"Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq".

[TedShatner10]

I've spent all Winter reading through Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks and it made for very uncomfortable and agonizing reading. The wilful arrogance and ignorance of the Bush Administration is keenly felt in this factual collation of America's ill advised invasion of Iraq, while there is nothing but utmost sympathy for the majority of service men and women in the US Military (which extends to America's grossly misused allies). Most of wht could go wrong in a neo-colonial occupation did go wrong, and what makes things worse the Americans under Bush virtually blew all of it themselves.

The corporate Lolbetarian idology shrilly trumpeted by American conservatives was comprehensibly discredited in Mesopotamia before it rattled apart in the West last year, with no defined planning anywhere, no real goal, no drive, and the hypnotic imcompetence of the crony filled CPA driving most of the deficient early US occupation polcies. The upper ranks of the US Military cop a lot of the blame as well, by not taking the lessions of Algeria, Lebanon, and of course Vietnam to heart.

I actually bought this book nearly three years ago when it was newly published, yet it was only until late last year that I got round to properly reading it and I certainly wouldn't call this door-stop of a book covering such a catastrophic event an easy read, but it is informative and eye opening to say the least. However the most negative fallout scenarios this book has predicted as possible outcomes have not properly transpired yet, but the Occupation will probably not end until 2011 at the very earliest, so the future is not ours to see at the minute. Are there other books similar to this that are recommended?

 

[SGCSG1]

It's recommended that anyone who uses the term 'occupation' to describe U.S. forces in Iraq pull their head out of their ass.

 

[TedShatner10]

Ehhhh, what should it be called then? No wonder you conservatives have become such a laughing stock.

 

[Harvey]

You'll probably get more visibility with this thread if it is moved to miscellaneous.

I haven't read Fiasco yet, but I did see the author make a presentation on the book a year and a half ago, and what he had to say was very damning. I'd like to read it if I have the chance, but with school and everything, I'll just have to wait and see.

 

[TedShatner10]

You'll probably get more visibility with this thread if it is moved to miscellaneous.

You're right.

I haven't read Fiasco yet, but I did see the author make a presentation on the book a year and a half ago, and what he had to say was very damning.

What did he say exactly? It is now quite some time after Fiasco was published, but Iraq seems relatively quiet and from Britain's perspective Afghanistan has been an ongoing headache.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It's recommended that anyone who uses the term 'occupation' to describe U.S. forces in Iraq pull their head out of their ass.

Ehhhh, what should it be called then? No wonder you conservatives have become such a laughing stock.

This month's approved substitute for 'occupation' is 'INVACATION.' Additionally, 'attacking' will now be known as 'FREEDOMIZING.'

I haven't read the book yet, but thanks for the review. I'll try and check it out.

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

It's recommended that anyone who uses the term 'occupation' to describe U.S. forces in Iraq pull their head out of their ass.

Up to and including the United States government from 2003 to 2004, which utilized the term frequently, and which voted for United Nations Resolution 1549 (which duly recognized the Coalition Provisional Authority and placed responsibility for Iraq in U.S. hands until 6/30/04), a document that repeatedly used the term occupation?

The United States occupied Iraq. It's cool; it's a neutral, internationally recognized term with a specific legal meaning. Let's not be too sensitive here.

As for recommended books on Iraq, there are by now scores of such books, but in addition to Fiasco, Rajiv Chandresakan's Imperial Life in the Emerald City and Michael Gordon's Cobra II are very highly thought of. The former deals with, perhaps obviously, the interplay between the Coalition Provisional Authority and events on the ground in Iraq, while the latter deals with the run up to, conduct of, and events after the invasion through December 2003.

I imagine the official U.S. military history of the invasion would probably be a good read too.

 

[FordSVT]

It's recommended that anyone who uses the term 'occupation' to describe U.S. forces in Iraq pull their head out of their ass.

Let's get down to it then: what would YOU call it?

 

[Harvey]

What did he say exactly? It is now quite some time after Fiasco was published, but Iraq seems relatively quiet and from Britain's perspective Afghanistan has been an ongoing headache.

It's been so long (and so much has happened in Iraq since) that the details have sort of faded. But certainly there was an emphasis on the corrupt, discredited strategy used by the Bush Administration that you've described.

There's a video of the event somewhere on the internet. I wonder if I can find it.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Ehhhh, what should it be called then? No wonder you conservatives have become such a laughing stock.

If that were the case then, the NYPD occupies New York.

Occupation denotes the "occupying force" controls the local government and runs all apsects of govenment operations.

Being present there and acting as a security force, does not an occupation force make.

No, you liberal potheads are a laughing stock. Ever wonder why liberal talk radio fails all the time? Talking shit like this and people don't wanna listen to it.

EDIT: Yes, the coalition provisional government was indeed an occupying force, but that was due to having a power vaccuum after the fall of Saddam and the first Iraqi election.

The problem is that the Left has mischaracterized the entire US pressence there as an occupation when in fact Iraq has been a sovereign nation since June 2004.

But why have this arguement now...in 2009? Iraq is nearly pacified and they just had their third elections, Bush has been redeemed, and the Left just can't stand it that the "surge" was a success and Iraq is nearly a victory. Had Obama had his way in 2006, Iraq would be a defeat...

 

[Harvey]

And had Obama had his way in the first place, Iraq would have never happened in the first place, and we'd all be better of for it. Is there a point between insulting the left as drug-addled "potheads," and the nonsequitor about boring liberal talk radio?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And had Obama had his way in the first place, Iraq would have never happened in the first place, and we'd all be better of for it.

Not sure Iraq itself would be better off, though, since Saddam would still be in power.

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

Ehhhh, what should it be called then? No wonder you conservatives have become such a laughing stock.

If that were the case then, the NYPD occupies New York.

Occupation denotes the "occupying force" controls the local government and runs all apsects of govenment operations.

Being present there and acting as a security force, does not an occupation force make.

No, you liberal potheads are a laughing stock. Ever wonder why liberal talk radio fails all the time? Talking shit like this and people don't wanna listen to it.

EDIT: Yes, the coalition provisional government was indeed an occupying force, but that was due to having a power vaccuum after the fall of Saddam and the first Iraqi election.

The problem is that the Left has mischaracterized the entire US pressence there as an occupation when in fact Iraq has been a sovereign nation since June 2004.

But why have this arguement now...in 2009? Iraq is nearly pacified and they just had their third elections, Bush has been redeemed, and the Left just can't stand it that the "surge" was a success and Iraq is nearly a victory. Had Obama had his way in 2006, Iraq would be a defeat...

Johnny, this sounds like an argument you've been having for a very long time with a whole slew of people. I'm, frankly, uninterested in reigniting that. If you're satisfied believing that Iraq is "pacified" and that the Bush Administration's conduct of the war is *poof" "redeemed," then bully for you.

The monumental level of dishonesty required to even type the words that would equate a civilian police force, raised, budgeted, equipped, and operated by taxpayer dollars remitted by the community from which those police officers originate, with a force of ethnically and culturally alien soldiers from foreign countries storming across the border at the cost of ultimately hundreds of thousands of lives...reverberates far louder than the tinny echo of one's screeching about the "Left."

While we're at it, "occupation" doesn't "denote" anything. There is an internationally recognized legal definition for what an occupation is; a definition recognized, and met, by the United States in Iraq. The reason to have this discussion is because, while occupations and wars may end, attempts to make asinine analogies and butcher the meaning and context of words never do. And they ought to be rejected.

It's these kinds of rhetorical tactics that cost the conservative crowd mightily in the last two elections. You can keep it up all day as far as I'm concerned, friend.

By the way, nice avatar.

 

[TedShatner10]

Over 4000 troops have died. Was that really worth it when they were better suited elsewhere? Afghanistan almost fell by the wayside because of the almighty non-sequitur of dimwit Bush and Wolfowitz wanting to settle old scores to fulfill their warped agendas.

 

[Hober Mallow]

This month's approved substitute for 'occupation' is 'INVACATION.'

Shorten that to "VACATION" and it sounds even better. Liberals -- you couldn't possibly be against our troops vacationing now, could you?

Additionally, 'attacking' will now be known as 'FREEDOMIZING.'

And "torture" is "freedom tickling."

Bush has been redeemed--

Indeed.

Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.

Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.

Oops.