[bothsides]

I think you are missing the point. The most important time of an occupation is the first months. During this time, nothing that was forseen as a possible problem was adaquetly prepared for. It so happens that what was forseen as possible problems are indeed the problems we are having.

Yes, if we go in blind (not taking any of the findings information) then we can only do what we can when situations arise. And yes, our soldiers over there are doing a great job of that fire-fighting.

But don't fool yourself, Rumsfeld sent us to occupy Iraq unprepared. Worse, he did it willingly.

[Batrachian]

I didn't say we where prepared for the occupation. I only said that you can't declare something like this a total failure after 7 months.

It also depends on what you think the goals where. If you think that the main goal of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to depose Saddam Hussein then you have to agree that from that point of view the mission was an unqualified success since Saddam Hussein was, indeed, deposed.

I'm starting to think that this was, in fact, the only real goal of the war. Everything else is window dressing, and if Iraq turns into an Islamofascist regime allied with Iran then I have to ask if it was such a brilliant thing to do, after all.

[LincolnLover]

Of the 40-plus replies to this rather long article, this one is the only one which gives at least a little credit where it is due (and some of the things discussed in the article seem more and more accurate as events unfold, esp. regarding the aftermath and troop strengths/security).

Given recent events, I'd be interested in hearing if this article still rings 100% untrue for all who read it here.