One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
The Thing We Did Not Plan For When Iraq Was Attacked
Jan 14, 2020 13:28:15   #
woodguru
 
The initial attack part of the war went very fast, we had "won" it in a matter of a couple of weeks.

What we lost in a big way was what came after all of the military is shut down and vanquished, there literally was no plan for occupying and transitioning to a new structure that the country could sustain and move on in a good way. There were somewhere between 500,000 to perhaps 750,000 military men who were right there available to be part of an orderly transition, to keep control of looting and destruction of cultural and government buildings. The Iraqui people were begging us to deploy troops or make use of police and military people to protect infrastructure. There were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to be put to work doing what they do.

The administration literally had no plan for an occupation, for an orderly transition. It's a thing that takes planning, for knowing exactly how to do it, it needs a team to step in and guide the military as to what to do and how to make it happen.

Weeks in, as it became obvious Iraq was being destroyed in this out of control aftermath far worse than it had been in the military strikes, Bush appointed someone to be in charge of this transition. Unfortunately it was someone who did not have a clue, it was someone who looked at this transition from an angle of how US contractors could be brought in to construct infrastructure projects at ludicrously inflated costs, versus putting the Iraqui people to work, which by the way there was no shortage of qualified people to go to work. There were thirty or forty thousand qualified engineers, construction companies and their personnel, and an endless supply of cheap labor. For example... We were contracting these little mini fortresses designed to protect small numbers of soldiers and supplies in immediate locations, a lot of them. The Iraqui people were building some that were the same thing US corporations were building, and they could make them happen for a fraction of what the US companies could build because their imported workers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. I seem to remember something like $40,000 versus a million, and they were built the same way with tip up concrete walls.

History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time. The war part is the easy part, it's the moving on in a good way that makes all the difference in the world to the people who live in a war torn region...and it is the part we need to work on.

I suspect that this administration doesn't see anything but trying to bomb Iran into submission, which would displace tens of millions of people rather than put them in mind with a plan to not tear apart their country.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 13:54:40   #
American Vet
 
woodguru wrote:
The initial attack part of the war went very fast, we had "won" it in a matter of a couple of weeks.

What we lost in a big way was what came after all of the military is shut down and vanquished, there literally was no plan for occupying and transitioning to a new structure that the country could sustain and move on in a good way. There were somewhere between 500,000 to perhaps 750,000 military men who were right there available to be part of an orderly transition, to keep control of looting and destruction of cultural and government buildings. The Iraqui people were begging us to deploy troops or make use of police and military people to protect infrastructure. There were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to be put to work doing what they do.

The administration literally had no plan for an occupation, for an orderly transition. It's a thing that takes planning, for knowing exactly how to do it, it needs a team to step in and guide the military as to what to do and how to make it happen.

Weeks in, as it became obvious Iraq was being destroyed in this out of control aftermath far worse than it had been in the military strikes, Bush appointed someone to be in charge of this transition. Unfortunately it was someone who did not have a clue, it was someone who looked at this transition from an angle of how US contractors could be brought in to construct infrastructure projects at ludicrously inflated costs, versus putting the Iraqui people to work, which by the way there was no shortage of qualified people to go to work. There were thirty or forty thousand qualified engineers, construction companies and their personnel, and an endless supply of cheap labor. For example... We were contracting these little mini fortresses designed to protect small numbers of soldiers and supplies in immediate locations, a lot of them. The Iraqui people were building some that were the same thing US corporations were building, and they could make them happen for a fraction of what the US companies could build because their imported workers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. I seem to remember something like $40,000 versus a million, and they were built the same way with tip up concrete walls.

History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time. The war part is the easy part, it's the moving on in a good way that makes all the difference in the world to the people who live in a war torn region...and it is the part we need to work on.

I suspect that this administration doesn't see anything but trying to bomb Iran into submission, which would displace tens of millions of people rather than put them in mind with a plan to not tear apart their country.
The initial attack part of the war went very fast,... (show quote)


The US has done enough nation building - get the Europeans involved......

