Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Discussions on other historical eras.
BarKokhba
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 28 Jan 2017, 03:11
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#16

Post by BarKokhba » 14 Mar 2017, 00:39

Well, based on Gerty Bell's wise (and incorrect) assessment of 'Syria' aka Turkish/British Palestine being a failed scheme, perhaps dividing up fake-failed state Iraq into 3 nations would be a wise choice. Yes, the Kurds haven't had a state but neither did the Greeks or Jews for about 2000 years. And the Turks are against it (what aren't they against?) But after the 'so called' Iraqi army takes Mosul and most of Iraq from ISIS, another grim 3 way civil war will result.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#17

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Mar 2017, 13:36

Hi Barkokba,

I am not suggesting that the lack of a historical state should bar a people from having one now. If a group of people think they are a nation, they effectively are one.

Israel is a case in point. It would be difficult on ethnic grounds to justify a Jewish state, because in their diaspora Jews have accumulated an enormous amount of DNA from a wide variety of sources. However, Jews think they are one people and therefore they functionally are one. It is possibly the greatest of historical ironies that eligibilty for Israeli citizenship was defined by those who were liable to suffer as Jewish under Hitler's Nuremburg Laws.

The Palestinians have never had their own state. However, the existence of Israel has created a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs because they are self-defined as those Arabs displaced or occupied as a result of the creation of Israel.

Being a nation is a state of mind expressed in collective political form. The Kurds, Israelis and Palestinians all qualify, so all understandably want their own state. However, direct US intervention in the Middle East has done little to help any of them.

Cheers,

Sid.


User avatar
Sarge3525
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 09 Jan 2015, 00:16
Location: EU

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#18

Post by Sarge3525 » 01 Jun 2017, 22:48

Man, it's painful reading this, watching the Americans learning nothing from the French and their counter-insurgency in Algeria (due to arrogance, seeing France as a nation with too many failures, in the face of the French warning about occupation of a Muslim land and denying to participate in the invasion of Iraq).

USA was a western power woefully uneducated and thus unprepared to put boots in the ground in such a part of the world.
All these invasions yielded after over a decade is just chaos and thus failure.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#19

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Jun 2017, 10:01

Hi Sarge,

The main link I can see between the French fight to hold Algeria and the USA's invasion of Iraq is that while both were militarily successful, they were political failures.

The French had different interests to the USA in Iraq. The French supplied about 12% of Saddam Hussein's arms. (The other, bigger, suppliers were the USSR and China). In the 1990s, while United Nations sanctions were on, the French negotiated for greater access to Iraqi oil with Saddam. Thus all along the French have had a vested interest in the very regime the USA eventually overthrew. They have spent the last 25 years picking over the corpses left by US foreign policy.

The big problems that the intervening powers have had are (1) lack of post-conflict political planning and (2) insufficient boots to put on the ground. The USA had to undertake a massive mobilization of its National Guard just to hold down a third tier power. The British Territorial Army proved institutionally useless and its units were unemployable.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
TISO
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 23 Dec 2004, 02:25
Location: Slovenia - vojvodina Å tajerska

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#20

Post by TISO » 22 Jun 2017, 21:37

Well miltary did as well as it could. I'm going to step into this pile of poop.
Both wars were basicly lost before they started as there were no serious planing for the day after the win which was expected to be easy (which they were). Remember defacto sacking of general Shinseki who calculated the number of troops needed for war and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Afganistan was tribaly devided land even before and concept of unified state was/is still rather alien to them. So telling them how to live is a non started from the get go.
Iraq on the other hand is a classic example how not to occupy a state or more specifically how idiots that drank too much own cool aid (Paul Bremer crew) can screw up.

Iraq was single party military dictatorship in which if you want to live in peace and have a job you have to be a partymember (yep im exYU and know something about single party states). In after war germany all sides (west and soviets) were well avare of that so they retaned the lower class nazis in their jobs so country would function i.e. de nazification was for all intents and purposes as PR sham. Bremer debaathified Iraq i.e. kicked out of their jobs all party members and suddenly there are no doctors, no trashmen, no water utilities, no eletricity etc. and suddenly entire country goes from 20 century to middleages. And locals are certanly not happy about it and start to think that if they kick out the invaders they can get back into 20th century. Especialy if they see their considerable oil wealth going to occupiers and their favorites while they have no water, sanitation, doctors.... not to mention that same poeple are blamed for 2 decades of sanctions and hardships that they brought with them.

