20 years ago

Javelin said:

As someone who spends their career rehabilitating disabled Veterans, not to mention remember Iraq 1 and was in Active Duty when Iraq 2 came about, I remembered and did some counseling today about it. Don't get me started on toxic burn pits. 

It's crazy how many wars we get into that we were the bad guys. 

Burn pits are the worse. Because of my lower rank on some of my deployments I had to do some burnpit runs. 

I know a few retired Bio guys who are suffering from long term affects from the chemical wmd's they found in the Iraqi desert. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of this stuff. But it isn't as sexy as nuclear weapons. 

I personally preferred Afghanistan than going to Iraq. 

A 401 CJ said:

In the rear view mirror [Desert Storm] looks like a cake walk.  But at the time it was really scary there for awhile.  We had good leadership though.  All the way from the top down.  I'm not sure we'd be able to pull that off today.

I've seen it pointed out that Desert Storm is the only war the U.S. has truly won since WW2.

The reasons I've seen given are:

• The top leadership (Executive Office) had real military experience and a realistic understanding of what the military was and was not capable of.
• The military was given a limited objective within its capabilities with a clearly defined "win" state.
• The military was allowed to go in, and once that objective was achieved, there was no mission creep. The executive office declared the objective was complete and systematically wrapped up the operation.

If you don't have a clearly defined objective, you can't develop a cogent plan.

 It's a wierd feeling that only until recently, this nation was in a full scale-war that just became normalized over time- 20 whole years, to the point where jokes about Iraq becoming the 51st state really weren't jokes after a point. That is such a haunting feeling.

yupididit said:

Javelin said:

As someone who spends their career rehabilitating disabled Veterans, not to mention remember Iraq 1 and was in Active Duty when Iraq 2 came about, I remembered and did some counseling today about it. Don't get me started on toxic burn pits. 

It's crazy how many wars we get into that we were the bad guys. 

 

Burn pits are the worse. Because of my lower rank on some of my deployments I had to do some burnpit runs. 

I know a few retired Bio guys who are suffering from long term affects from the chemical wmd's they found in the Iraqi desert. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of this stuff. But it isn't as sexy as nuclear weapons. 

I personally preferred Afghanistan than going to Iraq. 

A friend of mine did them too in the Army; he told me how someone in his unit advised his brass to spray petroleum on the ground to help tamp down the constant dust and sand on major roads, only to turn most of the area into a swampy, oily mess. Stories of boredom, oil tanks full of diesel and human waste, broken up by sudden firefights.

Beer Baron said:

It should have been obvious to any casual student of history that Iraq, like much of the region, had been haphazardly artificially carved out by European powers following the first World War.

I've wondered to what extent the "haphazard" carving was a deliberate attempt to create disunity and therefore hamper the ability of governments to become powerful enough to be a problem? Some ethnic groups in particular - such as the Kurds were really f--ked by the subdivision. Since they appear not to get along with the Turks very well one has to ask....   

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

It should have been obvious to any casual student of history that Iraq, like much of the region, had been haphazardly artificially carved out by European powers following the first World War.

I've wondered to what extent the "haphazard" carving was a deliberate attempt to create disunity and therefore hamper the ability of governments to become powerful enough to be a problem? Some ethnic groups in particular - such as the Kurds were really f--ked by the subdivision. Since they appear not to get along with the Turks very well one has to ask....   

Whether the cause was ignorance or malice, the result is the same.

Beer Baron said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

It should have been obvious to any casual student of history that Iraq, like much of the region, had been haphazardly artificially carved out by European powers following the first World War.

I've wondered to what extent the "haphazard" carving was a deliberate attempt to create disunity and therefore hamper the ability of governments to become powerful enough to be a problem? Some ethnic groups in particular - such as the Kurds were really f--ked by the subdivision. Since they appear not to get along with the Turks very well one has to ask....   

Whether the cause was ignorance or malice, the result is the same.

Everything I have encountered points to the specific intention of leaving the region unstable. The "west" did it on purpose and that is part of the current distrust of the "west." If they are/were fighting each other, they could not bring the fight to "us."

Not trying to justify it, just saying there is no reason to wonder about it being deliberate. 

matthewmcl said:

Beer Baron said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Beer Baron said:

It should have been obvious to any casual student of history that Iraq, like much of the region, had been haphazardly artificially carved out by European powers following the first World War.

