PDA

View Full Version : Iraq - The Mission Report Card



The_cavalierman
October-4th-2007, 09:21 PM
In order to fairly grade Iraq you must break down the mission into three separate but equally important parts.


The Military Mission:

Find the WMDs - Partially Successful (we found our own WMDs)
Secure Iraqi Oil fields - Successful
Capture or Kill Saddam and Sons - Successful
Provide enough security to complete civil and diplomatic missions - Unsuccessful
First off the troops are doing an excellent job despite piss poor leadership from Washington. The military mission in Iraq has been highly successful despite the civilian leadership's blunders. Three our of 4 of the priority objectives have been accomplished. I must clarify that their were WMDs found in Iraq but the tragic irony is that it was the leftover chemicals that the Reagan/Bush administration supplied Saddam via the CIA in his war against Iran. This was the same chemicals that Saddam later used on the Khurds.

American troops are nothing more than targets as they try to do the job of securing Iraq that the Iraqis should be doing. They are also the targets of Iranian insurgents with dramatically improved IEDs. The Al quaeda element in Iraq has been all but eliminated but contrary to republican spin this was not due to anything the US did. It was due to the fact that the Sunnis decided to rejoin the Iraq coalition government for US protection from Shia death squads. The Sunnis hired, hid and equipped Al Queda but that relationship only inspired Iran to arm the Shia death squads.

The bottom line is the American troops should have dramatically scaled back their presence after Saddam was captured. The military is now being asked to police Iraq which is a terminally bad idea. Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded the lives of many American soldiers would have been saved.


Grades:

(A+) The troops for making the best out of a crappy situation
(D-) Military commanders for allowing the Bush administration make political decisions that compromised the strategic and tactical objectives in Iraq.
(F) The Commander in Chief - Military historians at the Army War college, West Point and the Center for Military History are already including Bush in the conversations of the worst wartime president ever. When the majority military historians (who are not liberals) turn against you before your term is done...you must really suck.
The Civil Mission:

Restore utilities - failed
Restore schools/universities - successful
Restore markets - partially successful
Create jobs/ecomomy/business - failed
Iraq still has massive blackouts and most residents get 1-2 hours of electricity a day. The schools are back in session for the most part but that is a drastic improvement over 2003. The markets are experiencing good progress but the fact that they keep getting blown up keeps that objective from receiving a passing grade. Massive US contractor mismanagement and criminal activity has left way too many Iraqis unemployed thus angry and free to blow things up. Some small Iraqi businesses are successful but not enough to get the economy off the ground.

The major failures of this mission can be directly linked to the piss poor leadership of the whitehouse. They disbanded the Iraqi Army which would have been the security force we needed. They fired all of the Sunni civil servants that could have kept the power on and the water going.


Grades:

(A+) Civil affairs soldiers
(D-) American civil servants and civilian contractors in Iraq
(F) Bush Administration
The Diplomatic Mission:


This is the area of the most dramatic failures of the Whitehouse. Now that the military mission in Iraq is effectively over the diplomatic mission should be in full force. Condaleeza Rice is a joke and Cheney had to be called in to do her job a few months ago.

Due to the lack of diplomacy even our own allies have been withdrawing from the coalition of the willing. The failure of diplomacy also means that our military must stay in Iraq and continue to be targets.

Grades:

(B) The troops - they are the real diplomats and despite a few setbacks by some idiots (Abu Grhaib/Gitmo) they have repesented the US with honor.
(F-) The Bush Administration - Simply put they do not believe in diplomacy and that will be the failure that keeps the troops in Iraq longer and destroys the overall mission
(F-) The State Department - By far the most catastrophic failure of the three missions
Overall the troops are doing a great job under circumstances made more difficult by their own leadership. The external factors like the Whitehouse, State Department along with bad/cheating contractors have failed to step up as the military mission was coming to an end. Not to mention the horrible decisions made following the invasion to disband the Iraqi Army and fire all the Sunnis that could have kept the current infastructure running. Those two decision alone proved to set the Iraq mission back years.

The military tried to train an iraqi security force which ultimately failed after years of dumping money, time and massive resources into that effort. They also tried to bring in American contractors to rebuild Iraq's infastructure and after four years the average Iraq still only gets 1-2 hours of electricity per day if they are lucky and the water is nasty. The fraud, waste and abuse by these contractors (with no bid contracts) is downright criminal.

