But let's say it's true: Let's say the Iraqi governing council said, "This is a good opportunity for us to show the people of Iraq that we are in charge, and that we can start to handle some of our own security." And let's say that over the next 3-4 weeks, lo and behold, we start getting bad guys turned in. At some point it depends on what the mission is: is the mission JUST to kill bad guys, or is it to establish a self-governing pro-American state that can take care of these types so we don't have to?
Every war involves numerous political considerations. We are all familiar with Eisenhower allowing fuel and supplies to go to Montgomery to clean out the V-2 firing positions, which came at the expense of Patton's tanks. Political considerations are not wrong just because they are complex.
No official has ever claimed the opposite. NEVER.
Now when there’s clear evidence of the obvious, calling it ridiculous is sad.
South Korea was a pretty rocky enterprise at first but we provided security and nobody gainsaid us.
But what we have here is a stay-behind organization of werewolves who'll tear the throat out of any new regime that tries to get its footing in postwar Iraq. We have to kill those people if the new Iraqi government is to have any chance.
If there appears to be any chance that the Ba'athist Mau-Mau is going to work, ordinary Iraqis will have to continue to hedge their bets, and support for the new government will remain kitten-weak among the people, dragging us back into it whether we want to be there or not. The right answer is to do it right the first time, and smartass Rummy didn't get it done, he tried to do it "on the cheap".
And that last idea is his boss's fault. That's signature George W. Bush. And ultimately, that impulse to do it "on the cheap" goes back to the Wall Street Wing of the Republican Party, to the people in Manhattan corner suites who insist on having their tax cuts in a time of war.