a couple of thousand American soldiers, rather than the 220,000 + who have actually died :mad:

This is one of the main reasons, I have lost a lot of respect for the US as a nation. They ****ed up Iraq with this war (and they were one of the main architects behind sanctions as well) and they don't seem to give a toss about all the dead people and pretty much like to pretend they had nothing to do with any of it.

Otherwise an excellent article.

dave2pvd

wes wrote:

This is one of the main reasons, I have lost a lot of respect for the US as a nation.

While you work away with your big wide tar brush, think about the fact that the majority of people in the US do not support the war and many feel they were decieved by the administration when it cooked up 'evidence' for the need to attack Iraq.

wes

dave2pvd wrote:

While you work away with your big wide tar brush, think about the fact that the majority of people in the US do not support the war and many feel they were decieved by the administration when it cooked up 'evidence' for the need to attack Iraq.

By nation I meant the government. I never mentioned the people. My bad for not being clearer.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the only reason they don't support the war is because they've lost, if it was going well there would be posters of bush all over american rooftops and prayer marches in his honour in all major american cities.

dave2pvd

Mordeth wrote:

the only reason they don't support the war is because they've lost, if it was going well there would be posters of bush all over american rooftops and prayer marches in his honour in all major american cities.

Are you espousing fact there?

I can tell you that there are a lot of Americans very angry about the deceit that brought about the invasion. That is the big reason they don't support the war. Your view of Americans is just a little bit 1-dimensional Mordeth. It's not all 'just like on TV', you know.

Thanks for the clarification Wes. The sad reality is that the gov't has caused a huge loss of respect for the nation. Everywhere. Except Albania, apparently.

wes

dave2pvd wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Wes. The sad reality is that the gov't has caused a huge loss of respect for the nation. Everywhere. Except Albania, apparently.

As much my fault, my post was badly phrased.

metrovelvet

That article in interesting but fails on two points of hypocricy with both this war and Vietnam.

First of all, support for Vietnam started to flounder when the college ban on the draft was lifted and the sons of middle class voters were threatened with being sent to fight. Before that, it was quite alright to send working class boys both black and white into the jungles of Vietnam to die.

Secondly, I think Mordeth has a point, that if we had been successful the outrage would be quite different. Remember, the one of the arguments for aggressing over there, was so that America wouldnt be attacked on its own land. Well with more and more civil liberties being curtailed, it looks like we - the citizens- are losing, but the victors arent the terrorists but our own elected administration, aided and abetted by thug politicians like Guiliani.

Additionally, if the war were brief and efficient, and petrol werent so high at the pump, travel werent such a ****ing nightmare, and authorities such as the TSA and NYPD didnt have the legal authority to back up their handcuff happy crap or the military power of a paramilitary [thanks Guiliani] then the citizens would perhaps not despise this administration half as much as it does.

Yes the US has lost - not the just the government but the citizens who are bullied by new policy and the crap you have to put with by living here.

The question that the article doesnt answer, and only hints at asking, is while Vietnam was a disaster, it did have an ending, does Iraq?

Liam Byrne

if we had been successful the outrage would be quite different

Firstly, who is the "we" that you are referring to ?

Secondly, the U.S. cannot measure "success" since they didn't have a plan or reason to invade in the first place.

metrovelvet

The we I would be referring to would be the US [I am american].

I think they/we [whatever] would have measured by how much of their plan they managed to execute.

They wanted to oust Hussein. They did that.
They wanted to find the WMDs. They didnt do that.
They wanted to stop the terrorists from going on American soil.
They anticipated 30,000 deaths. The death toll is estimated at 650,000.
They wanted to be out of there way before now.
They wanted to install freedom and democracy in Iraq. Instead they removed freedom by freedom in the US.
They wanted to promise post war reconstruction contracts. They did that.

So I think you can talk about failure or success more than you can talk about winning and losing.

For me, the death toll is a sure sign of losing for EVERYONE.

Liam Byrne

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to oust Hussein.

This appeared to be only added to the list as an afterthought.

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to find the WMDs. They didnt do that.

The use of the phrase "the WMDs" seems to imply that there were WMDs to be found. There weren't.

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to stop the terrorists from going on American soil.

There were no links between terrorism and Iraq at that stage; now, due to the actions of the U.S. administration, there are a lot more people who would be of the mindset to attack the U.S., if only in retaliation to what the U.S. has done (which, although disagreeable, is at least understandable).

metrovelvet wrote:

They anticipated 30,000 deaths. The death toll is estimated at 650,000.

It is very, very rare to see the total figure quoted; most of the time (even last week on the fairly reputable BBC, they seemed more interested in the fact that a single UK soldier had been killed in a road traffic accident than however many Iraqi civilians had been killed that day.

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to be out of there way before now.

Tough. They should never have been in there in the first place.

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to install freedom and democracy in Iraq. Instead they removed freedom by freedom in the US.

This one is a complete joke. The U.S. were the ones who installed Saddam when it suited them, and they wanted Saddam out as soon as he started suggesting that oil should be sold in euro.

metrovelvet wrote:

They wanted to promise post war reconstruction contracts. They did that.

Yup, to their own businesses and cronies. We'll agree on that one.

metrovelvet wrote:

So I think you can talk about failure or success more than you can talk about winning and losing.

The failure was of democracy, truth and common sense while Bush's administration were scheming to invade Iraq, long before the actual war itself.

metrovelvet wrote:

For me, the death toll is a sure sign of losing for EVERYONE.

Agreed. And it is the U.S. administration that caused that, unfortunately with Bertie Ahern's help.