Mastan,
Invasion of iraq was based on lies.
In war, truth is the first casualty.
Aeschylus
Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)
The first casualty of war is truth.
It is an old adage
Invasion of iraq was based upon deception and hype. Invasion of iraq was based on putting fear in the minds of americans---invasion of iraq was based upon the idea that anyone who spoke up against it was a traitor. Invasion of iraq happened when hundreds of million of americans lied to themselves and decieved their conscience. This invasion happened because the citizens and champions of human rights, civil liberties and democracy of the free world, in their anger and fury lost their soul and conscience as well and allowed the state to do whatever it wanted to regardless of consequences. saddam and the iraqis were made to look like a pariah.
I would not know about the US citizens' psychology since I am not qualified to speak on that issue.
However, my take for the War is a bit different.
I am not too sure about the morality or the freedom and democracy aspect which was given as the rationale, since I am not aware if such a reason was ever used to wage wars in history. To me, it is the first.
The reason why the US went to war was because of pure geo-strategic requirements. You must read the Defense Policy Guidelines and the National Energy Policy of the time when Cheney was the Defense Secretary of the USA. Excellent documents that indicates the events that are occuring was well thought out then and now being executed!
The USSR had been demolished physically, morally and economically, so to say. It was a lifetime opportunity for the US to establish itself as the sole superpower and at the same time re-engineer the world to ensure that this position is not assailed in perpetuity. Any country in the world would have done the same.
Invasion of iraq was the conception of sick minds---close to a million muslims have ben killed in this war---regardless of the individual groups, the guilt falls upon the american troops and the generals for the murder of the iraqi civilians. It happened on their watch---it happened when they were holding the guns---it happened when they were in charge of the law and order situation---it happened when they were the masters of the destiny of iraq.
As far as Iraqi civilians being killed, that is because the terrorists started attacking the US forces and to add to the mayhem, also started killing the Iraqi civilians and the personnel in the administrative machinery, like the police and the nascent military.
In such a situation, any country would attempt to restore law and order and bring in stability.’
To sit back and allow mayhem to continue would have been a crime.
The muslim countries who supported it or other countries who supported the war, did so on threat of death and destruction to their nations if they didnot heaveto.
If the terrorists can blow themselves up and not worry about death and if that psyche is lauded by Mullahs as being Saheed and since becoming Saheed is an honour, I think that the Moslem countries could have brushed aside any threat of death and destruction. Given that this psyche of Saheed is an important factor in Islam, the Hamas, which is also a elected govt, has no compulsion in waging war in the name of Islam. Therefore, the other Islamic countries could have followed suit.
I think the other Islamic countries are more sensitive to the needs of pragmatic statehood and are receptive to the international matrix for statehood rather than the idea of having been threatened into submission.
The current generals had in front of them had the example of Norman Schwarzkopff---less than 15 years ago---the man would not cross the border with less than 1/2 million troops. What made them so invincible that they could go in with 100k troops. In GW1, the iraqis wanted freedom, they would have cherished their freedom from saddam----but the reign of terror that they had to face for the years they were left by themselves had left nothing but hate for the american troops---Salim---can you believe that the americans really believed that the iraqis would put garlands of flowers around the neck of their liberators.
I think all this idea that the Generals were not aware of the problems of occupation is excuses by these Generals in hindsight.
They were convinced that the war would be short and that Saddam, having been toppled, would bring succour to the Iraqis. They must have felt that there after the Iraqis would re-establish them and have a govt and administration that would govern as before, without the repressive ways of Saddam.
True, this idea went horribly wrong.
In the eraly stages of afghan assault american heads were up in the air---their command and control had totally lost common sense and reality. Common sense says that you cannot force others to do your battles. Reality was that they forgot how tough the taliban and AQ were and northern alliance was no match. Yes the taliban were no match for daisy cutters and air assaults---but the afghan treachery was deep rooted and deeply imbeded in the psyche of the warlord---Hazrat Ali was the NA warlord in charge at tora bora---it is believed that him and another one of them pocketed some $30 million for the 48 hours truce whence the AQ would surrender---. Didn't the americans know of the treachery---the aghans had done it many a times when russians were chasing the mujahideen---russians learnt that truce call was when the culprits would escape after making a hefty payment.
It is true that money speaks in many parts of the world and it is not unique to Afghanistan. The Pashtuns are more maligned than others and hence more sinned against than sinning.
While it may not be in the open forum known, but in every insurgency, huge money flows to wax and also wane the insurgency, be it from govt sources or from sponsors of the insurgencies.
In war and in insurgencies, credible risks have to be taken. Sometimes they work and sometimes, they don’t.
Americans have only themselves to blame to fall into that trap. It is a firm american belief and part of the american corporate doctrine---how to do the job right first time everytime if your life depended on it---do the job yourself.
Kissinger’s Doctrine of Proxy War is a departure. The US realised that getting into the mess themselves becomes too much of a problem to get out.
That is why the emphasis, it appears, is to “outsource” the war.
Salim, I don't know if you livce in america or not---just before the presidential election got heated up---the CNN and all other news media was onto the generals who had kept their mouths shut when they were in charge---after their retirement they were talking and the media was mad at them---and I never thought that I would see Peter pace begging to extend his service tenure---one of the most disgusting personalities in this scenario. A yes man, a kiss ar-e, when he puts his lips on the behinds, he doesnot want to let go---suck it hard---suck it deep---that is what his motto was---what a shame for america---when america needed men of action and honour---when america needed men who could lead from the front---they got Peter pace---Tommy Franks---John Abizaid and one other I forget his name---maybe Ramirez or !!!
Generals everywhere, having lived a life of great pomp and prestige, cannot reconcile to post retirement blues. They are the same worldwide and do many things that is loathsome to ensure plum and plush sinecure jobs after retirement so that they can maintain their high lying lifestyle.
Look at the pride of performance of Norman Schwarzkopff and his team---the guy was known as an absolute bully---who would tear up other generals in front of everyone---a lunatic maybe when it came to completing a job---the first gulf war was planned by the american milltary and millitary advisors---tragically the second gulf war was planned by corporate america and the generals were given a back seat---the sad part is that they let it happen.
Schwarzkopff may have been a good and even a great General, but then there is always a larger than life image that is given to some. WWI had many of them, who were hyped for reasons other than their professional acumen.
.
The sunnis are being paid $300 a piece---who stopped them from paying $100 to each of the iraqi soldiers after winning the war and keeping them in the barracks to build the nation. That was the idea of the first american who was made incharge to rebuild iraq---but he was immediately fired---after this staement was made---and then a corporate manager was made incharge---he let the iraqi army go---.
What you say could have been done.
I reckon the reason why the Iraqi Army was disarmed is because a defeated army is a sullen army and hence cannot be trusted with arms lest they turn against the victors.
