DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Abaronos** · 02-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Sluggo, et al,

There is a missing perception.

(COMMENT)

Make no mistake --- the War is over. It has been over for several years. With the defeat of the conventional Opposing Force (OPFOR), the capture of Saddam, the destruction of the capacity and ability to wage war, the Post-Combat Phase began.

There may be some discussion on the successful way in which the US implemented the Post-Combat operations; political and military decisions that gave rise to the domestic insurgency; but the War ended when Iraq lost the ability and capacity to wage war.

The inability of the US to stabilize Iraq, install an honest government, and benefit the people of Iraq, is an entirely different issue. Those issues are directly related to US competency. There were critical mistakes made.

Sometimes, the best intentions turn-out poor results. But when the intentions are confused in the beginning, the results may be chaos.

(COMMENT)

The Iraqis, after seven (7) years, expected so much more and had hoped the Americans would have done so much better.

We hope that Iraq will evolve. But clearly, some Iraqis don't hold that same expectation. Even the Administration does not want to go on the record as to the legitimacy of the war or the outcome. The beginning was tainted and the exceptionally poor implementation of Post-Conflict restoration efforts (Military & Diplomatically) combine to give us the results we see today. While it's true, that the Historical Account might give a different perspective, it is in doubt even now by senior officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand and somewhat agree with what you've said here. I guess for me, technicality aside for a moment, I do not see much else over there right now but war. It may not be the outright war between two governments until one is no longer but at the same time violence, conflict, military occupation, terrorism, pick whatever word makes you most happy is a still occurring. Whatever that word is, it would be hard to debate against the notion that civil conflict against the acting government over there right now will continue and perhaps escalate now that the US is taking more of a back seat.

Expectation is very important here, especially with the politically charged debate going on over the purpose of the Iraq War in the first place. And that goes both ways in that what we expect of the Iraq government to do for themselves. Or the politically charged debate behind setting a date to withdraw. You are right in that the expectation behind what the US could provide became lost or missed along the way. It is not a stable honest government over there that is for sure as suggested. Your comment about on "the inability of the US to stabilize Iraq, install an honest government, and benefit the people of Iraq, is an entirely different issue" is really not all that different from with respect to the Obama's view of our new role, direction he wants to go in handling Iraq, his speech, or the status of the conflict for everyone else. With respect to my post before it changes almost nothing for however many personnel (and their families) we are leaving over there.

But to your post and honestly the spirit of mine there is still a fight going on over there and in my opinion the historical account perspective of this war is going to most likely just continue to be politically driven debate. I suspect the true historical account will compare the Iraq war to conflicts in which the goal was not really achieved more so than a compare to a conflict in which an enemy government is no longer and a goal was achieved. I do not wish for that comparison choice of course, mostly out of my respect for the Military, but I do fear the politics involved in the Iraq War will only lead to blame for why it started, blame for why expectations were in some ways missed, then turned to blame for the outcome which is anything but peace (at least for now.)

02-09-2010, 01:08 PM	#17
Abaronos Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 452 Senior Member	Sluggo, et al, There is a missing perception. (COMMENT) Make no mistake --- the War is over. It has been over for several years. With the defeat of the conventional Opposing Force (OPFOR), the capture of Saddam, the destruction of the capacity and ability to wage war, the Post-Combat Phase began. There may be some discussion on the successful way in which the US implemented the Post-Combat operations; political and military decisions that gave rise to the domestic insurgency; but the War ended when Iraq lost the ability and capacity to wage war. The inability of the US to stabilize Iraq, install an honest government, and benefit the people of Iraq, is an entirely different issue. Those issues are directly related to US competency. There were critical mistakes made. Sometimes, the best intentions turn-out poor results. But when the intentions are confused in the beginning, the results may be chaos. (COMMENT) The Iraqis, after seven (7) years, expected so much more and had hoped the Americans would have done so much better. We hope that Iraq will evolve. But clearly, some Iraqis don't hold that same expectation. Even the Administration does not want to go on the record as to the legitimacy of the war or the outcome. The beginning was tainted and the exceptionally poor implementation of Post-Conflict restoration efforts (Military & Diplomatically) combine to give us the results we see today. While it's true, that the Historical Account might give a different perspective, it is in doubt even now by senior officials. Most Respectfully, R I understand and somewhat agree with what you've said here. I guess for me, technicality aside for a moment, I do not see much else over there right now but war. It may not be the outright war between two governments until one is no longer but at the same time violence, conflict, military occupation, terrorism, pick whatever word makes you most happy is a still occurring. Whatever that word is, it would be hard to debate against the notion that civil conflict against the acting government over there right now will continue and perhaps escalate now that the US is taking more of a back seat. Expectation is very important here, especially with the politically charged debate going on over the purpose of the Iraq War in the first place. And that goes both ways in that what we expect of the Iraq government to do for themselves. Or the politically charged debate behind setting a date to withdraw. You are right in that the expectation behind what the US could provide became lost or missed along the way. It is not a stable honest government over there that is for sure as suggested. Your comment about on "the inability of the US to stabilize Iraq, install an honest government, and benefit the people of Iraq, is an entirely different issue" is really not all that different from with respect to the Obama's view of our new role, direction he wants to go in handling Iraq, his speech, or the status of the conflict for everyone else. With respect to my post before it changes almost nothing for however many personnel (and their families) we are leaving over there. But to your post and honestly the spirit of mine there is still a fight going on over there and in my opinion the historical account perspective of this war is going to most likely just continue to be politically driven debate. I suspect the true historical account will compare the Iraq war to conflicts in which the goal was not really achieved more so than a compare to a conflict in which an enemy government is no longer and a goal was achieved. I do not wish for that comparison choice of course, mostly out of my respect for the Military, but I do fear the politics involved in the Iraq War will only lead to blame for why it started, blame for why expectations were in some ways missed, then turned to blame for the outcome which is anything but peace (at least for now.)
	Quote