An army report has outline some of the USA mistakes in Iraq.
First all the initial planning was concern with getting rid of Hussein. No plans for what to do next. There was no exit strategy. It was thought that having got rid of Hussein supporters, the Sunni control army and government, a new Iraq government could operate on its own.

In fact they needed more support from the west. However the occupation forces were too small to ensure stability. A much larger force was needed.
The Bush government could or would not provide the numbers. So the army could not succeed in its aims to have a stable and peaceful Iraq.

How far do you think this assessment is right?

aus22, I agree 100%.

If I may add, this whole plan was shabbly put together, and many things were'nt taken into account.

But that's what happens when you have a President and Vice-Prewsident who ran from combat thermselves leading a war.

Last they let terrorist come in waves through the borders at the beginning of this thing, because there were no terrorist there before.

Last what will be wrong with Iraq long after it's over is that our soldiers are thrown away like trash once they return with all of their injuries and mental problems, they can't even get help for their families from the Government who they went to fight for.

Phanton Mystic, You ad I agree but others do not even want to reply. I am not asking anyone to agree that everything went wrong in Iraq but where did we made mistakes. Surely noboby thinks we did not make some mistakes.

While I always thought we should have never been in Iraq most of the Americans, Australian and British public supported their country going to Iraq. Most today do not.Surely it must be because we wrong in some areas.

Is it because we underestimate the resistance from various groups in Iraq or is it we overestimate the government we created in Iraq ability to control the country without our forces?

Or is because we did not send enough troops to do the Job?

I think all this issues are examine in the army report. Surely we should learn by our mistakes in Iraq as we did from mistakes in WW2 and Vietnam.

Our soldiers deserve an investigation of what went wrong. Also what are we doing now to help them. A New Yourk Times report said all the military Hospitals in Iraq are destroyed. Why do we not build a new one?. It appears we are not even helping the Iraqi soldiers that faught alongside us. No wonder they do not want to fight. How about our own vetrans. Is it true we are going to treat them as it's over is that our soldiers are thrown away like trash once they return with all of their injuries and mental problems, they can't even get help for their families from the Government who they went to fight for.

This is what we did after WW1 & 2 and after Vietnam. Surely we can do better this time.

Even with enough troops, so many mistakes were made post-"victory" that it would still be a mess.

Even if we had totally overrun the country, it would do nothing to end Sunni-Shia rivalry and so the infighting would continue.

In short, there is almost no way to solve the problem, and with or without the USA the Sunnis and Shia will continue to fight.

I think what went wrong, and it wasn't that big of a wrong, was an incomplete plan. I realize some things come up that could not have been planned for but other things could have been. We sent plenty of troops and stuff to stamp out that little country. Perhaps we went too far in completely removing their military. I can say that with a certain amount of confidence since we took steps to undo that error.

I agree with Dax However Husain seems to kept the infighting at bay through supporting the Sunnies

I also think Jokul is right As the Sunnies were the only effective fighting force thier replacement by Shites would be less effective.

Now we have a third player the Kurds. An American oil company has signed a deal with the Kurds despite opposition from the Iraq government. Perhaps we want divisions.

aus22:

My point is who cares?The question is were the people that put this report together when the military was feeding misleading information to the public before the start of the war in Iraq in 2003?I have said this before and will say it again America wanted caos in Iraq,that's why you saw American soldiers doing nothing when they saw looters running by them.
aus22:

After everything that has happened you still have arabs that are still willing to do business with America like the kurds.I am not sure what the arabic word for "sell out" is but whatever it is that is the Kurds.Who is surprised that the Kurds have signed an oil deal with the America,it's no wonder that most of the arab world hate the kurds,since they helped to bring down the otterman empire.

Actually, Cass, the Kurdish people go back to at least 3,000 yrs BCE and had little to do with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, which happened as the result of WWI, when England carved up the ME. The Kurdish people had long considered the area in which they lived to be Kurdistan--land of the Kurds. Their language is a dialect of the Iraqi language (which Saddam Hussein forebade) and their culture is heavily influenced by the Indo-European cultures that moved into Kurdistan during the years before the Christian Era.

Since they have for centuries considered themselves to be a separate people from Iraq, Iran and Turkey, perhaps it is time for the world to recognize a separate Kurdistan.

Hello Lizbeth all that you say I believe may well be true about the Kurds and that they that they should have a homeland.I am just bwondering why the west did not give them one after the end of WW1.I was under the impression that the Kurds fought on the side of the west in that conflict, on the understanding that they would get a home land if the west won the war.

The United States had little to do with the division of the ME after WWI. It was left up to England, which made sure it got control over the oil rich areas-- most notably Saudi Arabia. (See Lawrence of Arabia)

The Ottoman Empire fought WWI on the German side and when the British established boundary lines in the ME, it did so for its own benefit. It didn't do so based on languages or cultures. The mountainous regions of Northern Iraq, Eastern Iran and Southern Turkey, where the Kurds live, has no oil. For convience, Kurdistan became a part of Iraq. It could just as easily, for England, have become a part of Turkey.

Dax, a good military plan takes all envisioned contingencies into account. In its arrogance, the Bush administration never had a basic plan, let alone sub-plans to cover contingencies.

