What would have made the U.S. look good is if the House Armed Services Committee had listened to Clark pre-war testimony in 2002 advising not to rush into this war.
http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonpost/2005-04-07
If opinions from General Shinseki, Zinni and a plan on how to conduct an invasion of Iraq and it's after math that had been around since some time after Gulf War I had been followed we may have looked good.
Calls from senior military and the Army War College that invading Iraq would not be a "cake-walk" and that we would need several hundred thousand troops to do the job went unheeded. The guy in charge claimed we would be greeted with roses and the job could be dome with 75k troops.
Guy's like Clark argued taking Bagdhad and removing Hussein would be the easy part and that restoring order in the cities, securing the borders an reconstituting as many non hardcore Sunni military as possible to give them a stake in the new country instead of becoming insurgents had to be down immediatley. He said that it would be too late a year or two after.
You don't have to did too deep to see that this war was a pipedream of a few civilian neocons that promised we would be greeted as liberators and that this action would sweep democracy across the entire mideast. This was not the prevailing military opinon. This was not the opinion from numerous think tanks like that Cato Institute would had position papers on the likelyhood of democracy succeeding in Iraq. Through it some rabid supporter from the media labelling anyone who diagreed with the plan as an America hater or evil-doer and it give you this mess.
Had we listened to the expert military opinions and secured the borders and cities from the start, we might have looked good. If we had secured the cities to prevent looting and chaos after Hussein fell as these experts suggest, we may have looked good. Instead we go witty quotes like "free people can do what ever they want".
As thousand of our troops had their appendages blown off or recieved serious head wounds we got more witicisms like "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want"
If we had conducting this war the way the experts wanted to we maynot have had to put our troops in aposition where they were fighting in the streets going door to door in a nightmare of a political war.
repost w/proof reading
What would have made the U.S. look good is if the House Armed Services Committee had listened to Clark’s pre-war testimony in 2002 advising not to rush into this war.
http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonpost/2005-04-07
If opinions from Generala Shinseki, Zinni and others and plan on how to conduct an invasion of Iraq and it's after math that had been around since some time after Gulf War I had been followed we may have looked good.
Calls from senior military and the Army War College that invading Iraq would not be a "cake-walk" and that we would need several hundred thousand troops to do the job went unheeded. The guy in charge claimed we would be greeted with roses and that the job could be done with 75k troops.
Guy's like Clark argued that taking Baghdad and removing Hussein would be the easy part and that restoring order in the cities, securing the borders an reconstituting as many non hardcore Sunni military as possible to give them a stake in the new country instead of becoming insurgents had to be down immediately. He said that it would be too late a year or two after.
You don't have to dig too deep to see that this war was a pipedream of a few civilian neocons that promised we would be greeted as liberators and that this action would sweep democracy across the entire Mideast. This was not the prevailing military opinion. This was not the opinion from numerous think tanks like that Cato Institute who had position papers on the unlikelihood of democracy succeeding in Iraq. Throw in some rabid supporters from the media labeling anyone who disagreed with the plan as America haters or evil-doers and you end up with a mess.
Had we listened to the expert military opinions and secured the borders and cities from the start, we might have looked good. If we had secured the cities to prevent looting and chaos after Hussein fell as these experts had suggested, we may have looked good. Instead we go witty quotes like "free people can do what ever they want".
As thousand of our troops had their appendages blown off or received serious head wounds we got more witticisms like "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want"
If we had conducted this war the way the experts wanted to we may not have had to put our troops in a position where they were fighting in the streets going door to door in a nightmare of a political war.
Why O Why do people sign up here at Free Republic, and the first thing they do is reply to me? It makes me nervous:)
I read every word of your comments and I could not disagree more. The bit at the end about appendages and head wounds was particularly insulting to me. My son is USMC, and will be heading back to Iraq for a third tour in Sept. I consider him to be much more of an "expert" than Wes the Weasel or you, for that matter. I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know that the sort of sneaky backbiting that is in every paragraph of your post is harmful to our troops and their morale. I happen to believe that the Iraqi Army should not have been dissolved, that and .35 cents will get you a cup of coffee....
If you're trying to get your foot in the door with me, don't bother.