Posted on 03/19/2006 8:18:36 AM PST by SmithL
When the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq three years ago, the Bush administration was brimming with confidence that this would be a war only in the sense that a lot of bombs would be dropped and the military would seize, temporarily, a foreign capital. It was going to be swift, high-tech, clean.
Six weeks later, President Bush spoke in the past tense about Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanking the Iraqis who welcomed the U.S. troops and promising that democratic change would sweep the region.
Now, with sectarian violence roaring and casualties rising, the White House increasingly is talking, in the present tense, about a long war, meaning the old-fashioned kind -- "the crucible with the blood and the dust and the gore," as Gen. Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last fall.
Three years on, experts from the left and the right say, the costly Iraq war has barely begun, and if there are to be broad benefits, as the president still promises, they could be years away.
William Odom, a retired lieutenant general who ran Army intelligence and later the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, has called the Iraqi adventure "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."
"What we've learned is that you cannot impose a Pax Americana solution," said Conrad Crane, a Middle East expert at the Army War College who is leading a crash rewriting of the military's counterinsurgency manual in response to the unanticipated tenacity of the resistance. "You are not going to have a Western-style democracy, and you're not going to have a market economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
then you are clearly against how we ended WW2 and are implying that most of our troops are against how we ended it.
If the majority of Iraqis truly welcomed the U.S. as liberators, there would be no need to have 130,000+ military personnel over there. We could just leave several million AK-47s and several hundred million rounds of ammunition there, and let them clean up their own neighborhood.
Frankly, you're full of it. I seriously doubt you get this "directly".
I have put the map up before and will again.
If we are to ever change the path that the Mid East has been on for the last 30-40 years there was only one place to start,Iraq.
Logisticly and for security it had to happen.If we did not IMO we might as well have surrendered.
long ago, our forces won the war they were designed to win. what has taken place since, this nation building policing phase - was always going to be a drawn out affair, with lots of ups and downs.
its up to the iraqis now.
Great map.....thanks.
Ah the straw man.. Bush never said it would be quick or easy..
Written from the San Fransicko Hemorrhoid you should expect sick, I guess..
Okay, I'm laughing at just your responses to this bluefish character and so I am going to find out what prompted your lovely comebacks to this obviously misimformed minion...
Then please, establish how you view it differently.
Taking it completely out of "war" status seems a little trite considering US troops are fighting an enemy, and that enemy is a real threat.
Good, but the most direct reason I usually give to people as to why we had to go into Iraq is that after 9-11 we had to make sure that terrorists couldn't just pick up shop and go somewhere else to plot destruction. In order to make sure that governments who might be willing to support terrorists got the message we had to demonstrate that we were serious about fighting terrorism wherever we found it and that governments couldn't hide behind plausible deniability by supporting terrorists off the books-if we even suspected you were supporting terror we would act. We couldn't make that argument effectively as long as someone like Saddam who had been a thorn in our side for years remained in power. The other reasons you mention are true as well, but removing Saddam was a legitimate policy for us to pursue in fighting the WOT and any Dhimmmicrat would have done the same (I like to think the Republicans would have been a lot more responsible as the opposition party however).
That was my first thought. "Riiiiight."
AC, you're confusing the Iraqi people with the multitude of foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq. Those terrorists are why we still have lots of troops here.
It's called a War on Terror. They're largely concentrated into one place now.
Makes it a little easier to achieve victory. And regardless of what your "direct" sources are telling you, we are winning this thing.
Come on over and check it out for yourself. Dare ya.
Then you must first establish how this is like Korea. That was a "policing" action.
Hey-no fair. No stinking Burger King or Subway on our FOB (Heck we barely had a chowhall).
Read posts #15, #20 and #33....LOL
"It is Vietnam all over again."
Yes, we are winning militarily, and are succeeding, but the defeatist Democrats and MSM want us to lose at home what we are winning on the battlefield.
Just like Vietnam.
"We could end this war any day we wanted, just as we could have ended Vietnam any day we wanted."
Idiotic statement. Anyone who knows counterinsurgency knows these things take *time* ... nevertheless the chance of the insurgents winning is approximately .... 0% , IF WE STAY THE COURSE. I honestly believe that we are taking higher casualties SOLELY BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS KEEPING HOPE ALIVE FOR THE TERRORISTS.
If we had a more anti-terrorist media, IT WOULD BE OVER BY NOW.
"Good American men are dying in the 1000's because we are afraid of killing civilians and worried what the world thinks of us."
Our military leaders would strongly disagree with this. Further, it is exactly those civilian casualties that we do inflict (see headlines even today, we had a raid that killed some Iraqi civilians, every time this happens, the media trumpets it, and it makes us look bad) that give the terrorists the PR boosts they need ...
Solution? Simple - Iraqi Army will be doing more and more of the fighting. I know, the media will lie and call it a 'civil war' now, Iraqi Government fighting terrorists.
Never mind that, the key is to realize that war is hell, and the insurgents are the ones asking for it.
They're better than everyone else don't you know? That's why they don't feel they have to listen to the peons beneath them. The dark places they pull their stories from is the empty space in their brains. Jayson Blair is a prime example of a journalist today. Why go out and track down a story when you can sit at a bar, drink the afternoon away, and phone in your phony story...all while being on company time.
Well, I can't get to BK or Subway easily anymore and our chow hall REALLY sucks now. And they got caught washing the vegetables in {gag!} Baghdad city water.
Does that make you feel better? ;-)
Which FOB were you on?
... Two things-
1) Korea was a War. And saying otherwise before the Board will lose you points.
2) I was paraphrasing YOU. YOU explain it.
Not gonna touch it...not gonna go there....
Resist...resist...resist...
Mmmmmmphh!
Just calling it like I see it. Your opinion is worthless if it is wrong. Your panties are the ones that appear to be in a bunch. Get over it.
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.