I've wondered to what extent the "haphazard" carving was a deliberate attempt to create disunity and therefore hamper the ability of governments to become powerful enough to be a problem? Some ethnic groups in particular - such as the Kurds were really f--ked by the subdivision. Since they appear not to get along with the Turks very well one has to ask....   

Whether the cause was ignorance or malice, the result is the same.

Everything I have encountered points to the specific intention of leaving the region unstable. The "west" did it on purpose and that is part of the current distrust of the "west." If they are/were fighting each other, they could not bring the fight to "us."

Not trying to justify it, just saying there is no reason to wonder about it being deliberate. 

All the more reason for students of military history to know what a giant mess getting involved long term would be, and that ousting a dictator enforcing brutal, inhuman, despotic order would not bring peace.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Shaking a couple more cobwebs loose, I think part of the issue was not so much that the middle east would bring the fight to Europe or the US, but that the newly minted nation of Israel wouldn't get wiped off the map if the "locals" were fighting each other. 

As more info into the meddling bonfire, Saddam Hussein was groomed and trained for his role by the US. Careful what you wish for and all that...

Heck, pre-1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini had a lot of support from the West. Time magazine man of the year.

Beer Baron said:

If you don't have a clearly defined objective, you can't develop a cogent plan.

In all endeavors.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Let alone Reagan's support of the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Heck, pre-1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini had a lot of support from the West. Time magazine man of the year.

He did have western support, but that award isn't always meant to be a positive recognition. It just means that person is significant in some way. Hitler won it, and Stalin got it twice. Khomeini won in 1979. I don't think Time was saying what a great dude he was since that was during the hostage crisis. 

Interesting. Time's gone on a limb repeatedly.

So, just so I have it right:

Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 on their home turf = bad

Fighting a proxy war with a wounded nuclear superpower = good

?

(my opinion on the above is:  sort of)

It's not about good or bad.  More about how good or bad.

It's has a lot to do with HOW you do it.

Back to the original topic:

I certainly remember the invasion.  I did not have a perspective at the time of how good or bad an idea it was.  I do remember mentioning to a tax guy I was using, a Pakastani, who was a friend of a friend, who was Pakastani (and worked for the CIA in Afghanistan!):  "It seems to me, all these guys (Iraqi's) have to do is fade into the wood work and start massive partisan activity."  I think that was pretty predictive!

I am not sure how you would get a good perspective on things back then.  Not a lot of internet info.  The news networks were pretty simple and CNN had almost zero "opinion" news at the time.

BTW the guy I knew did not tell me much (which is likely a good thing, I think he was mostly a courier), but he did tell me how he hurt his shoulder.  He got blown off a donkey in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan!  It must have been a setup (site zeroed in).  He said he distinctly remembers the AK slapping off his shoulder as he rolled down the hill!

1988RedT2 said:

So, just so I have it right:

Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 on their home turf = bad

Fighting a proxy war with a wounded nuclear superpower = good

?

....

Wrong thread, man.  Maybe start another one for that if you feel that strongly about the subject. 

1988RedT2 said:

So, just so I have it right:

Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 on their home turf = bad

Fighting a proxy war with a wounded nuclear superpower = good

?

What are you even talking about? If we were to go after the perpetrators of 911 it would be the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Afghans. As big of a sh-thead as Saddam was,  his Al-Qaeda  links were fairly weak. 

My first thought when we invaded Afghanistan was, "this will turn into another Vietnam..." with similar thoughts about Iraq Pt 2.

Unfortunately, I was wrong - it ended up being worse.

1988RedT2 said:

So, just so I have it right:

Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 on their home turf = bad

The US did not invade Saudi Arabia.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Heck, pre-1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini had a lot of support from the West. Time magazine man of the year.

Being TIME's Person of the Year has zero to do with whether they approve of you as a person or not.

The title goes to the person who generates the most news / global change in the previous year, for better or worse.

In reply to Duke :

Yes, Spangler made that point as well. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of non-Muslim people in the West were saying nice things about him right up until the hostage taking commenced.

Anyone lend any credence to the theory that Hussein moving away from the Dollar for oil trade is what invited the US's wrath?

Damn you guys make me feel old!

I remember Vietnam...

In reply to Opti :

The other one I heard was that he unconditionally surrendered the night before shock and awe.