call someone who cares.
Posted on 04/07/2005 5:04:22 PM PDT by Zivasmate
The fifth lesson is to ignore those who now recant and try to get right. Seems like Perle has just about done a 180 or maybe it was just a head fake.
How ya gonna do that if a brutal dictator like Saddam has killed all his opposition? There simply wasn't any opposition in the local population.
First, it is essential that we are clear about, and carefully align, our political and military objectives.
This one is rather mysterious to me. What is Perle saying? In what sense were our military objectives in Iraq not aligned with our political objectives? (Not rhetorical question -- I am honestly wondering what Perle has in mind here.)
This brings me to my second lesson: In aligning our political and military strategy, we should make sure we have the support of a significant segment of the local population.
Makes sense to me.
The third lesson is, by now, generally accepted: our intelligence is sometimes, dangerously inadequate.
Obviously. Incidentally, this was news to me: "There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime."
What I worry about is that the "intelligence was wrong" meme often gets interpreted in a simplistic one-sided way, as if the main task is to always reduce our estimates of what materials are possessed by foreign regimes, always lower our estimates of foreign threats. That would be a grave mistake.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, a fourth lesson: we must do everything possible to avoid becoming an occupying power. ... The image on Iraqi television of an American pro consul informing the Iraqi people of the rules we made for them and the arrangement of their lives for which we assumed responsibility, contributed significantly to the difficulties we have had in Iraq.
I can't argue w/this. I wish I understood the reason for waiting so long to hold an election, myself.
We'll, I'm not as eminently qualified as these experts but even I know that is just plain stupid.
"How ya gonna do that if a brutal dictator like Saddam has killed all his opposition? There simply wasn't any opposition in the local population?"
I think it all boils down to advance intelligence work, and I'm not referring to WMD's either. But our intelligence was not what it should have been in being familiar enough with the political attitudes of the iraqi opposition.
But the blame for the intelligence problem has to sit mostly with the Demorats, who spent years doing everything possible to decimate out intelligence all over the world.
"What is Perle saying? In what sense were our military objectives in Iraq not aligned with our political objectives?"
Again, we didn't have good enough advance intelligence on the ground in Iraq because we didn't know who was the real political opposition and who we should align ourselves with. We didn't know if Sistani and others were with us or against us.
So our political objectives became unclear as to whom are allies were within Iraq, in order to more quickly turn over the country to the friendly opposition of Saddam, who might be oriented to having a democratic gov't.
It appears Pearle is no longer singing pearls of wisdom. Just his statement "This brings me to my second lesson: In aligning our political and military strategy, we should make sure we have the support of a significant segment of the local population.", makes me believe I no longer value his pearls of wisdom.
How the hell can one obtain a concensous to attack a country if you cannot even talk to the population beforehand. Is he indicating that we should somehow enter a country we plan to attacked, then set up polling places so that we can find if a majority of that nations population want us to come in and attacked them? Unless I do not understand what he said in #2, it appears he is simply flapping off. He like many others are now voicing opinions that seem to not dovetail with what they original urged the POTUS to do. Pearle had plenty of input to offer the administration prior to the invasion. Is he indicating that he was not amoung those that had their acts together?
Nobody asked you to read it. Take your quarter and go stuff it. Have a wonderful evening.
This isn't a "lessons learned"... its a wish-list for a different reality than we faced.
I was refering to dick pearl, the author, not you.
All he's saying is that on the ground intelligence stunk. And he's right. Because the 'Rats spent years decimating our intelligence apparatus all over the world. But you'll NEVER hear that from the MSM. The problem is you don't hear it from the feckless Republicans either.
Agreed. Dick Pearl is abusing the term "lessons learned" in order to attempt to sprinkle his comments with credibility, but it doesn't work for me.
I apologize. Or as the late Gilda Radner used to say:"Never mind !"
It's all good. :)
You don't think there was an on the ground intelligence weakness? Do you think my post #13 has any validity?
Can I share my 4 "broad lessons learned" from Iraq?
Well, yes, the intelligence stunk in some pretty important ways. But it wasn't *all* wrong.
But he's wishing for an effective contra force in Iraq like we had in Afghanistan. Sure, it would've been nice, but it just wasn't there to be had, good intel or not.
With regard to not being an "occupying" force after the takedown... well, I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. To just roll into town and take out the dictator and disappear would just mean some other ba'athist thug would have taken over. New boss same as the old boss.
Who are the 4 broads?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.