Add to that the iraqi army which in all one party states is the glue that glues the natives together. Iraqi officers mostly decided they will put up only token fight (there were exceptions) and basicly went home with expectation that new rulers (US and brits) will call them back. They basicly expected that after purge of political generals and few others army will be reconstructed in some form. Instead they got disbanded and suddenly you have 400.000+ angry poeple with guns and knowhow with a grudge and too much time on their hands, thinking how to get back at you.

Sejanus
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 12 Mar 2016, 11:55
Location: Withdrawn

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#21

Post by Sejanus » 24 Jun 2017, 11:34

TISO wrote:Well miltary did as well as it could. I'm going to step into this pile of poop.
Both wars were basicly lost before they started as there were no serious planing for the day after the win which was expected to be easy (which they were). Remember defacto sacking of general Shinseki who calculated the number of troops needed for war and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Afganistan was tribaly devided land even before and concept of unified state was/is still rather alien to them. So telling them how to live is a non started from the get go.
Iraq on the other hand is a classic example how not to occupy a state or more specifically how idiots that drank too much own cool aid (Paul Bremer crew) can screw up.

Iraq was single party military dictatorship in which if you want to live in peace and have a job you have to be a partymember (yep im exYU and know something about single party states). In after war germany all sides (west and soviets) were well avare of that so they retaned the lower class nazis in their jobs so country would function i.e. de nazification was for all intents and purposes as PR sham. Bremer debaathified Iraq i.e. kicked out of their jobs all party members and suddenly there are no doctors, no trashmen, no water utilities, no eletricity etc. and suddenly entire country goes from 20 century to middleages. And locals are certanly not happy about it and start to think that if they kick out the invaders they can get back into 20th century. Especialy if they see their considerable oil wealth going to occupiers and their favorites while they have no water, sanitation, doctors.... not to mention that same poeple are blamed for 2 decades of sanctions and hardships that they brought with them.

Add to that the iraqi army which in all one party states is the glue that glues the natives together. Iraqi officers mostly decided they will put up only token fight (there were exceptions) and basicly went home with expectation that new rulers (US and brits) will call them back. They basicly expected that after purge of political generals and few others army will be reconstructed in some form. Instead they got disbanded and suddenly you have 400.000+ angry poeple with guns and knowhow with a grudge and too much time on their hands, thinking how to get back at you.
TISO, I believe that you have managed to "step into this pile of poop" and out again unscathed, as everything you say on these subjects is quite true.

We learned nothing from our experiences in the Vietnam war (among other things). And so history goes right on repeating itself, as presently manifested in Iraq and Afghanistan; Afghanistan is now the longest war the US has ever been involved in, no end in sight and the US is destined to withdraw one day as the Soviets had done before them.

What a tremendous waste.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 896
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 01:08
Location: Texas

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#22

Post by James A Pratt III » 16 Aug 2017, 23:58

Tom Ricks who has a number of books and youtube presentations on the US military in Iraq ect I don't agree with everything he says but he does have some useful insites

Ahmed Rashid also has a number of books, youtube presentations ect. on Afganistan Pakistan ect do provide insites as to whats going on

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#23

Post by Guaporense » 18 Aug 2017, 06:27

Why? Because the US is a pacific democratic nation. It's not a nation that has traditionally been an effective imperial power and so doing imperialistic excursions will tend to be counter productive.

Also, another important thing is that today it's much easier for people in third world countries to get access to things like explosives and stuff. So it's easy for a population of tens of millions to be really hard to occupy if compared to past periods in history. These are not "wars" anyway, they are occupations of a hostile population, like the German occupation of Yugoslavia and they will produce casualties as long as the force is there.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#24

Post by ljadw » 18 Aug 2017, 08:56

The OP is very loaded and starts from an unproved assumption ,which is that the US did poorly in Iraq and Afghanistan ,and I see that a lot of people are falling in this trap .

