Together, the Army and Marines shoulder the combat duties in Iraq, supported by the other services. But the primary burden of occupation has been borne by the Army — as it always will be. Given the difficulty of overcoming the breathtaking range of errors committed by political ideologues during this occupation's early phases — when it wasn't even permissible to term it an "occupation" — and the uphill struggle to salvage the situation now, one of the last things the Army wants to contemplate is another occupation in the future.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/04/2591168

Peters overlooks one thing that indicated to me the Iraq war was lost in 2003. Remember this was before 20% of Iraqis had became refugees, the rate of acute childhood malnutrition had doubled and Iraq's Christian have fled their homes for 1500 years.

When I saw the looting of the utilities. I realized no matter how much destroyed, the US would never see victory

In every other liberation of the 20th century, liberating forces made sure items needed would be available, i.e., electricity, water and sewage treatment.

Perhaps his is caused by the total indepdence of our forces from a liberated nations infastructure.

After all, who would need it except the Hajjs and "What is the value of one mere Hajj?'

We had control of the oil ministry, which will pay for 'Operation Iraq Liberation.'

The occupation doctrine in Islamic lands has already been established. It’s really pretty simple.

(1) If you have to stay there, brutally suppress the Islamic elements within the society. Ataturk of Turkey, the Shah of Iran, and Saddam Hussein are successful examples of this doctrine.
(2) If you don’t have to stay there, leave. The Mongols learned this in the 1200s, the British learned it after World War One.

9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."
-Winston Churchill

We have nothing resembling occupation doctrine, because it is not politically correct, and furthermore the new breed of officers has aggressively attempted to restrict the military's role to one of providing security, instead of governance. What is happening falls under the definition of COIN, but our COIN doctrine doesn't address the key aspects of occupation, it assumes there is a functioning (albeit challenged) government in place that needs to be stored up.

I disagree we lost the war in 2003 due to the damage to the public infrastructure. The sanctions already severely weakened the infrastructure before we arrived and put the icing on the cake. We lost the war in 2003 because we had no plan to fight it in 2004, because we deactivated the Iraqi Army, and as mentioned because we went in with far too small of force.

WRM

The way you name Ataturk with S. Hussein and Shah for your argument is just pure stupidity.

Read some history.

Just as much as you are lost in the Middle East now, you are lost in your doctrine making. From the commander-in-charge in White House to Everyday Joes like yourself you are all lost.

Here are some suggestions you could never figure out or your government would never agree.

1. Build a strong education system in Iraq.
2. Enforce and encourage the local governing.
3. Call all parts of the conflict on a table (Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Shia's)
4. Train as many security forces as possible, give the whole Iraqi youth an occupation.
5. Let the Iraqis vote for/against the occupation. You cannot stay there against their will.

This forum is awesome!

Nobody can demolish Atatürk's values and the republic established by him and his friends. Wrong using of the name of ATATÜRK by someone will have anexpensive return. Please, be respectful.

Agree that the Iraq effort was lost early on primarily as a result of Rumsfeld's failure to have a post-war plan for security and governance. The occupation should have been run by the military like it was in post-war Germany and Japan after World War 2, not by the State Department. Also, it is clear that we fought the war on the cheap---not enough troops. But it's all water under the bridge at this point. It is clear that we will be substantially drawing down our forces in 2008, as we should. Keep a presence outside of Baghdad. And deal with Iran using a big stick.