Oh yeah...there is still 9 billion dollars in tax payer money still unaccounted for in Iraq. Given those factors the overall grade for the complete Iraq mission is a D. The only thing that keeps it from being an F is the fact that our troops are doing such a marvelous job even though their civilian leadership has let them down at virtually every turn.


With all factors considered how would you grade the mission in Iraq?

mjah
October-4th-2007, 11:46 PM
Capture or Kill Osama Bin Laden - Successful
Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

Enter Apotheosis
October-4th-2007, 11:48 PM
Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

I guess he does...

mojobo
October-4th-2007, 11:51 PM
Do you know something the rest of us don't know?
mad he beat you to the conspiracy?

skinfan13
October-4th-2007, 11:51 PM
The war itself gets an A+; we went in and kicked ass with minimal casualties in only a months time. statistically the most efficient war we have ever fought.


the occupation gets the lowest F possible. horrid planing and execution, not enough troops to secure the country, the allowing of the looting in bagdhad, and so forth.

overall it averages to a C. another issue at hand is we didnt declare war like the constitution stipulates, but thats a different issue alltogether.

Chief skin
October-5th-2007, 04:21 AM
A disaster then again W ia a disaster, he has proved to the entire world that he is unfit for command. Embarassing

Burgold
October-5th-2007, 06:19 AM
The war itself gets an A+; we went in and kicked ass with minimal casualties in only a months time. statistically the most efficient war we have ever fought.


the occupation gets the lowest F possible. horrid planing and execution, not enough troops to secure the country, the allowing of the looting in bagdhad, and so forth.

overall it averages to a C. another issue at hand is we didnt declare war like the constitution stipulates, but thats a different issue alltogether.

You can't average 6 months of A+ and six years of F and get a C. I think the factor missing from his grading (unless, I read too quickly) was the ability to train a develop an Iraqi security force. We've been hearing since 2004 that there would be 100,000 Iraqis ready within a few weeks to stand up and start securing their own country. It's 2007 now.

It may also be unfair, but the Iraqi government's incompetence needs to be factored in, especially since without our support that government probably would have been replaced by now with something better/worse for the Iraqi people.

Generally, I agree with his grading. The military deserves an A. The Civil Contractors deserve an incomplete (hard to restore power and build businesses when things are constantly blowing up and you fear for your life) The political part of the game (ours and theirs) Actually started with a B, the purple thumb was a great moment, but has fallen to at least a D.

airborneskins
October-5th-2007, 06:28 AM
Wow... another Bush bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Buddy Dude
October-5th-2007, 06:33 AM
Wow... another Bush bashing thread... :rolleyes:You act shocked :laugh:

I mean after all, it is a weekday. :doh:

Burgold
October-5th-2007, 06:42 AM
Wow... another Bush bashing thread... :rolleyes:

I don't know I thought he was being overly generous and kind in his assessments. I was worried that his post worked too hard to try to show Bush in a good light.

Basically, he said... Militarily we've excelled.
Politically, we've mucked it up. You can pin the politics on the Iraqis, the President, Rumsfield or whomever you'd like, but unless you think politically it has been perfect... on the US side, the ultimate blame or praise always falls on the President's shoulders.

The_cavalierman
October-5th-2007, 06:45 AM
This thread is not about bashing Bush contrary to the whining republi-cants comments. This thread rates the performance of all of the factors involved to include The Bush administration.

If the Bush administration stands by it's record and the results in Iraq thus far then what should they care? The republi-cants are ultra defensive because they know the occupation/rebuilding of Iraq has been a quagmire of biblical proportions as Dick Cheney (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dick+cheney+quagmire) predicted any such action would be in 1991.


:laugh:

The_cavalierman
October-5th-2007, 07:11 AM
I don't know I thought he was being overly generous and kind in his assessments. I was worried that his post worked too hard to try to show Bush in a good light.

Basically, he said... Militarily we've excelled.
Politically, we've mucked it up. You can pin the politics on the Iraqis, the President, Rumsfield or whomever you'd like, but unless you think politically it has been perfect... on the US side, the ultimate blame or praise always falls on the President's shoulders.

You nailed it:

The military mission was successful

The Civil mission was screwed up by bad policy and cheating contractors.