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#25

Post by Stiltzkin » 18 Aug 2017, 20:56

Also, another important thing is that today it's much easier for people in third world countries to get access to things like explosives and stuff.
I personally think mobile phones are worth mentioning. Such a level of coordination was not possible in the past.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#26

Post by South » 18 Aug 2017, 21:41

Good afternoon Guaporense,

I'm not addressing the "third world countries" and AAE - arms, armaments and explosives - only: [US] "not an effective imperial power" and "...excursion...tend....counterproductive".

Starting in 1898 for a benchmark, (Although Alaska 1867), look at a Caribbean map. Note eg Cuba, Puerto Rico, Danish Virgin Islands, Nicaragua (and the later spin-off named Panama). If time permits check "United Fruit Company".

Look at a Pacific map.....Hawaiian Islands and those south, eg Howland, Jarvis, Baker, (1867, 1898), Alaska (1867 [conceding not a colony; a territory...Please don't laugh]), Samoa,....

Although Americans and the US Government find imperialism and the related colonialism repulsive and avoided the treaty ports of China, there was a reason the US participated in the Boxer Rebellion.

The Philippines was reserved exclusively for the missionaries.

~Bob
eastern Virginia

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#27

Post by Guaporense » 19 Aug 2017, 19:49

@South, that's very little imperial influence. Compare with the French, British and Russian empires.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#28

Post by South » 19 Aug 2017, 22:11

Good afternoon Guaporense,

You did not write "imperial influence" - although that US had substantial influence on par with the Europeans. Recall, for example, the expression that the Caribbean was an American Lake". Note, for example, the US profile in China was very low - but substantial "imperial influence".

You DID write "imperial power". This is what I addressed.

The US "imperialistic excursions" were not counterproductive. Glance at the results.

Now glance at the follow-ons. Ever visit the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ?

Please review your post and the point you were making.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#29

Post by Guaporense » 20 Aug 2017, 06:37

South wrote:Good afternoon Guaporense,

You did not write "imperial influence" - although that US had substantial influence on par with the Europeans.
No, they did not. US started to have a lot of influence, for instance, in Brazil, after WW2, that is, after European colonial empires were all dismantled. Before 1914, US international geopolitical influence was similar to a country like Brazil or Indonesia today.

European colonies in 1900:
Image

And that doesn't include the massive territories of the Russian Empire which were also mostly colonies.

US colonies:
Image

Couple of islands, less than a fraction of 1% of the territories that Europeans colonized.

The US has no significant tradition of being a colonial empire. It helps to explain why the US has such enormous difficulties doing stuff like occupying foreign countries today. US is like Brazil: a naturally pacific and isolationist country. When we sent Brazilian troops to Haiti they were also perplexed that people were firing at them.

But history reserved a role for the US: the US had to get involved as the world's police against it's own pacific nature and culture,

The reason is that the US emerged as the world's largest economy (partly because they were pacific, mainly because the US was much bigger geographically than France, UK and Germany while Russia had severely stupid economic policies). So they were economically suited to pay the cost of policing the world although they lack the cultural and historical background to perform this role.

Hence the reason why the US military is super modern, super expensive and super ineffective.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Why has American Military Done So Poorly in Iraq & Afghanistan?

#30

Post by South » 20 Aug 2017, 07:43

Good morning Guaporense,

Only because I owe you and other AHF participants a reply do I write something now.

I concede I am not conversant in voodoo economics and now will add voodoo political geography...especially with it's politico-economic component such as the imperial system.

With the Panama Canal (1914), imperial power was displayed. For a benchmark, note the Suez Canal's (1869) display of imperial power.

I cannot address 1898 - 1913 US geopolitical influence was similar .... "like Brazil and Indonesia today".

You are selective in your examples so most are self-serving to your account.

If the Russian empire "mostly colonies", does or does not the US analogy yield something different ? Again, comparative studies must establish what is being compared.

When a "couple of islands" serve as coaling stations or "stepping stones", are we here concerned with land mass totals ? They weren't stepping stones to Lake Front Dr, Chicago.

We are all entitled to our differing views and opinions. With or without a megaphone, say "the US has such enormous difficulties like occupying..." in Okinawa.

Other AHF participants can help us get this portion of the thread refocused because it's already clear enough that you and I interpret matters involving the imperial system differently.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”