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 14:25:30   #
Fodaoson Loc: South Texas
 
We need to rebuild our own country. Our highways and bridges need help. Other parts of the infrastructure are in need of maintenance. We have thousands of homeless people in our roaring economy. We need to get out of the middle east and deal with our own problems.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:01:34   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
woodguru wrote:
The initial attack part of the war went very fast, we had "won" it in a matter of a couple of weeks.

What we lost in a big way was what came after all of the military is shut down and vanquished, there literally was no plan for occupying and transitioning to a new structure that the country could sustain and move on in a good way. There were somewhere between 500,000 to perhaps 750,000 military men who were right there available to be part of an orderly transition, to keep control of looting and destruction of cultural and government buildings. The Iraqui people were begging us to deploy troops or make use of police and military people to protect infrastructure. There were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to be put to work doing what they do.

The administration literally had no plan for an occupation, for an orderly transition. It's a thing that takes planning, for knowing exactly how to do it, it needs a team to step in and guide the military as to what to do and how to make it happen.

Weeks in, as it became obvious Iraq was being destroyed in this out of control aftermath far worse than it had been in the military strikes, Bush appointed someone to be in charge of this transition. Unfortunately it was someone who did not have a clue, it was someone who looked at this transition from an angle of how US contractors could be brought in to construct infrastructure projects at ludicrously inflated costs, versus putting the Iraqui people to work, which by the way there was no shortage of qualified people to go to work. There were thirty or forty thousand qualified engineers, construction companies and their personnel, and an endless supply of cheap labor. For example... We were contracting these little mini fortresses designed to protect small numbers of soldiers and supplies in immediate locations, a lot of them. The Iraqui people were building some that were the same thing US corporations were building, and they could make them happen for a fraction of what the US companies could build because their imported workers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. I seem to remember something like $40,000 versus a million, and they were built the same way with tip up concrete walls.

History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time. The war part is the easy part, it's the moving on in a good way that makes all the difference in the world to the people who live in a war torn region...and it is the part we need to work on.

I suspect that this administration doesn't see anything but trying to bomb Iran into submission, which would displace tens of millions of people rather than put them in mind with a plan to not tear apart their country.
The initial attack part of the war went very fast,... (show quote)
"It is easy to say what you should have done after you haven't done it."
General George S. Patton

"Supreme excellence in war is breaking the enemy's will to fight without fighting."
Sun Tsu

"It is difficult, if not impossible, to plan for contingencies following a battle for which the outcome is uncertain due to the fog of war."
Von Clauswitz

"To anticipate the full array of possible changes and plan a way to adapt to all of them is futile. Therefore the strategist and his enamored tactician must be able to properly asses the situation, given wartime realities, and adapt to battlefield changes."
Von Clauswitz

"Forty years ago, Iran declared its hostility toward the United States and Israel. Throughout these four decades, Iran has fielded terror proxies and Shiite militias that have carried out attacks on Americans, Israelis, and Sunni Muslims. With the elimination of Iran's top war dog, the ball is in Iran's hands. Khamenei and his military advisors have a decision to make. To fight or not to fight, that is the question Iran must answer.

woodguru wrote:
The war part is the easy part
Say what??

woodguru wrote:
History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time.
Check out the Marshall Plan.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:30:58   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
American Vet wrote:
The US has done enough nation building - get the Europeans involved......

The guru is not talking about nation building, he's just projecting leftist nonsense aimed at blaming president Trump for something that hasn't happened.

| Reply
Jan 15, 2020 11:22:31   #
F.D.R.
 
woodguru wrote:
The initial attack part of the war went very fast, we had "won" it in a matter of a couple of weeks.

What we lost in a big way was what came after all of the military is shut down and vanquished, there literally was no plan for occupying and transitioning to a new structure that the country could sustain and move on in a good way. There were somewhere between 500,000 to perhaps 750,000 military men who were right there available to be part of an orderly transition, to keep control of looting and destruction of cultural and government buildings. The Iraqui people were begging us to deploy troops or make use of police and military people to protect infrastructure. There were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to be put to work doing what they do.

The administration literally had no plan for an occupation, for an orderly transition. It's a thing that takes planning, for knowing exactly how to do it, it needs a team to step in and guide the military as to what to do and how to make it happen.

Weeks in, as it became obvious Iraq was being destroyed in this out of control aftermath far worse than it had been in the military strikes, Bush appointed someone to be in charge of this transition. Unfortunately it was someone who did not have a clue, it was someone who looked at this transition from an angle of how US contractors could be brought in to construct infrastructure projects at ludicrously inflated costs, versus putting the Iraqui people to work, which by the way there was no shortage of qualified people to go to work. There were thirty or forty thousand qualified engineers, construction companies and their personnel, and an endless supply of cheap labor. For example... We were contracting these little mini fortresses designed to protect small numbers of soldiers and supplies in immediate locations, a lot of them. The Iraqui people were building some that were the same thing US corporations were building, and they could make them happen for a fraction of what the US companies could build because their imported workers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. I seem to remember something like $40,000 versus a million, and they were built the same way with tip up concrete walls.

History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time. The war part is the easy part, it's the moving on in a good way that makes all the difference in the world to the people who live in a war torn region...and it is the part we need to work on.

I suspect that this administration doesn't see anything but trying to bomb Iran into submission, which would displace tens of millions of people rather than put them in mind with a plan to not tear apart their country.
The initial attack part of the war went very fast,... (show quote)


For once I have to agree with you.

| Reply
Jan 15, 2020 15:36:41   #
Auntie Dee
 
woodguru wrote:
The initial attack part of the war went very fast, we had "won" it in a matter of a couple of weeks.

What we lost in a big way was what came after all of the military is shut down and vanquished, there literally was no plan for occupying and transitioning to a new structure that the country could sustain and move on in a good way. There were somewhere between 500,000 to perhaps 750,000 military men who were right there available to be part of an orderly transition, to keep control of looting and destruction of cultural and government buildings. The Iraqui people were begging us to deploy troops or make use of police and military people to protect infrastructure. There were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to be put to work doing what they do.

The administration literally had no plan for an occupation, for an orderly transition. It's a thing that takes planning, for knowing exactly how to do it, it needs a team to step in and guide the military as to what to do and how to make it happen.

Weeks in, as it became obvious Iraq was being destroyed in this out of control aftermath far worse than it had been in the military strikes, Bush appointed someone to be in charge of this transition. Unfortunately it was someone who did not have a clue, it was someone who looked at this transition from an angle of how US contractors could be brought in to construct infrastructure projects at ludicrously inflated costs, versus putting the Iraqui people to work, which by the way there was no shortage of qualified people to go to work. There were thirty or forty thousand qualified engineers, construction companies and their personnel, and an endless supply of cheap labor. For example... We were contracting these little mini fortresses designed to protect small numbers of soldiers and supplies in immediate locations, a lot of them. The Iraqui people were building some that were the same thing US corporations were building, and they could make them happen for a fraction of what the US companies could build because their imported workers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. I seem to remember something like $40,000 versus a million, and they were built the same way with tip up concrete walls.

History should provide a model for looking at what happened in the past and working to comprehensively know how to do it better next time. The war part is the easy part, it's the moving on in a good way that makes all the difference in the world to the people who live in a war torn region...and it is the part we need to work on.

I suspect that this administration doesn't see anything but trying to bomb Iran into submission, which would displace tens of millions of people rather than put them in mind with a plan to not tear apart their country.
The initial attack part of the war went very fast,... (show quote)


I suspect you are wrong in your final paragraph and Trump's intentions. I think he knows how weak the Iran leadership is and how much its people want their freedom back. I believe he knew this was the best and fastest way to achieve that goal! Trump stated that he was not starting a war, but stopping one! I hope we will all eventually understand that!

You can almost bet that when the Dem's are against something Trump has done, then it was the RIGHT thing to do!

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.