What's new

Retired U.S. general on how to handle IS and why we lost in Iraq, Afg

Iraqi mess is directly linked to USA,no matter how much @gambit tries to say otherwise.

Before invasion on utterly false and frivolous grounds it was a dictator ship for sure but a million times better and peaceful than now.Just because USA does not want a person selling oil in currencies other than dollars it was bombed to stone age and i will be correct when i say this.

It will break up into 2-3 pieces soon enough if it already has not with ISIS already controlling a huge chunk.

Usa did the same thing in libya and syria.EXACTLY the same tactics with the same results and destruction.The underlying middle east rivalries played a huge part in all these wars plus the animosity of shias and sunnis compounded the things too but the lead actor was USA alone.

As for iraqi army training goes,,if anyone believes that USA wanted this region to be peaceful to produce their own oil without any external pressure and american bases then i can say only one thing.lol:sarcastic:
Please...As if your Indian military can do any better.
 
.
Why Iraq Has No Army - The Atlantic

Four months after the invasion the first bomb that killed more than one person went off; two years later, through this past summer, multiple-fatality bombings occurred on average once a day. The targets were not just U.S. troops but Iraqi civilians and, more important, Iraqis who would bring order to the country. The first major attack on Iraq's own policemen occurred in October of 2003, when a car bomb killed ten people at a Baghdad police station. This summer an average of ten Iraqi policemen or soldiers were killed each day. It is true, as U.S. officials often point out, that the violence is confined mainly to four of Iraq's eighteen provinces. But these four provinces contain the nation's capital and just under half its people.
 
. . . .
Mastan Sir I may not be a professional but from a layman's POV and from what I've read and heard I've made my own conclusions as to how US ended up making blunders in Iraq and ditto with Afghanistan (and this is excluding their military strategies failure)

1) Their failure to understand ppl.They behaved like an occupying army.There were report after report of house searches after kicking doors open, humiliation of people, frisking of women (to many people, almost unthinkable!) and stealing of money that was found in houses searched,rough-handling people, insulting and humiliating men in front of their families.Should we be even surprised that ppl got infuriated??

2)Next was their failure to establish democracy in both Afghan and Iraq.Instead of putting forward plans to establish democracy in Iraq as soon as possible the administration began to put forward excuses for the postponement of the democratic process.Danger of violence and intimidation, lack of electoral data, and the problem of representing Iraqis in exile etc were given as excuses.
Starting with a group of five people.. later expanded to seven which included a convicted embezzler (much hated by most Iraqis from all walks of life), clerics funded by Iran and war-lords with Iraqi blood on their hands, the nucleus of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was born.

3) Then was disbanding the former Iraqi army as @Loki already mentioned.
Imagine an army of 30000 simply vanished into thin air!!
Hundreds of thousands of men who were well trained in the arts of combat, many of them "patriotic", some of them fearless were abandoned, bitter and jobless, while the country was seen by many of them as occupied by an army bent on destroying it. They struck back with revanchism is what is how i see the situation today.
 
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/opinion/06bremer.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

September 6, 2007
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
How I Didn’t Dismantle Iraq’s Army
By L. PAUL BREMER III
“The Iraqi Army of the future cannot be an extension of the present army, which has been made into a tool of dictatorship.” — Report by the Department of State’s Future of Iraq Project, May 2002

IT has become conventional wisdom that the decision to disband Saddam Hussein’s army was a mistake, was contrary to American prewar planning and was a decision I made on my own. In fact the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government. And it was the right decision.

By the time Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003, the Iraqi Army had simply dissolved. On April 17 Gen. John Abizaid, the deputy commander of the Army’s Central Command, reported in a video briefing to officials in Washington that “there are no organized Iraqi military units left.” The disappearance of Saddam Hussein’s old army rendered irrelevant any prewar plans to use that army. So the question was whether the Coalition Provisional Authority should try to recall it or to build a new one open to both vetted members of the old army and new recruits. General Abizaid favored the second approach.

