Iraq - is our debt there paid?

[Berkut]

I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?

There was plenty of warnings, from a variety of sources.

hell, we argued about it on languish plenty. I looked like even more of an idiot than usual, since I took the position that just because we didn't see a plan doesn't mean there wasn't one - that the plan was likely classified, and telling the insurgents your plan is a good way to tell them how to counter it.

Turns out I was wrong, and there really wasn't a plan beyond

1. Invade Iraq
2. ???
3. Democracy and Freedom!

But yeah, people in the military said they would need a LOT more troops, and the State Department was seemingly pushed aside.

[Faeelin]

I don't follow. In what way did America finally create the conditions for success? What were those?

I agree that at some point the issue is up to Iraq, but it's unclear at what point that is.

[Neil]

Occupation in Germany de jure ended in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalvertrag_Treaty

And, de jure, it was a UN, not US, occupation.

And yet the brutal US occupation of Japan continues to this day.  US rape-gangs prowl Okinawa day and night, looking for schoolgirls to ravage.

[The Brain]

I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?

It was a slam dunk.

[vinraith]

I'm curious, what defined the break point between our responsibility and their responsibility in your opinion?

That is a good question - not really sure I have a good, objective answer though.

I guess it is just an accumulation of the results and the costs, and the realization that I do not emotionally think that if we leave and a year later it has turned into a mess *I* would feel like we bailed on them, and it is our fault. I would feel more like we did our best, and if it wasn't enough, nothing would be.

Not a very satisfying answer, I know.

edit: and to be honest, I don't think there is a defined "breaking point" really - it was always a combined effort, no clear demarcation line, just a gradually shifting burden, I guess.

Fair enough. I'm trying to get a handle on this myself, and I'm never satisfied with subjective answers, so I've been trying to find some metric on which to judge results. I was hoping you'd thought of something I hadn't.

[grumbler]

the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.

  Dude, it is your strawman, so don't knock it!

I agree that it doesn't wash, but since you have been the only person to attempt to raise the issue of this so-called obligation, I think if we ignore you the lack of washing doesn't matter.

the US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.

Exactly, and I think everyone here is arguing that position.

next time, use more soap.

Next time, use less straw.

[Jacob]

Interesting question Berkut.

My gut instinct is that if the debt isn't paid yet, it's getting pretty damn close.  However, I'll have to admit that that's not based on a particular in depth analysis but is rather instinctual; in fact it could be simple "Iraq fatigue" speaking.

Attempting to analyse it a bit I agree that the US has paid a significant cost in blood, treasure and other effort.  It seems to me that Iraq's current state has improved significantly.  There is still room for a lot of things to get better, but the cost of that, I think would be magnitudes higher.  I am not sure it is reasonable to expect.

In the end, of course, whether now is a reasonable time to pull out really depends on what comes after.  If Iraq goes straight to hell and gets super toxic, no matter how much good faith effort was put into the place previously, the US will share a significant part of the responsibility.  Conversely, if it putters along more or less the same as it is now or with mild improvements then it's reasonably acceptable I think; Saddam is gone, many people died, Iraqis have some sort of chance to improve under their own efforts.  Finally, if things start getting better and continue to improve significantly then obviously everything is good and the US can clearly be said to have paid it's debt.

The doubt is not about the US's effort, the US has certainly not shirked, but about the results.

[The Brain]

He who pull out too fast leave rubber behind.

[grumbler]

I haven't read much about the decision-making dynamics within the administration, but it is not the case that there were some warnings sounded from other parts of government and military? I heard someone once make a throwaway comment that the Bush team 'threw out the State Department plan'. Is this true in any way?

Yes.  As Berkut noted, the administration (and, specifically, Cheney) ridiculed the idea that anything like the State Department's detailed and expensive plan was necessary.  Cheney knew he was brilliant enough to invent an occupation plan on the spot, and update it instantaneously as necessary.

Cheney failed miserably (and would have been humiliated had the press any balls), of course.  Even in the absence of gods, hubris almost always results in an own goal.

[grumbler]

Fair enough. I'm trying to get a handle on this myself, and I'm never satisfied with subjective answers, so I've been trying to find some metric on which to judge results. I was hoping you'd thought of something I hadn't.

A fast-and-dirty mark is probably the provision of the second relatively free and fair election.  The first one is almost always a goatfuck, with some areas not able to fully participate.  The second one, if free and fair, creates a credible national government, and at that point the usurpers of the government have done their duty.

[Alcibiades]

I actually wonder how the pullout is going...

Supposedly we were supposed to be leaving the streets next month, is that still happening?

Out of the loop since I'm back here...

[saskganesh]

the "obligations to remove saddam" still doesn't wash.

  Dude, it is your strawman, so don't knock it!

I agree that it doesn't wash, but since you have been the only person to attempt to raise the issue of this so-called obligation, I think if we ignore you the lack of washing doesn't matter.

the US acted acted then as now out of perceived self interest. much like every other country involved in geopolitics.

Exactly, and I think everyone here is arguing that position.

next time, use more soap.

Next time, use less straw.

the OP made explicit reference to an obligation. whatever.

[Syt]

I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam.

[garbon]

I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam.

[Valmy]

I understood Berk's post as that the U.S. created an obligation towards Iraq when they removed Saddam, not that they had an obligation to remove Saddam.

Is that where the confusion is coming from?  Yeah I saw nothing in Berk's post that suggested that we had an obligation to Iraq to remove Saddam.  I am not sure where Sask and Grallon got the idea that was what this thread was about.