The diplomatic mission is literally non-existant and that is keeping our troops in harms way.

The fact is we have seen that the force only approach is not working in Iraq. The surge only served to spread the sectarian and insurgent activities to other places. The president can delegate responsibility but he cannot delegate accountability. He is responsible for both the successes and failures in Iraq. This is not bashing contrary to the Bush zealots. They just do not like hearing the truth.

Burgold
October-5th-2007, 07:15 AM
The Civil mission was screwed up by bad policy and cheating contractors.


I think we have also learned that excessively relying on no-bid contracts is a bad idea, especially with a company that now wishes to move its HQ to Dubai to avoid paying the consequences for their misconduct.

The_cavalierman
October-5th-2007, 07:39 AM
I think we have also learned that excessively relying on no-bid contracts is a bad idea, especially with a company that now wishes to move its HQ to Dubai to avoid paying the consequences for their misconduct.


Bad decisions in the very beginning of the occupation doomed this effort. The troops are doing great but this occupation failed due to the following failures:


(No security) - The decision to disband the Iraqi army killed any hope of an Iraqi police force that could have secured the country. It also left thousands of trained soldiers unemployed and angry which made them easy recruits for Al Queda. Now a lot of them have recieved training from the US and are putting it to use in Sunni and Shia death squads. The US Army should not be doing the job the Iraqis should be doing and placing the Iraqi army on the street was a horrible decision by the Bush administration.


(No Infastruture) - The decision to fire the Sunni civil servants maintaining the infastructure. When Patton was governing the American sector of Germany after WWII he was criticized for allowing Nazis to continue to operate in the german government. Patton was smart enough to know that those Nazis could keep the water running, the electricity on and the food production going. The Bush administration made a huge mistake by firing the Sunnis that could keep the current utility infastructure in Iraq going and that set the mission back by years. The decision to bring in American contractor to rebuild Iraq has been a giant failure as most of the work has not been done while these contractors collect fat checks and steal our tax payer money.


(No Diplomacy) - This is the real tragedy. Had Bush (43) built a coalition of forces like his father did in 1991 their could have been an all Islamic force in Iraq policing the streets which kept our troops out of harms way and cool the tensions relatively quickly. Bush chose the cowboy-unilateral approach and the results are clear. Even our strongest ally England has started to leave the coalition of the willing.

JMS
October-5th-2007, 07:46 AM
I think we have also learned that excessively relying on no-bid contracts is a bad idea, especially with a company that now wishes to move its HQ to Dubai to avoid paying the consequences for their misconduct.

The current military budget of the US is what 720 Billion dollars. The federal budget is more than a trillion dollars a year. The vast vast majority of of all government contracts are no-bid contracts, spanning the civilian and military sectors.

As a fearce Republican basher, I would like to add that the Democrates are not any better than the Republicans on awarding no bid contracts to political cronies. In fact the real news is that the Republicans are as bad as the Democrates have historically shown themselves to be.

You are being overly optimistic. What we have learned is not that relying on no-bid contracts is a bad idea. That is something the country has failed to learn and something only a handful of intelectual outliers such as ourselves have come to embrace.

Saddly what the country has learned is much more reflexive. Republicans bad. Democrates not Republicans. Democrates good. I preffer to keep my hand on my wallet and my eyes wide open around both parties.

JMS
October-5th-2007, 07:58 AM
Bad decisions in the very beginning of the occupation doomed this effort. The troops are doing great but this occupation failed due to the following failures:

You forgot

Not listening to the chairman of the joint cheifs or the advice of 7 out of the last 9 chairmen in the lead up to the invasion and through out the war in Iraq.
Under staffing the occupation by about 300,000 guys in a misguided effort to hold the costs of the war in check.
Not planning for anything other than total sucess with regards to the occupation.
Fudging the rational for the actual invasion of Iraq to the American public thus loosing the support of the American public when the continous stream of false reasons fell like domino's before the facts.
Attacking the wrong country as a response to 911.
Not considering the stability of the greater middle east in ones plan to destabilize and occupy Iraq.
Not considering how the Iraqi invasion would effect Iran's influence on the region.
Moving the promotions for line officers in the US services from the promotions board to the political appointees placed in charge of the pentagon, thus making all subsequent advice given to those political appointees less candide and more likely to be a reflection of the political appointee's stated positions.