In the weeks after General Abizaid’s recommendation, the coalition’s national security adviser, Walter Slocombe, discussed options with top officials in the Pentagon, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. They recognized that to recall the former army was a practical impossibility because postwar looting had destroyed all the bases.

Moreover, the largely Shiite draftees of the army were not going to respond to a recall plea from their former commanders, who were primarily Sunnis. It was also agreed that recalling the army would be a political disaster because to the vast majority of Iraqis it was a symbol of the old Baathist-led Sunni ascendancy.

On May 8, 2003, before I left for Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave me a memo titled “Principles for Iraq-Policy Guidelines” that specified that the coalition “will actively oppose Saddam Hussein’s old enforcers — the Baath Party, Fedayeen Saddam, etc.” and that “we will make clear that the coalition will eliminate the remnants of Saddam’s regime.” The next day Mr. Rumsfeld told me that he had sent the “Principles” paper to the national security adviser and the secretary of state.

Meanwhile, Walter Slocombe’s consultations with Americans officials in Washington and Baghdad showed that they understood that the only viable course was to build a new, professional force open to screened members of the old army. Mr. Slocombe drafted an order to accomplish these objectives. I sent a preliminary draft of this order to the secretary of defense on May 9. The next day I sent the draft to the Defense Department’s general counsel, William J. Haynes, as well as to Mr. Wolfowitz; the under secretary for policy, Douglas Feith; the head of Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks; and to the coalition’s top civil administrator at the time, Jay Garner, asking for comments.

On May 13, en route to Baghdad, Mr. Slocombe briefed senior British officials in London who told him they recognized that “the demobilization of the Iraqi military is a fait accompli.” His report added that “if some U.K. officers or officials think that we should try to rebuild or reassemble the old R.A. (Republican Army), they did not give any hint of it in our meetings, and in fact agreed with the need for vigorous de-Baathification, especially in the security sector.”

Over the following week, Mr. Slocombe continued discussions about the planned order with top Pentagon officials, including Mr. Feith. During that same period, Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, the field commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, received and cleared the draft order. I briefed Secretary Rumsfeld on the issue several times, and forwarded a final draft of the proposed order for his approval on May 19.

Walter Slocombe subsequently received detailed comments on the draft order incorporating the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, making clear that the top civilian and military staff in the Pentagon, as well as the commanders in the field, had reviewed the proposal. Another coalition adviser, Dan Senor, spent the night of May 22 coordinating the text of the announcement with Mr. Rumsfeld’s close adviser Lawrence Di Rita. Apart from minor edits to the order, none of the military or civilian officials raised objections to the proposal to create a new Iraqi army or to formally dissolve Saddam Hussein’s security apparatus.

On May 22, I sent to President Bush, through Secretary Rumsfeld, my first report since arriving in Iraq. I reviewed our activities since arrival, including our de-Baathification policy. I then alerted the president that “I will parallel this step with an even more robust measure dissolving Saddam’s military and intelligence structures.” The same day, I briefed the president on the plan via secure video. The president sent me a note on May 23 in which he thanked me for my report and noted that “you have my full support and confidence.”

The decision not to recall Saddam Hussein’s army was thoroughly considered by top officials in the American government. At the time, this decision was not controversial. When Mr. Slocombe held a press conference in Baghdad on May 23 to explain the decision, only two reporters showed up — neither of them Americans. The first I heard of doubts about the decision was in the fall of 2003 after the insurgency had picked up speed.

Moreover, we were right to build a new Iraqi Army. Despite all the difficulties encountered, Iraq’s new professional soldiers are the country’s most effective and trusted security force. By contrast, the Baathist-era police force, which we did recall to duty, has proven unreliable and is mistrusted by the very Iraqi people it is supposed to protect.

L. Paul Bremer III was the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.

Hi,

What a bunch of bull crap that is---- L Paul Bremmer----man so dedicated to the military that he wears combat boots with his suits---.

What a whitewash----only for those who were not following the war----, His predecessor---who was there for maybe 2 to 3 days---openly made statements of using Iraqi military for development projects---and then he is discharged andthis fake comes in.

The news of disbanding was all over the media. Gambit---the U S military does not have the brains to think with---it can only unleash death destruction like none seen before---other than that---it is clueless.

Then talk about the humiliation at abu ghraib----what kind of perversity the americans have with nudity of their prisoners---and dumping them on top of each other and degrading Iraqi men praded naked in front of women guards---by the women guards---what a height of perversity----.

Do you Pakistani kids know what these women guards would do the the Iraqi prisoners---also women inquisitors t0 Iraqi and afghan men----they women would put ketchup in their panties----during interrogation---they would stick their fingers into their panties and pull it out----the finger now has red ketchup on it----these would would describe it as if they were on their period and had their vaginal blood on their fingers and would rub it on the prisoners bodies to disgust them and humiliate them----. Americans have been taught that muslim men are disgusted by their women's period----.
 
.
Mastan Sir I may not be a professional but from a layman's POV and from what I've read and heard I've made my own conclusions as to how US ended up making blunders in Iraq and ditto with Afghanistan (and this is excluding their military strategies failure)

1) Their failure to understand ppl.They behaved like an occupying army.There were report after report of house searches after kicking doors open, humiliation of people, frisking of women (to many people, almost unthinkable!) and stealing of money that was found in houses searched,rough-handling people, insulting and humiliating men in front of their families.Should we be even surprised that ppl got infuriated??

2)Next was their failure to establish democracy in both Afghan and Iraq.Instead of putting forward plans to establish democracy in Iraq as soon as possible the administration began to put forward excuses for the postponement of the democratic process.Danger of violence and intimidation, lack of electoral data, and the problem of representing Iraqis in exile etc were given as excuses.
Starting with a group of five people.. later expanded to seven which included a convicted embezzler (much hated by most Iraqis from all walks of life), clerics funded by Iran and war-lords with Iraqi blood on their hands, the nucleus of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) was born.

3) Then was disbanding the former Iraqi army as @Loki already mentioned.
Imagine an army of 30000 simply vanished into thin air!!
Hundreds of thousands of men who were well trained in the arts of combat, many of them "patriotic", some of them fearless were abandoned, bitter and jobless, while the country was seen by many of them as occupied by an army bent on destroying it. They struck back with revanchism is what is how i see the situation today.

Levina,

Let's talk about Iraqi women and girls----women and girls raped---and gang raped----their porno movie flicks on porno sites----.
One case came out---where this sergeant saw this 14 years old girl---he wanted her---came back with his troops----barged into the house---shot the father---shot her 3 brothers----two uncles---mother----3 sisters----then the troop gang raped her----then they killed her-----then they lit the whole family on fire with thermal-----there was no evidence left. So many innocent raped and killed.

For that reason I blame Pakistani for not doing enough to stop the invasion of Iraq----. They should have gone in and killed Osama Bin Laden and all his cohorts in afg----and should have not given a reason for the U S military to invade---. Pakistanis had no clue what the american soldiers were capable of---.
 
.
@MastanKhan Sir

During Saddam's rule Sunnis had a complete grip on power

But now Shias and Sunnis are fighting for power and oil
and even though US has withdrawn Iraq is still a very violent country

Same is the case with Afghanistan ; there too power struggles will continue

So why to blame US for centuries old ethnic conflicts
 
.
Levina,

Let's talk about Iraqi women and girls----women and girls raped---and gang raped----their porno movie flicks on porno sites----.
One case came out---where this sergeant saw this 14 years old girl---he wanted her---came back with his troops----barged into the house---shot the father---shot her 3 brothers----two uncles---mother----3 sisters----then the troop gang raped her----then they killed her-----then they lit the whole family on fire with thermal-----there was no evidence left. So many innocent raped and killed.
This is atrocious!!
I dont know how many more such cases havent come to light.
But then I dont understand the ppl who sympathize with ISIS,after all those guys also do the same thing.
MastanKhan said:
For that reason I blame Pakistani for not doing enough to stop the invasion of Iraq----. They should have gone in and killed Osama Bin Laden and all his cohorts in afg----and should have not given a reason for the U S military to invade---. Pakistanis had no clue what the american soldiers were capable of---.
Hmm,yes PA or ISI should not have sheltered OBL.
But its very unrealistic to think that Pakistan could've stopped US army from entering Iraq or Afghan. It was not about just OBL but al-qaeeda.
 
