Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Lessons that could be learned from Iraq?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Kevin View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
  Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Lessons that could be learned from Iraq?
    Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 02:34
I was thinking earlier about lessons that could be learned from the US led intervention in Iraq and I found that there are many including some ones from past geopolitical history.

Including:

.Never get involved in a protracted land war in the Middle East(Spun from the American position Pre-Korean War of never get involved in a land war in Asia.

. Never fight protracted conflicts on two fronts(From the Second World War)

. Never apply reconstruction models from WWII to nations that aren't hegemonic to one ethnic or religious group.

. Never assume that an occupying force will be welcomed by those who have been subject to what could be considered an oppressive regime.

. Always move to secure a chaotic nation's borders.

This is just a few I could think of.      

Edited by Kevin - 17-Mar-2008 at 03:40
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 02:58
Oversimplification to the extreme but:   Never attempt to solve political problems using solely ones military. 
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 09:12
When the bosses of global coorperations order your president, goverment and army to invade a country, don't listen.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 09:38
Briefly as sais above, if you are going to change a political situation have a political plan which has been fully thought out. Need to take into account the religious ethnic and political make-up of the country.
 
None of this was done
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 14:03

And now for some successful manipulations that should be used in future wars.

- Always dehumanize your opponent. If they are from a country you are about to exploit, make them out to be terrorists (avoid historical reference to your past dealings with them though). If you are having a hard time brainwashing your own counrtyfolk, broadcast how unpatriotic they are on TV. Open more channels like Fox.
 
- Tell your people that country "X" needs regime change. No further explanations are necessary unless you want a debate on your hands.
 
- Once you send in your troops tell your people they will help foreigners earn our trust by winning over their hearts and minds. Hey it worked. Keep on doing it.
 
- Concoct any story. Create all kinds of nifty documents that have no reliability or credibility.
 
- Don't ever talk or have the media broadcast the real reasons you are invading a sovereign nation, especially over one that has never attacked your nation in the past.
 
- Keep talking about how good you are doing when things look bad. Ignore the crimes. Ignore the damages. Focus only on how successsful you are in winnning the war.
 
- This one is tricky.  Inavsion is good for the war industry. Not always good for the economy. In such turbulent times be sure to gain your most while in power cause the next one in charge may just ruin it for you.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Seko - 17-Mar-2008 at 14:09
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 14:06
Don't forget point #1: before you start you campaign, buy stocks in appropriate arms and/or oil industry corporations.

Edited by Styrbiorn - 17-Mar-2008 at 14:06
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 14:07
Good point for those looking to get a head start on boosting your own financial portfolio.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 14:09
Originally posted by Seko

Good point for those looking to get a head start on boosting your own financial portfolio.
 
What financial portfolio? 
 
How are the various markets doing on the Sekostan Exchange?  LOL
 
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 14:11

LOL

The Sekostan exchange was closed that week. I missed out on some lucrative buys.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 15:55
One 'real' lesson might be that, when you have a massive technological advantage, encourage your opponent to resist in a 'conventional' mode for as long as possible.  The initial, conventional, military phase was incredibly successful.  It has only been the 'insurgency' phase that has been costly.
 
Another might be that you should not expect a 'conventional' war in such a circumstance to last, and one should go in prepared for the 'insurgency'.  Further, ensure the necessary support at home from the start, and be prepared to accept losses.  Going in 'light' to start with, and trying to avoid casualties caused more problems than it solved.  The 'surge' and being more aggressive has been far more effective.  Another lesson might be to have an 'exit strategy' before going in, and try to stick with it.  The fact is that the 'objective' changed from eliminating the supposed threat from WMD's to removal of Sadam's regime to the establishment of a 'democratic regime' and the defeat of 'insurgents'.


Edited by deadkenny - 17-Mar-2008 at 15:55
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 16:36
Originally posted by Paul

When the bosses of global coorperations order your president, goverment and army to invade a country, don't listen.
 
Pretty much.  Or simply don't wage wars of aggression.
 
The reconstruction of Iraq need not have been such an arduous process had much of its existing infrastructure been left intact by Bush inc. - but that would have defeated one of the main motives for the invasion (to line corporate pockets), which takes me back to Paul's point.