Saddam is dead according to the reports I've seen. What's wrong with that? Iraq has been ridded of it's WMD's. What's wrong with that? The oil companies have access to highly profitable oil. What's wrong with that? The operation of private armies has been tested and presumably found to be functional. What's wrong with that? The powers of the US president in war time have been shown to be absolute. What's wrong with that? Any group that opposes big-business profit making can be classified as 'terrorists' and therefore 'the bad guys'. What's wrong with that?

Maybe I don't understand the question. Maybe I don't know what was suppose to go right.

What's wrong with it is the more than four thousand dead and tens of thousands of crippled Americans whose job it was to get these things done so the President could declare "mission accomplished" and be regarded by history as a great war President.

Aside from the totality of the stupidity and arrogance of invading Iraq, that's what's wrong with it.

And yet despite all the doom and gloom the continuing reports out of Iraq show that WE have the upper hand in the situation. Go figure huh?
_________________________________
George Bush's America: Terror attack free since 9/12.

I don't believe this was or is the purpose of the Iraq invasion and occupation. From a tactical standpoint, I can agree with what went wrong in Iraq in regards to losses and failures. But when a president states his loyalties are to 'Faith, Family, and thirdly country' I don't know that being regarded by history as a great war president is or was the strategic purpose. Perhaps, history will show what went wrong in Iraq is why this president is not remembered as a great war president. History may even show great wars fought to protect freedom was once a quaint idea.

Hello Lizbeth:

A larger Kurdistan would mean Syria and Iran giving up land to the sell outs,and I just don't see this happening,in fact I actually expect some stray bombs in the event of a war with Israel/America to hit Kurdish areas of Iraq.Why did England not give the Kurds their homeland as promised,I mean England believes in a sense of fair play so what happened?

My mate uncle Ray:

America after 5 years has the upper hand in a war that they were expected to win in 6 weeks and you are happy.America could have had the upper hand in Iraq from day one if it wanted to,but it did not want to.All thinking and aware people know today what America is upto,America is paving the way for a new type of rule all over the world.

When I started this topic we were discussing the mistakes of WW2 on another forum. Mistakes are part of all wars and they did not stop Chuchill and FDR being regarded as great wartime leaders.However we should at least learn from these mistakes.

As alkready stated the British Government betray the Kurds in WW1. They in fact betrayed all the arabs despite Lawrence of Arabia promises they would be rewarded for fighting for Britain. Lawrence resign in disgust from Versails Peace conference because he felt the Arabs were being betrayed.

Sometimes what seems mistakes are just political expediency. However often decisions made in the short term have long term consquences. Most of the troubles in the Middle East today can be traced to the British government betrayal of the Arabs. If the borders had been settled in accordance with their population distribution most the problems of the Middle East today would not exist.Also the anti Western feeling and militant Islam can be traced to this betrayal and the granting of a homeland in the Middle East to the Jews.

What we have to be careful in Iraq is that we do not leave a further legacy of hatred. We should decide whether we want a strong Central government or a lose federation of the three groups. Unless we draw up realistic borders we will fail again.

Ray says we are winning. Certainly the surge at long last made some of the cities safer. Yet this was due to an increase in troops. Yet all parties expect the Western troop numbers to fall. What will happen then. If we have lot left behind a stable,strong government we will have left behind a civil war blamed on the West.

Cass, the borders were extablished by the English after WWI, as Aus said above. The English were most interested in oil to fuel its Navy. You're English, what do your history books say were the reasons the English had for the boundaries they set following the Great War?

All I can say for sure, is that Germany, prior to the war, courted the Ottoman Empire to the extent that the Empire fought on Germany's side. Losing the war meant that the Ottoman Empire was broken up into various states. The Kurds lived, primarily, in the mountains of northern modern Iraq--or the mountains of southern Turkey. The area populated primarily by the Kurds had no value for Britain, so Britain drew a boundary that put Kurdistan in Iraq. No one is suggesting that modern Syria, Iraq or Iran give up land to the Kurds in order to establish Kurdistan. I think what the Kurds want is similar to the sort of relationship China has with Taiwan. but I could be wrong.

Cass, what is America up to and what sort of international rule does America want? I'm curious to know what people outside of the US think.

And I'm saying had Bush listened to the Pentagon and the ENDLESS amounts of advice that he completely disregarded thanks to his Sec. of Def., we very well could have suffered half the casualties that we have and also been out of that country a few years ago.

But no. He followed Rumsfeld down a dark rabbit hole that stuck us in the longest war we've ever been in, creating massive amounts of American casualties and killing countless of Iraqi's.

Yeah, Ray, this war has gone great.

Oh yeah, violence in Afghanistan is at it's highest level since we disposed of the Taliban.

It speaks wonders of Bush's foreign policy.

Disposed of the Taliban, Stone? The Taliban fell back and re-grouped. The US led coallition forces were too few and too ill-equipped to do much about it--especially after the Bush-Cheney coallition invaded Iraq.

All of a sudden, it seems, bin Laden became much less dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Our good ol' buddy, Saddam, who wanted the "Mother" of all wars, was deposed, tracked down and hung.

Osama bin Laden, who supposedly master-minded 9/11, is still free.

Go figure!

Afghanistan is still the 'forgotten war.'

Psst--Do you think it's about terrorism?

You know what I'm saying. We did dispose of them, for a time. We ran them back to the Hindu Kush in short order but then were left with a tribal, third world nation to deal with.


No. I think they're more wars of convenience. The Taliban needed to be disposed of in part because they didn't provide the security and unity to build a well needed natural gas pipeline across the nation and they harbored a large portion of Al-Qaeda(though Pakistan probably harbored an equal amount at the time).

Stone, What is a 'war of convenience?' So you knwo something the rest of us don't know?

The Taliban have more power now than they did in 2001. If we're fighting a war against terrorism and if the Taliban and/or al Qaeda still exist, how are we fighting terrorism?

Hello Lizbeth I have to say that I have read enough of your posts to say that I like you,you are the kind of person people like me all over the world are praying for today,the world is praying for Americans like you who are standing up and talking truth.To me the question is not what mistakes that were made in Iraq,it's stopping the mistake America will make if it as a country allows George Bush to Bomb Iran,or allows Israel to bomb Iran before he leaves office.

I notice Lizbeth at times you like to ask pointed question like this:


I was asked:


People like me outside America just remember when George Bush's dad talked about the new world order,and to date I have not heard of nothing that suggests that the elite have changed their minds,to achieve their goal of a super government.This is why the elite wanted caos in Iraq.

Smart American Generals who know just as much as Lawmage said that America needed "300000 soldiers to fight the war in Iraq".The whole world can see the difference the surge has made in Iraq,imagine the difference another 150000 troops would have made in this uncalled for war in Iraq.Today all thinking and aware people believe today that America thinks of Iraq now as springboard,to attack Iran to put the last piece in place for the new world order.This is why Iran has to be defeated because Iran is an obsticle to the elite.

Stone I just want to say I have the utmost respect for you,I hope god willing I meet good Americas like you when I come to America one day.

Cass, thank you for your kind words.

I certainly hope the US will not bomb Iran. Our plate is already too full and only foolish people would be taken in, again, if Mr. Bush--or any president--were to try to bamboozle the American people as was done prior to the current Iraqi war. If Israel does, that'll be its decision. I really don't think that it would ask for the USs permission first.

I ask the questions I ask because it's difficult to understand a person sometimes when all you have to go on are words on a computer moniter.

Thank you for your prayers.

To us in Australia Afghanistan was always more important than Iraq. Stone might be right when he says

Both wars were started by using proxies for the real enemy. Saudi Arabia who people were mainly responsible for September 11 and Pakistan where Bib Laden spent most of his time, could not be invaded because their governments were our allies. Iraq was easier to attack and it was design as a message to the whole Arab World.However Arabs are not united so it had little effect. By allowing Sheites to form governments and banishing Sunnies it help give Iran an ally. Oil and gas, were most likely another motive. But Iraq oil fields are underdeveloped and the gas line has to go across several other countries besides Afghanistan.So there will be not much increase in either oil or gas. It is is another area of failure.

In Iraq there has been an attempt to give Sunnies and Kurds some voice in the government now.This is the only realistic solution. Given independence to the Kurds in the North and creating Sunni and Sheite areas will not satisfy anyone as all groups claim land outside their area in Iraq and outside. Also it will make the Kurds rich and the rest of Iraq poor if all the oil revenue goes to the Kurds. It is too late to redraw boundaies of the past and dangerous to draw new ones.

I agree with CassielA we should
We should learn from our mistakes in Iraq and other wars that no matter what short term advantages we will gain by attacking Irran we will reap more enemies for no long term gain. Even if we eliminate the Iran bomb we will not prevent other Muslim countries getting the bomb.,
.

Is it possible to agree that the invasion of Iraq has done nothing to rid the world of terrorists?

I suppose we could agree to such a thing, Liz, as long as you are willing to agree that ridding the world of terrorists was never the goal of the war in Iraq. Seriously, you might point out that the war in Iraq has done nothing to rid the world of Dutch Elm Disease and your "observation" would be equally relevant.

But one of the reasons we were given for the invasion was that Saddam "harbors terrorists" and/or "supports terrorists" and there was an Iraq--9/11 connection, and there would be no reason to use that as an invasion excuse if stopping terrorists were not the goal.

Lizbeth Lawmage has answer your question by saying the Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism. Most of us think the link between September 11 and the invasiuon of Iraq is obvious. The USA would not have invaded an Arab coiuntry before September 11. This event caused a change of mood in USA atitude towards Arabs

It is certain that the type of terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center were not in Iraq or supported by the government of Iraq before the invasion.
Amongst the many groups that move to Iraq were members of this al_Qaeda group .However there were many other groups that could be call "Terrorist". After all a terrorist is often just a freedom fighter who becames a respected member of a later government. Nelson Mandelo is one example and it is good to see the USA government are now removing him from their terrorist list.

The Iraq war has increased terrorists in Iraq and in the world. It gives the different groups we call terrorist another reasion to hate the USA and the West.