John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "Iraq is going great." If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.

Classic viewpoint of someone who has never served. I do believe that some people get their ideas of what military life is like from the movie's they watch... Ask any veteran how romantic Iraq is.

[JWsleep]

The lack of planning was not in the attack stage. We easily conquered to country and deposed Saddam. The problem was what to do next. The so-called "Powell Doctrine" called for many boots on the ground and a coalition to help bear the costs. Rummy was a proponent of a new, mobile army that can strike quick, effect change, and get out. When the chairman of the joint chiefs suggested to congress in the buildup to war that as many as 200,000 troops might be needed, he was shit-canned by Rummy. Powell and the state department formed a study group on the post war process. They called in experts, Iraqi expats, etc., to figure out what the risks were and what to do. A crucial risk identified was the need for post-conflict security to handle the vacuum of power left by Saddam's fall. Rummy got wind of the group, and disbanded it. Their plan was not even considered by the DOD. That's what I mean about lack of planning, not that the military in the initial invasion didn't have a plan. General Franks did have a plan, and a good one, for smashing the Iraqi army and taking control of the country. But note that he retired WITHIN WEEKS OF THE FALL OF BAGDAD! Why? Because he quickly realized he did not have control of the situation: he'd been supplanted by control from the civilians from DOD, first Garner and then, woefully, Bremmer.

Rummy, with the support of Cheney, were behind these moves. That's the issue here, I think, and you don't have to read the NYTimes to believe it. Check out many of the books by people formerly in the administration--they are by no means liberals. And, if you can, get a hold of that Frontline. If you see things wrong with it, I'd like to know. it would make me feel a bit better if these guys weren't so incompetent. But I think they were, given what I've seen.

To reiterate: I think the military has done a fine job in trying circumstances. The main reason we've got control now is that a proper plan of action, developed on the ground by people like Col. McMaster ("Tal Afar") and Patreus. Rummy always opposed this approach, which echoes of the Powell doctrine.

[mheisig]

Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.

This is what I keep saying and people look at me like I'm nuts. It's not that I like that that's how it is, it just is...

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

The lack of planning was not in the attack stage. We easily conquered to country and deposed Saddam. The problem was what to do next. The so-called "Powell Doctrine" called for many boots on the ground and a coalition to help bear the costs. Rummy was a proponent of a new, mobile army that can strike quick, effect change, and get out. When the chairman of the joint chiefs suggested to congress in the buildup to war that as many as 200,000 troops might be needed, he was shit-canned by Rummy. Powell and the state department formed a study group on the post war process. They called in experts, Iraqi expats, etc., to figure out what the risks were and what to do. A crucial risk identified was the need for post-conflict security to handle the vacuum of power left by Saddam's fall. Rummy got wind of the group, and disbanded it. Their plan was not even considered by the DOD. That's what I mean about lack of planning, not that the military in the initial invasion didn't have a plan. General Franks did have a plan, and a good one, for smashing the Iraqi army and taking control of the country. But note that he retired WITHIN WEEKS OF THE FALL OF BAGDAD! Why? Because he quickly realized he did not have control of the situation: he'd been supplanted by control from the civilians from DOD, first Garner and then, woefully, Bremmer.

Rummy, with the support of Cheney, were behind these moves. That's the issue here, I think, and you don't have to read the NYTimes to believe it. Check out many of the books by people formerly in the administration--they are by no means liberals. And, if you can, get a hold of that Frontline. If you see things wrong with it, I'd like to know. it would make me feel a bit better if these guys weren't so incompetent. But I think they were, given what I've seen.

To reiterate: I think the military has done a fine job in trying circumstances. The main reason we've got control now is that a proper plan of action, developed on the ground by people like Col. McMaster ("Tal Afar") and Patreus. Rummy always opposed this approach, which echoes of the Powell doctrine.

Couldn't have said it better.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.

this is a great post. but this administration saw Iraq as the defining point of George Bush's legacy. this was a gross miscalculation. i think they had a plan, but really never looked outside the box. can anyone really say, right now, that Iraq WANTED to be liberated? and they thought it would be smooth sailing once they took down Hussein(sp?). now, i think there needs to be a time table for when the Iraqi people need to step up, and be accountable for their own country. otherwise, the United States will be there for a long time

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Political affiliations aside, everyone seems to skip over the fact that no country in human history has ever invaded another country, won the hearts and minds of the people, installed a democratic form of government and then had everything turn out well.

You can't shove your governmental architecture on people who don't want it. Most invasions in history were of the "invade, kill everyone and enslave a few" kind. I don't know where we get this idea that we're going to invade someone's country and they'll end up loving us and adopting our form of government.

This seems absolutely correct to me. The issue is that the neo-con view of the invasion didn't take this problem seriously. The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was Paul Wolfowitz, neo-con par excellence. This led the administration to down-play post-invasion planning. It wasn't folks on the left that made this mistake, it was the neo-cons and their blending of Wilsonian "nation building" with strong uses of American force. Kissinger, a realist, wouldn't have done this. Nor would have the elder Bush and James Baker.

Of course, GHW Bush and James Baker left Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I for that reason, and I'm not into that move either, don't get me wrong. I was pro-invasion for the sorts of reasons spouted by Thomas Friedman: we can positively influence change in the middle east, and it's in our interests to do so. But a mis-planned and mis-executed war serves no one's interests, and gives comfort to those who don't accept ANY use of force in our foreign policy (and who tend to be highly suspicious of anything done by our military).

[BleedBurgundy]

[QUOTE=JWsleep;435417]The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was Paul Wolfowitz, neo-con par excellence. QUOTE]

Aside from the seriousness of the issues we're discussing, I have had the misfortune of meeting Wolfowitz on several occasions, and my impression is that he is one off the wall guy. Maybe it was because I was just a "nobody" but he couldn't even look you in the eye during a conversation and just came off as kind of strange. If you didn't know who he was, he was definitely not someone you would think would be in a position of considerable authority.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by dmek25

this is a great post. but this administration saw Iraq as the defining point of George Bush's legacy. this was a gross miscalculation. i think they had a plan, but really never looked outside the box. can anyone really say, right now, that Iraq WANTED to be liberated? and they thought it would be smooth sailing once they took down Hussein(sp?). now, i think there needs to be a time table for when the Iraqi people need to step up, and be accountable for their own country. otherwise, the United States will be there for a long time

I've got a real problem with starting an argument like this. How do you know that the administration saw the war as the defining point of the "Bush legacy"?

Were you in the strategy meetings? Have you interviewed top administration officials and determined this? Or is it just pure conjecture?

Regardless of their motivations, which only they know, the whole thing was ill-advised and flies in the face of centuries of military history.

I fail to understand why people can't learn from history...it's like this generation thinks history doesn't apply to us.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

This seems absolutely correct to me. The issue is that the neo-con view of the invasion didn't take this problem seriously. The main "greeting us with flowers" guy was Paul Wolfowitz, neo-con par excellence. This led the administration to down-play post-invasion planning. It wasn't folks on the left that made this mistake, it was the neo-cons and their blending of Wilsonian "nation building" with strong uses of American force. Kissinger, a realist, wouldn't have done this. Nor would have the elder Bush and James Baker.

Of course, GHW Bush and James Baker left Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I for that reason, and I'm not into that move either, don't get me wrong. I was pro-invasion for the sorts of reasons spouted by Thomas Friedman: we can positively influence change in the middle east, and it's in our interests to do so. But a mis-planned and mis-executed war serves no one's interests, and gives comfort to those who don't accept ANY use of force in our foreign policy (and who tend to be highly suspicious of anything done by our military).

Few things make for a strong argument like calling people "neo-cons."

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I've got a real problem with starting an argument like this. How do you know that the administration saw the war as the defining point of the "Bush legacy"?

Were you in the strategy meetings? Have you interviewed top administration officials and determined this? Or is it just pure conjecture?

Regardless of their motivations, which only they know, the whole thing was ill-advised and flies in the face of centuries of military history.

I fail to understand why people can't learn from history...it's like this generation thinks history doesn't apply to us.

It's the type of argument that leftt-wing liberals make about Bush. They can't possibly fathom that Bush and his Administration actually had good intentions but were simple wrong and/or incompetent. They'd rather make the arguments that they lied, misled, perpetrated incomprehnesible evil and so forth. It is an emotional argument based almost entirely without fact. And it makes actually discussing issues with them almost unbearable. It has led to the notion that Dick Cheney is evil when every objective piece of information I can get about him is that he is not. Same with Bush. When it comes to Rumsfeld I have found information that leads me to believe that he is less than honest and had intentions outside the well being of our country and I despise him for it. As for Bush and Cheney I just don't have a hatred but a huge feeling of disapointment. I still lay proper responsibility at their feet but my feelings towards them in general are much more tempered than towards Rumsfeld. I can't get over the notion in my head that had Powell been given a bigger voice I think we'd not be in the situation we are now. If anything, Bush lacked the ability to find and listen to the right people to execute his vision. I certianly don't think he went forth with some evil intentions and I find people who continue to speak of such things as off the reservation or simply naive to the the modern day political propanganda machinations of seek and destroy without regard for reason and truth.

[70Chip]

I think a strong case could be made that if we had not deposed Saddam in 2003, the Iranians may have eventually called his chemical weapons bluff and the Clerics in Tehran would today be the world's largest oil producer. It seems clear now that he was not forthcoming with the inspectors so as to make his position seem stronger than it was or to at least create confusion in the minds of his enemies. Bush should have asked the CIA to make the case that Saddam didn't have WMDs. That evidence would have been even flimsier than the evidence on the other side and it would have made the situation more clear to the world. The problem wasn't merely the possibility that Saddam had WMDs but that no one seemed able to say for certain one way or the other. He behaved as though he had them. Everybody can poke holes in the case for WMDs in hindsight, but I don't remember anyone boldly proclaiming at the time that Saddam was clean. Nobody in any intelligence agency anywhere ever made that case so far as I know. There were people who oppossed the war, but they did so in spite of the strong possibility that WMDs were there.