The_cavalierman
October-5th-2007, 08:50 AM
You forgot

Not listening to the chairman of the joint cheifs or the advice of 7 out of the last 9 chairmen in the lead up to the invasion and through out the war in Iraq.
Under staffing the occupation by about 300,000 guys in a misguided effort to hold the costs of the war in check.
Not planning for anything other than total sucess with regards to the occupation.
Fudging the rational for the actual invasion of Iraq to the American public thus loosing the support of the American public when the continous stream of false reasons fell like domino's before the facts.
Attacking the wrong country as a response to 911.
Not considering the stability of the greater middle east in ones plan to destabilize and occupy Iraq.
Not considering how the Iraqi invasion would effect Iran's influence on the region.




By invading Iraq and turning it from a Sunni dominated country to a Shia dominated country we gave Iran more influence in the region.

That will not be helpful in the greater war on terror....

Koolblue13
October-5th-2007, 11:26 AM
I think we have also learned that excessively relying on no-bid contracts is a bad idea, especially with a company that now wishes to move its HQ to Dubai to avoid paying the consequences for their misconduct.

Unless you have a share of the companies.;)

Chachie
October-5th-2007, 11:45 AM
Depends on how I look at it before I grade them.

"A plus" for accomplishing whatever the administration's true agenda was for going into Iraq. Props to the greedy, war-mongering douchebags. You've done your homework.

"F minus" on accomplishing what they told us their agenda was. Something about terrorism, nuclear weapons and some man named Osama? It's all fuzzy now.

My sincere condolences to the soldiers who have to sort out the mess. You've been hoodwinked far worse than the rest of us.

nonniey
October-5th-2007, 02:00 PM
[QUOTE= I must clarify that their were WMDs found in Iraq but the tragic irony is that it was the leftover chemicals that the Reagan/Bush administration supplied Saddam via the CIA in his war against Iran. This was the same chemicals that Saddam later used on the Khurds.
QUOTE]

See how myths, exagerrations and lies eventually become accepted. Look at the statement above. Generally most on the left and now many moderates and even those on the right believe this. Yet, it never happened. The United States in the 1980s provided very limited, in reality miniscule, material support (less than 2%) to Iraq which did not include chemical weapons or even the chemicals to manaufacture those weapons. The most significant support the US provided was intelligence on Iranian forces on the Al Faw penisula during the final campaigns of the war.
Today I read a Guardian article that threw around the number 700,000 for deaths in Iraq. The entire left and even some main stream news is using the statistical analysis that was debunked by everyone earlier this year (650K dead quoted at the time). As the quote on the Saddams poison gas above shows, the big lie does work, you just have to repeat it over and over again.

BTW The military doesn't deserve an A. GEN Shinseki was one of the few Generals that got it right. So Rumsfeld and got rid of him (BTW I don't even like him - because of the Beret). Other Flag officers (ie Franks and Casey) were way off and Casey was in effect, fired. (They moved him up to the CoS position to get him out of Iraq, thus minimizing the political damage). Petreaus seems to be getting it right. I'm holding out for a B.

The Political side of the equation was failure. I will grant that Bush had the Strategic concept down (This is where Dems fail miserably) but he completely screwed the pooch on the execution. F is the correct grade Keeping my fingers crossed that Petreaus can help this grade as well)

SkinsFanAnt
October-5th-2007, 03:36 PM
Wow... another Bush bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Funny how a thread about the reality of the war turns into a 'Bush bashing thread'...if that's all you can say then you have to at least admit that its pretty pathetic because this is probably the best analysis I've seen so far. I don't know about giving the military As or high Bs on everything though. I mean, if doing your job means deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (most by our weapons) then you have to think that there is a truly moral choice to be made. I, honestly, wouldn't give them any grade if they 'just do their job'. Because then they're simply an extension of the arm of the Bush regime...and deserve an F along with it in my opinion.

mjah
October-5th-2007, 04:22 PM
mad he beat you to the conspiracy?
:D My sig already features both aliens and 9/11, so I'm covered on the hidden bin Laden truth, thank you very much.


Wow... another Bush bashing thread... :rolleyes:
Yeah, it's as if lots of people think he's a really terrible president, or something.

:whoknows: