MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 12/11/2017 12:20:40 PM
 (2000-Pres) Current Day Military talk (No Partisan Politics)    
AuthorMessage
anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6095
http:// 82.44.47.99
The Iraq War of 2003-2011
Posted on: 2/19/2017 6:07:43 AM
The Bush administration- backed by UK premier Blair-for the kudos I suspect- based its rationale for this war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the Iraqi government posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies.When this premise proved to be not the case-the reason was then shifted to Saddam Houssein being an unfit leader.

Strip away these original premises; and one can see other possible reasons for this conflict eg. the US's seeming desire to control the world's oil supplies and secondly- gains for the arms industries of the USA; but were these the reasons.Truth to tell-this conflict-a continuation of the unfinished Desert Storm started by Bush Snr- has a lot to answer for IMO. What do you think ?

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6095
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: The Iraq War of 2003-2011
Posted on: 2/19/2017 8:20:20 AM
Aftermath

The US-led coalition-it was a multi International Force- quickly defeated the Iraqi Army and overthrew the government, but the resulting chaos and bloodshed was hardly a clear victory.From the resulting chaos was the new world threat ISIS spawned???

Estimated total casualties:

Coalition troops - 24,219 killed, 117,961 wounded

Iraqi soldiers and combatants - estimated 28,821 to 37,405 killed

Civilian combat deaths - 134,000; civilian violent deaths - approximately 600,000

Source-Iraq War Facts

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

brian grafton
Victoria, BC, Canada
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major
Moderator


Posts: 1442

Re: The Iraq War of 2003-2011
Posted on: 2/19/2017 9:03:46 PM
Jim, we're probably of an age. I certainly remember the lead-up to the "liberation" of Iraq, and remember that there were "alternate truths" operative then as now. My country made much of not joining the "coalition of the willing", while evidently providing some backup support to free up others' forces. I think that bit of information came from Mike J., for which I thank him.

I don't know why you choose this point in time to raise this particular issue at this time, but must say I'm hearing at present a stridency from some US posters I haven't heard since the months after 9/11 and the debate (in the UN and elsewhere) leading to the creating of the coalition. I've been puzzling over this, wondering if it is just a reassertion of conservative values in the US after 8 years in a kind of administrative opposition, or whether the US is once again gearing itself up to find a war to go to.

I'm not much of a strategist. But I think that, from a military point-of-view, Desert Storm was a poorly conducted campaign. Saddam Hussein's military was a clear threat in 1990, and the invasion and subjugation of Kuwait demonstrated exactly how stupidly Iraqi troops could behave. My most vivid images are, perhaps strangely, those showing the wanton burning of oil wells to no strategic end, just as we would see different wells alight in Iraq some 13 years later, also to no end. The slaughter of Iraqi forces at the end of Desert Storm was not militarily valid, IMHO, but the stopping the slaughter was no more valid. Remove, disarm and/or disenfranchise the Iraqi military (or the CIC who controlled it) and the region might face continued truce if not peace. Except, of course, for the US obsession with Iran. Iraq had been a US surrogate in the Iran/Iraq war (when Iraq first gained readily negotiated access to potential WMDs) so too fully a destruction of the Iraqi forces was not US best interests in 1992 or so.

I'm not much of an idealist, though I try to maintain certain values when reading the news. One man I admired, despite his political affiliation, was Colin Powell. To watch him debase his honour so obviously at the UN, in service to a US administration hell-bent on punishing Iraq, was truly painful for me.

I can't say I agree with your following comments:
Quote:
Strip away these original premises; and one can see other possible reasons for this conflict eg. the US's seeming desire to control the world's oil supplies and secondly- gains for the arms industries of the USA; but were these the reasons.Truth to tell-this conflict-a continuation of the unfinished Desert Storm started by Bush Snr- has a lot to answer for IMO. What do you think ?
Part of me remembers the blatant US attempts to establish a governing body based on the US model. I remember the efforts made to stop non-US companies from helping rebuild Iraq. I remember the so typical naivety of the US in believing a free election would bring a conclusion to Iraqi conflict. I remember worrying at the time that there were senior advisors to Mr Bush (43) who believed that all any nation needed to become "safe" was to have "free elections" and buy into the capitalist system.

At the time, I didn't think it was primarily about oil, though I understood the "it's about the oil, stupid" approach. Now, the US has a president suggesting the US should simply have taken control of the oil fields, perhaps using the profits from sales to pay for the cost of the war.

I think that there were some advisors in the Bush 43 White House who firmly believed that a US-type governmental structure would salve all problems. I think there were some advisors who believed even a hint of a US-type administration would stop Iran in its tracks.

Finally, I believe that the US continues to have no understanding of what their actions/activities mean to locals in the many different structures of Iraq culture, or of any other Middle Eastern cultural group.

Sure, the US probably wanted to create a US satellite in the middle-east, though I don't know such a suggestion would be accepted by most US members on MHO. Such a comment sounds very foreign to whatever values the US believes it offers the world.

I'm not going to suggest that the rise of ISIS is directly connected with US conduct in Iraq both during and after the "Iraqi Freedom" assault. At the same time, I believe that those living in the vicinity of Iraq (Kurds, Turks, Jews, Christian minorities, Muslim minorities, Syrians and a host of other groups) realized that the US offered no meaningful values to them, which in turn provided he potential for believers in a Caliphate (or disaffected Muslims who would be comfortable behind a Muslim resurgence) to introduce a manifesto.

Cheers
Brian G
---------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.

"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6095
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: The Iraq War of 2003-2011
Posted on: 2/20/2017 3:46:11 AM
My grateful thanks for your excellent dissertation Brian.


Quote:
Strip away these original premises; and one can see other possible reasons for this conflict eg. the US's seeming desire to control the world's oil supplies and secondly- gains for the arms industries of the USA; but were these the reasons.

The above was not a statement; but a question,perhaps badly put, and no question mark.

I had mulled over putting up this topic; and at yesterday's end I had given up on the idea- but I still believe that there should be some transparency as to the whys and wherefores of this conflict.When one looks at British war gaffes-they are legion and we know that; but we are not averse to talking about them at length.


Quote:
I remember worrying at the time that there were senior advisors to Mr Bush (43) who believed that all any nation needed to become "safe" was to have "free elections" and buy into the capitalist system.


Is this a scenario where the rich take care of the rich, and the poor take care of themselves; and no I am not a leftist. However I became a man shortly after WW2,when we were given the NHS and Nationalisation- in which there was work for anyone who was willing to work for a living wage and medical care free at point of entry.

I fear that I have wandered off message; but I felt that I ought show my colours before going any further.

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 6095
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: The Iraq War of 2003-2011
Posted on: 2/20/2017 8:33:26 AM
Of course it was about oil

Daily Telegraph
20 FEBRUARY 2017 • 10:19AM
The US military is not in Iraq "to seize anybody's oil", Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said, distancing himself from remarks by President Donald Trump before arriving on an unannounced visit to Baghdad on Monday.

Mattis, on his first trip to Iraq as Pentagon chief, is hoping to get a first-hand assessment of the war effort as U.S.-backed Iraqi forces launch a new push to evict Islamic State militants from their remaining stronghold in the city of Mosul.

But he is likely to face questions about Trump's remarks and actions, including a temporary ban on travel to the United States and for saying America should have seized Iraq's oil after toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

 (2000-Pres) Current Day Military talk (No Partisan Politics)    
 Forum Ads from Google