Edited by Zagros - 17-Mar-2008 at 16:36
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:30
Originally posted by deadkenny

One 'real' lesson might be that, when you have a massive technological advantage, encourage your opponent to resist in a 'conventional' mode for as long as possible.  The initial, conventional, military phase was incredibly successful.  It has only been the 'insurgency' phase that has been costly.
 
Another might be that you should not expect a 'conventional' war in such a circumstance to last, and one should go in prepared for the 'insurgency'.  Further, ensure the necessary support at home from the start, and be prepared to accept losses.  Going in 'light' to start with, and trying to avoid casualties caused more problems than it solved.  The 'surge' and being more aggressive has been far more effective.  Another lesson might be to have an 'exit strategy' before going in, and try to stick with it.  The fact is that the 'objective' changed from eliminating the supposed threat from WMD's to removal of Sadam's regime to the establishment of a 'democratic regime' and the defeat of 'insurgents'.
 
Originally posted by deadkenny

One 'real' lesson might be that, when you have a massive technological advantage, encourage your opponent to resist in a 'conventional' mode for as long as possible.  The initial, conventional, military phase was incredibly successful.  It has only been the 'insurgency' phase that has been costly.
 
Another might be that you should not expect a 'conventional' war in such a circumstance to last, and one should go in prepared for the 'insurgency'.  Further, ensure the necessary support at home from the start, and be prepared to accept losses.  Going in 'light' to start with, and trying to avoid casualties caused more problems than it solved.  The 'surge' and being more aggressive has been far more effective.  Another lesson might be to have an 'exit strategy' before going in, and try to stick with it.  The fact is that the 'objective' changed from eliminating the supposed threat from WMD's to removal of Sadam's regime to the establishment of a 'democratic regime' and the defeat of 'insurgents'.
I would disagree with you there, that the initial invasion phase was incredily successful. The performance of I MEF left a lot to be desired considering what they were up against, though to be fair Marines were used as if they were army which should never have been the case.
 
In addition insufficient attention was given to
 
i) The disarming of Iraqi units, they were bypassed and they melted away. It is they who formed the basis of the national insurgency. Amazingly the original plan called for a corps plus formation to do just that, but Rumsfeld's insistance on "light, nimble" forces meant that this was whittled away.
 
ii) the oppurtunity given by the invasion itself. Lets not forget that the insurgency started in full swing in April 2004. There was a year in which actions to arrest this could have been taken.
 
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:43
Originally posted by Sparten

I would disagree with you there, that the initial invasion phase was incredily successful. The performance of I MEF left a lot to be desired considering what they were up against, though to be fair Marines were used as if they were army which should never have been the case.
 
In addition insufficient attention was given to
 
i) The disarming of Iraqi units, they were bypassed and they melted away. It is they who formed the basis of the national insurgency. Amazingly the original plan called for a corps plus formation to do just that, but Rumsfeld's insistance on "light, nimble" forces meant that this was whittled away.
 
ii) the oppurtunity given by the invasion itself. Lets not forget that the insurgency started in full swing in April 2004. There was a year in which actions to arrest this could have been taken.
 
 
I don't see that you are really disagreeing with my point though.  If the mission had been to destroy Iraq's conventional forces and topple Saddam's regime - then mission accomplished.  Allied losses during that 'conventional' phase were minimal, and a significant proportion were actually due 'friendly fire'.  It was only after the Iraqi 'conventional' forces 'melted away' as you put it, and had time to establish themselves as the core of the 'insurection' that they became effective.  Again, it points to the problem of starting off with one mission and then moving the target part way in.  Agreed that the initial force was inadequate for what later became the mission.  Given the eventual mission, many things could have and should have been done differently early on.  But that was part of the point I was making as well.  In terms of destroying the conventional arms component of Saddam's power base, the initial phase succeeded.  If the intention had been to do just that, then fine.  But certainly it was inadequate for the later objective of fighting the insurgency while setting up a new regime.  The approach was also deficit in a number of regards, as you have pointed out, given the wider scope of the later objective. 
 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.