View Single Post
Old 12-23-2011, 05:13 PM   #10
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff View Post
The vast majority of America's professional soldiers showed remarkable character and competence under horrific conditions.
No violence and ethnic killings occurred in Mosul while same was ongoing in so many other regions. Petraeus and the 101st Airborne was literally stealing money to institute Phase Four planning in Mosul. As a result, Mosul was completely peaceful. Until the 101st left. Then Phase Four planning stopped. And Mosul became as violent as other Iraqi regions.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in nations such as Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized …
Meanwhile, Bremer never got organized. Even Bremer had to sneak out of Baghdad on a small airplane because violence Bremer created even threatened his own life.

Gen Petraeus was expelled to a penalty box. Stuck in a war college in Kansas rather than in positions for advancement such as in another combat unit or the Pentagon. He was telling truths that contradicted George Jr’s political agendas. Expelled because he was saying all along why Americans were encouraging so much Iraqi violence and uprising. One man in particular was accurately criticized for causing that violence and resulting deaths. Paul Bremer.

George Jr's chosen man, Bremer - even honored with a Freedom Medal by George Jr - was clearly a major reason why so many Iraqis attacked Americans and other Iraqi ethnic groups. A problem is well defined - 2,500 years ago - in military doctrine. Violence was inevitable when Americans did not do nation building. As soon as Petraeus and the 101st left Mosul in 2004, then entire region broke down into chaos. As military doctrine so clearly says.

Cheney, et al just assumed (due to low intelligence) that as soon as Saddam was gone, then democracy would sprout up from the earth. Why did 100,000 Iraqis die? Because wacko extremists (the right wingers that have low intelligence) said, "America does not do nation building." Suddenly 2,500 years later, that well understood principle is wrong? Only when a political agenda is confused as education and intelligence. America encouraged and enabled violence that killed over 100,000 Iraqis. Iraqis did not die when a General harmed his career by doing nation building. Iraqis died in mass numbers because low intelligence leaders in Washington said, "America does not do nation building."

None of this is new. Read old Cellar posts where reasons for an insurgency and deaths were directly attributed to, "America does not do nation building." The problem was well defined and that obvious that many years ago.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote