I remember senior military saying that more troops would be needed to secure Iraq after Saddam's fall. The Bush neocons told us "not so" our troops will be "greeted as hero's" and to an extent that was true, but without troops to prevent looting and maintain order the good will evaportated. With 20/20 hindsight it is now clear the professional military was correct and the neocons wrong.
What is maddening is the neocons will not admit/learn from their errors and continue to PERSONALLY ATTACT and destroy (just like Clinton) any and all critics.
The magnitude of the failure will soon be apparent as no one will trust this administration to deal with Iran. And Iran is a far more dangerous problem for the usa then Iraq ever was.
The usa is risking total defeat in a general war in the middle east.
A coup in Patistan could change the balance of power, Turkey is a wild card. Iran is attempting to become the Islamic super power, Iran needs a confrontation with the usa to achieve it goals. It is 1913 all over again and we had better get our ducks in a row fast. Russia is once again no friend, dido China. Both are backing Iran.
It might be helpful if you could provide an example of when a request from CENTCOM for more troops or more equipment was denied.
If you don't speak the language, the only way to stop the looting is to splatter the looters brains against the wall. You couldn't stop the looting with a million troops if they have orders not to shoot unarmed civiians.
The iraqis looted, not the Americans. It's the Iraqis fault if there was looting and stop blaming the Americans.
And speaking of the "not enough troops," where were these to come from? --- Waiting 3 years for a draft and training of whole new divisions? French troops? The crack French riot police are now complaining that they are stretched to the breaking point because over the last 6 months they are averaging 47-hour work weeks! (the poor puppies)
Thankfully the 'NEO-CONS' held a significant reserve (4/5s or so of our military) We are able to cover troop rotations and still deter the likes of North Korea, China, Iran, Syria and others. Sounds like Rumsfeld and company are making the best of what they have. Oh yeah, did you notice that this is all being done while maintaining the strongest economy on the planet. I think the President has just the right people exactly where they belong (including a number of ex-generals properly nashing their teeth on the sidelines)
I wouldn't use the word traitor, but they are using poor judgment by publicly airing their views and calling for the resignation of the SecDef. They are undermining the morale of the troops and the mission itself. Zinni was against the invasion of Iraq in the first place and advocated containment.
I remember senior military saying that more troops would be needed to secure Iraq after Saddam's fall. The Bush neocons told us "not so" our troops will be "greeted as hero's" and to an extent that was true, but without troops to prevent looting and maintain order the good will evaportated. With 20/20 hindsight it is now clear the professional military was correct and the neocons wrong
You must be referring to the General Shinseki and Zinni plan using overwhelming force. Tommy Franks changed the plan developed under his predecessor, Zinni at CENTCOM.
"In a speech to a business group in Washington, retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks said that when he gave Bush a status report on the war in Afghanistan on Dec. 28, 2001, he also presented the commander-in-chief with a plan for launching combat operations against Saddam Hussein."
Franks said he told Bush he didn't like the plan and that he was ordered to put together another one, which he showed to the President in January 2002.
The Franks Plan was vetted and approved by the military commanders, Rumsfeld and Bush. Some in the military also wanted to use many more troops in Afghanistan.
What is maddening is the neocons will not admit/learn from their errors and continue to PERSONALLY ATTACT and destroy (just like Clinton) any and all critics.
What neocons are you referring to? Kristol wants Rumsfeld to resign.
The magnitude of the failure will soon be apparent as no one will trust this administration to deal with Iran. And Iran is a far more dangerous problem for the usa then Iraq ever was
You are buying the MSM crap. Over the past three years, we have destroyed two oppressive and murderous regimes [Saddam and the Taliban] and liberated two countries totalling over 50 million people, free elections have been held in Iraq and Afghanistan, 8.5 million Iraqis braved death and injury to vote for a constitution and the formation of a new government, and suffered very low casualties.
In the region, Syria has moved out of Lebanon and Libya has renounced its ambitions for a nuclear weapon including turning over to us all the nuclear material and equipment it had. We now flank Iran with troops and planes in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it far easier to exercise a military option against Iran. Given our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranians believe that what Bush says is very credible.
The usa is risking total defeat in a general war in the middle east.
Certainly not in Iraq. The "enemy" cannot operate in any significant way, military units, hold territory, etc. They are forced to use IEDs and suicide bombers in sporadic attacks confined primarily to a small area of the country. They don't have a viable political alternative except anarchy. They also constitute a very small percentage of the population with estimates ranging from 10 to 30 thousand. The only way we can be defeated is at home by losing the support of the American people and Congress.
A coup in Patistan could change the balance of power, Turkey is a wild card. Iran is attempting to become the Islamic super power, Iran needs a confrontation with the usa to achieve it goals. It is 1913 all over again and we had better get our ducks in a row fast. Russia is once again no friend, dido China. Both are backing Iran.,/i>
Do you think that Pakistan would confront the US militarily? Turkey is a member of NATO. As long as a Kurdistan is not formed and Iraq remains a country, Turkey will not be a "wild card." Iran doesn't want a confrontation with the US, just the appearance of one. The Iranian leadership is under domestic pressure. Stirring up nationalistic feeling is one way to defuse the opposition.
1913 all over again? LOL. What are the similarities? Russia has an economic interest in Iran. They are building the nuclear reactors and have been for quite a while. China is interested in locking up long term oil contracts with Iran and have been doing so. They have also sold arms to Iran. We are meeting with China and Russia to see if we can arrive at some joint policy. If not, we will proceed ahead in pursuit of our national interests. The Chinese and Russians were against our involvement in the Balkans.
Some tasks are difficult by nature. It's tough, for example, to "criticize the war, but support the troops." Most peaceniks can't pull it off. Likewise, when a former employee/General starts spouting off about the flaws of his former workplace, it's tough (but possible) to not sound whiney. Most folks, I think, gave these former Generals the benefit of the doubt for good intentions. They saw it as merely a difference of opinion.
It's gone past that now. They overstepped, and they should expect he backlash that is surely coming.
Anyone so shortsighted as to regard hindsight as infallible also wouldn't understand that there's no perfect alternative. We could have dumped another 200,000 troops into Iraq; that may very well have set off Iraqis unifying against what would be viewed as an occupation force. You don't get to choose your consequences, merely your actions.
Any real world choice involves not perfect and imperfect alternatives, but flawed versus flawed. Those who employ 20/20 hindsight reveal their ignorance about real world decision making. Perfect decision making does not allow for consequence-free results; most often you merely get to choose the negative alternatives you'd rather risk.
That's the nature of life and the nature of war. I'd be disappointed if lessons weren't learned from this action. There are, however, some lessons that only experience can teach.