.
Hmm,yes PA or ISI should not have sheltered OBL.
But its very unrealistic to think that Pakistan could've stopped US army from entering Iraq or Afghan. It was not about just OBL but al-qaeeda.

Iraq was invaded by Bush only for one reason ; REVENGE

Actually Americans were so angry with 9/11 that they wanted the Islamic World to see
what an angry US can do to Muslims

Americans were very angry with 9/11
and were NOT satisfied with killing Afghans alone ; they wanted MORE

Poor Saddam and his WMDs became the smoking gun

Iran could not have been invaded at that point
because that would have caused oil prices to jump exponentially
 
.
Iraq was invaded by Bush only for one reason ; REVENGE

Actually Americans were so angry with 9/11 that they wanted the Islamic World to see
what an angry US can do to Muslims
Nope...
Invading Afghan was about revanchism but not Iraq.
Iraq was invaded for other reasons
one, since neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein as it was "almost certain" that he would "acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction thus putting at risk American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states and ergo would've put significant portion of the world's supply of oil in jeopardy.
Two,Saddam had earned the ire of pro-Israel lobby in US. Saddam Hussein was not involved in anti-American terrorism but he was a supporter of anti-Israeli terrorists.Saddam Hussein provided tens of millions of dollars to groups that committed terrorist acts in Israel and to Israel,the country would've been safer with him out of power.
Third, there were many war profiteers who supported a war in Iraq because if there's no war then there's no business for weapons.
Last but not the least, Jr.Bush wished to do what SR.Bush could not achieve...that was to bring down Saddam.
 
.
Nope...
Invading Afghan was about revanchism but not Iraq.
Iraq was invaded for other reasons
one, since neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein as it was "almost certain" that he would "acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction thus putting at risk American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states and ergo would've put significant portion of the world's supply of oil in jeopardy.
Two,Saddam had earned the ire of pro-Israel lobby in US. Saddam Hussein was not involved in anti-American terrorism but he was a supporter of anti-Israeli terrorists.Saddam Hussein provided tens of millions of dollars to groups that committed terrorist acts in Israel and to Israel,the country would've been safer with him out of power.
Third, there were many war profiteers who supported a war in Iraq because if there's no war then there's no business for weapons.
Last but not the least, Jr.Bush wished to do what SR.Bush could not achieve...that was to bring down Saddam.

Madam What you have written is correct and is also just a POLITE list of reasons
for the Iraq war given by strategic analysts

US was just seething in anger post 9/11

US just wanted to kill and destroy ; Iraq became an easily available punching bag

My point is why NOT Iran ; Iran was also into WMDs
Iran was strong and also attacking Iran would have hurt Oil prices
 
.
Madam What you have written is correct and is also just a POLITE list of reasons
for the Iraq war given by strategic analysts

US was just seething in anger post 9/11

US just wanted to kill and destroy ; Iraq became an easily available punching bag

My point is why NOT Iran ; Iran was also into WMDs
Iran was strong and also attacking Iran would have hurt Oil prices
Iran is no easy target,yes America knew it from the Iraq-Iran war days.
 
.
Iran is no easy target,yes America knew it from the Iraq-Iran war days.

Madam 9/11 was a very huge attack on USA not just in terms of casualties
but psychologically too Americans felt humiliated

Some body had dared to attack mainland USA after Pearl Harbour

And you must remember that there were plenty of celebrations in OIC countries
post 9/ 11 ; OIC countries were waiting to see how US responds

US wanted to give a message that you cannot just get away after attacking America

Attacking Iraq satisfied the US desire for revenge
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom