Iraq: What Went Wrong

Enter Stage Right ^ | 11 December 2006 | John Bender

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

What went wrong in Iraq? We are about to start withdrawing our troops from the country and turn the fighting over to Nuri al-Maliki's government even though nobody but Bush, and a few of his die-hard worshipers, believe that the Iraqi military can control the country.

Although, Bush isn't calling it "Iraqization", it is, none the less, the equivalent of "Vietnamization" and will produce the same result.

But, how did we get to this point? How did, what should have been a relatively easy victory go so very wrong?

To answer that question one must look at the planning for the war and at the execution of the military conquest of Iraq. The planning for the war did not include any realistic planning for the occupation after the Iraqi government and military were defeated.

Bush and his neo-conservative advisors made no plans to deal with a resistance movement after Iraq fell. They didn't believe there would be any resistance once Saddam's government fell. Just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, Vice President Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and wouldn't even entertain the idea that there might be a resistance.

"MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

The administration's refusal to even consider the possibility of a resistance in Iraq and failure to realistically plan for the occupation is the reason we have the current mess in Iraq. Bush made the same mistake Hitler made when he invaded France. Hitler didn't expect a resistance movement after defeating the government and setting up a new "independent" government. Nor did he want to destroy enough of the country to break the will of the people to resist. Bush expected to be greeted as a savior and didn't think there would be any resistance movement. Like Hitler, Bush didn't let the military destroy the cities, food supplies, utilities, their industries, etc. Both of them thought they could win without destroying the infrastructure of the enemy.

Hitler ordered his army to do as little damage as possible to the country and still conquer it. As a result, the French mounted a resistance movement that killed Germans and French collaborators during the whole time the Germans occupied the country as the "guests" of the Vichy Government.

Bush did the same thing in Iraq. He ordered the military to do as little damage as possible while taking Iraq. In both cases the "victor" didn't break the will of the conquered people to resist and paid a high price for that mistake in blood and treasure.

Contrast that with how we prosecuted WW II against the Germans and Japanese. We fire bombed German and Japan cities. Napalm was created in WW II to bomb German cities. We bombed their factories, utilities; water, sewer, electric plants and their roads and rail lines. We also bombed their dams flooding their farm lands destroying their food supply.

By the time we conquered their government the people had no will to resist. V.E. Day was May 8, 1945 and V.J Day was September 2, 1945. There was no resistance in either country. By January 1946 battle casualties had all but totally ended.

In 1946 we occupied Germany, Japan, North Africa and Italy and we had just 6 battle causalities world wide that whole year. Contrast that with our occupation of Iraq. We've had U.S. 2,756 dead in Iraq since Baghdad fell. That means 95.8% of our battle deaths occurred during the occupation rather than during the war.

Bush apologists like to compare the country's attitude about the Iraq war to the country's attitude about WW II, but never want to compare how we fought WW II with how Bush and the neo-cons fought the Iraq war. They want to pretend the war is still going on, but don't want to say we are fighting the Iraqi people.

Well, Saddam's Iraqi government is gone. We sure as hell aren't fighting the new Iraqi government we set up there. We are fighting an Iraqi resistance that shouldn't have been there, and wouldn't have been there had we fought this war like we fought WW II.

During the occupation of Germany and Japan the people depended on the army of occupation for their daily survival. The occupation forces had the food, water, clothing, oil and coal, controlled shelter for those whose homes were destroyed, and all money. People were worried about getting a drink of water and a meal rather than who was running the government. They no longer had the will, or the popular support, to mount a resistance movement.

Compounding his failure to destroy the people's will to resist, Bush started nation building before the country was pacified. That never works.

Iraq is a country of 28 million people and 80% of them don't want us there. Nation building under those circumstances is, to be charitable, not smart. It divides the military's efforts and provides targets for the resistance without providing us with sufficient indigenous support to eliminate the resistance.

Because Bush pretended there was no indigenous resistance movement and the violence was mostly the work of foreign trouble makers rushing into Iraq to fight against the U.S. military, the resistance is no longer just a resistance to foreign occupation. It is now a civil war with a large number of factions fighting for political power. Within just the Suni and Shiite groups there are some 80 or so sub-groups fighting for political dominance. Armed militias control more neighborhoods than the police and militia members make up large portions of many police units.

Maliki's government is a joke. It can't even control Baghdad, let alone run the whole country.

Now we have a mess that Pelosiand company are going to make worse. There is no good option at this point. The American people will not stand for the level of violence it would take to pacify Iraq now. Nor is it clear that any level of outside generated violence can really pacify the country at this point. The window of opportunity for that may well be closed.

But pulling out of Iraq will leave a power vacuum that Iran will rush in to fill. The consequences of that happening would make the current situation look desirable. That is the worst possible option.

At this point, the best we can do is maintain a force powerful enough to protect the oil production and shipping, protect the Kurds, and keep Iran from taking control of Iraq's oil. We need to kill, or arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, disband all militias, and protect the borders.

Of course, this will take a larger force than we have in the country now which will demand increasing the size of our regular army. But we can also make better use of our military by pulling them off nation building tasks and using those troops to fight the resistance. There is no reason our military should be building schools, building power plants, and teaching farmers how to increase crop yields while the country is in violent chaos. But we will still need more troops in country for the short term.

In the best case scenario an Egyptian style dictator will come to power and will stabilize the country. It will be in this dictator's self-interest to keep Iran out of the country so hopefully this new dictator will be nominally pro-Western on the order of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In the worst case, Iran will turn Iraq into a puppet and gain control of Iraq's oil.

Only three things are certain today. We can't just pull out. We can't keep doing what we've been doing. We wouldn't be in this position today if Bush fought the war the way FDR and Churchill fought WW II.

God help us. We need a leader who understands what needs to be done and who has the spine to do it. Unfortunately, neither anyone in the administration, nor our any of our Congressional leaders, is up to the task. ESR

John Bender is a freelance writer living in Dallas, Texas. He may be reached at jbender@columnist.com.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

I'm not for pulling out. I'm for fighting to win! As an example, I wouldn't have gone house to house in Fallujah. I would have used fuel air bombs and killed everyone left in the city. We gave them plenty of time to get out so everyone left was fair game.

But way before that, there wouldn't have been CNN reporters on hotel roofs when I bombed Baghdad. At least they wouldn't have lived to report on the bombing. Rummy and Hannety wouldn't be staying in Saddam's palace. It wouldn't be there. By the time our ground troops entered the city there would have been no resistance because there would have been little left of the city. Certainly there would have been no utilities or food in any city in the country. I would have done the same in other cities and destroyed all ability to live without coming hat in hand to our military.

Today we wouldn't be having this conversation because Iraq would be pacified and under control.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

You need to keep up with what's going on in the world. As far back as 2004 Gen. George Casey changed the estimate of the proportion of foreigners among the resistance saying was only about 5 percent rather than the higher estimates some pundits were using earlier.

In the fight for Fallujah, Gen Casey said: "Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the past week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters."

Nobody in the military or the administration is now claiming that the resistance isn't mostly made up of Iraqis.

[Defender2]

#2. That's because the Dem leadership IS part of the enemy along with their supporting enemedia.

[do the dhue]

I'll tell you what went wrong with Iraq:

A US Media that hates the home team spewed spew until everyone believed we can't win.

Bender wants to compare WWII or Vietnam. Lets do it all day long. How many US Troops died in four years during WWII? almost a half a million. How many US Troops died in Iraq? I'll give you 3,000. How about them numbers? They told us we would lose 10,000 going to Baghdad. I'd say our troops have done a pretty good job. And I am damn proud of them all.

I am here to argue this point. My troops aint being shot at in Bosnia. Pull them out of Bosnia because they are not needed. Iraq is a step away from falling into what Afghanistan fell into after the Afghan Russian war. Now is not the time to leave. I think Bender gets something right: now is the time to kill terrorist.

We are in the heart of the Middle East where they hate our guts and burn our flag. Let us do the job because being nice hasn't done diddly squat for the last forty plus years (that I know of). Let us take the gloves off and kill some terrorist. OR let the Sunni fight the Shiites and we can clean up when they are done. But before we do that, throw all the World's media out of Iraq. Send them to China. They should be able to find some human rights abuse to right about there.

And I would like to add: The reason why you get little support from the people of Iraq is because they are fearful of the terrorist. The people are fearful of the terrorist just like they were afraid of Hussein. Kids can't play in the street when terrorist are near by. Kids could play in the street with US Troops around. We like that. Gives us a chance to win hearts and minds. Plus we offer hope and a future to the people. Something a terrorist can't offer (especially when you have a bomb strapped on your keyster).

We may never win their hearts and minds but at least we tried. IF Bush would have chosen to use a large force, then all this crap would be blamed on a large footprint. What we are dealing with are children that need to let some energy off. Well, at least Bush is trying to teach Iraq these good things. IF I were President, I would let the Sunni's and the Shiites 'get it on'. Anyway, IF Iraq (and they probably will) chooses hatred and death, then they will die by the sword. That is the way it is.

We did those people a good thing by removing a murderous family. Maybe we can do them another good deed, if the media would help and the rest of the world would help, maybe it could be done.

[TheeOhioInfidel]

"While Bush’s effort to combat terrorism by planting democracy in the Islamic world was a noble strategy, and probably worth a go, the real problem with the policy is the now-evident fact that democracy and Islam are about as compatible as oil and water."

Word!

[DustyMoment]

You wrote to another poster "Rummy and Hannety wouldn't be staying in Saddam's palace. It wouldn't be there. By the time our ground troops entered the city there would have been no resistance because there would have been little left of the city. Certainly there would have been no utilities or food in any city in the country. I would have done the same in other cities and destroyed all ability to live without coming hat in hand to our military."

(sigh) On one level, Lambert, I agree with you. Wars are not won through politically motivated negotiations, but by utterly defeating your enemy and destroying his will to continue fighting. That's what we did in WWII.

But, that level of destruction comes with a huge price tag. Since the end of WWI, we have largely been unable to shed Europe from suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer. Beginning with the Marshall Plan and continuing under the guise of foreign aid, we have paid to re-build the cities and infrastructure our bombs destroyed in WWII. The whole purpose of the Neutron bomb, developed in the 80s or 90s, was to be able to kill the enemy without destroying cities and infrastructure. Sooner or later, in order to prevent anarchy or the mad mullahs (in the case of the ME) from taking control, buildings must be rebuilt, roads cleared and restored, electricity, water, telephones must all be reinstalled, and the means to support commerce created. That was part and parcel of what happened in Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. And all that rebuilding comes with a price tag.

We just didn't want to rebuild Iraq as we rebuilt Europe after WWII. That's why we used smart bombs and tried to fight a more humane war that didn't target a specific region, but targeted actual enemy combatants. In essence, it was a war of political correctness, fought to keep the outcry here at home muted by not killing boatloads of noncombatant "collateral damage".

While I don't necessarily agree with the tactic, I concede the political reality of fighting a war this way, especially in light of a hostile MSM and hostile "loyal opposition". There are tactics I might have employed to seek out and capture the terrorists, but those wouldn't have made anyone at home any happier, except for those of us who have actually walked a mile or two in a war zone.

Bottom line, Bush ended up in a no-win situation. You and I have traded a few barbs and had an interesting chin-wag (as my British friends call it), but it doesn't make either of us right or insightful. The Iraq War is what it is and, as has often been stated, no one can imagine this level of criticism and second guessing in the US during the height of WWII. Were there mistakes made then? Yew betcha, starting with Pearl Harbor. But, unlike today, the press and the politicians knew that quarreling over the state of an ongoing war was demoralizing to the troops still fighting, and they didn't do it.

At this point, it really doesn't matter whether Iraq is overrun with terrorists from outside Iraq, inside Iraq, or insurgents comprised of three-legged Andaluvian goats; the fact is, they are there. And, as long as the Dems and MSM demand exit timetables and undermine the president and the war effort, and demoralize the troops, the terrorists know that this will be a war of attrition that they can wait out much longer than we can.

So, what's the answer? Nuke Mecca? Level downtown Baghdad or Fallujah? I don't have the answer any more than you and, like it or not, we are stuck in a situation that we have to let the military fight their way whether we agree or not. In the final analysis, we all want the same thing; the war over, the troops home, stability in Iraq and peace in the ME. When we have that, then and only then can we, as a nation, turn our full attention to fretting over the fate and future of Brangelina.

[do the dhue]

And, as long as the Dems and MSM demand exit timetables and undermine the president and the war effort, and demoralize the troops, the terrorists know that this will be a war of attrition that they can wait out much longer than we can.

I see the above as a National Security threat.

[do the dhue]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1752665/posts?page=1

above link:
Saudis tell U.S. they may back Iraq's Sunnis-NY Times

It states: The Saudis have argued strenuously against a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, voicing fears that Iraq's minority Sunni population would be massacred, the newspaper said.

Like I said above: OR let the Sunni fight the Shiites and we can clean up when they are done.

They love to fight. Now, get it on.

[do the dhue]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1752665/posts?page=1
Throw the media out first and then get it on.

[Defender2]

#169. Totally agree. Throw the enemedia out of the entire middle east then get it on!!!!

[Just A Nobody]

So you are saying that despite these diverse sources, that you don't believe that the majority of Iraqis want us to leave?

Diverse sources? Stone, they are POLLS! (spit)
What are the internals? How many were polled? What % were Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurd, "insurgents", foreign terrorists and other? Polls (spit) are nothing more than manufactured opinion pieces, sold as news stories by the enemedia.

Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what percentage of Iraqis want to see us leave?

No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that polls (spit) are not factual simply because someone says they are. As a soldier back from Iraq told me today, the Iraqis are not going to answer these questions honestly. With all the rhetoric about cut and run, they will not risk being put on a list for corroborating with the Americans.

Even our government doesn't decide things based on a majority of the people.

Agree! They decide things based on who screams the loudest and most frequently or those that are stuffing money in their pockets.

If that were that case, we would have gotten out of Iraq, or at least created a solid timetable for withdrawal quite a while ago, since that's what the majority of Americans wanted.

Twenty-four months ago we had an election. President Bush was very comfortably re-elected in the middle of this war, clearly stating we will not leave Iraq until the mission is complete. That is what the majority of the American people wanted!

You DO NOT set a timetable for withdrawal in a war!!! Although the KToon did set a date for withdrawal from Bosnia...December 1995, IIRC. That worked out real well, huh?

[Just A Nobody]

If you don't believe in polls, what do you base this on?

The FACT that 75% of the eligible population VOTED and what our troops on the ground say.

[Just A Nobody]

I'm sorry.....the drumbeat began on 3-19-03. Before that really.

[Just A Nobody]

ROTFLOL!!! I loathe polls (spit) almost as much as I loathe the enemedia! (Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Hey, if we are not discussing -that p word- I would never (spit) again! ;*)

[Eva]

Did you ever dig a hole in the sand at the water's edge, when you were a kid? Do you remember how the whole refilled as fast as you could dig? Well, that's Iraq. The enemy is filling the void as fast as we are clearing it. The enemy are coming from the despotic regimes of Iran and Syria. If you can't understand that, you have no business even discussing the situation.

[unspun]

I agree. "Overwhelming force" that would have taken out Sadr, etc. would have probably been better than what actually transpired, but that wouldn't have done the trick.

The article's assertion that Irzq could have been completely vanquished, then a government installed, is ignorant of the nature of the insurgents, terrorists, and outside agents.

[Stone Mountain]

I'm not saying setting a timetable would be a good thing. I'm pointing out that governments don't do what the majority wants. Here and in Iraq.

And yeah, I realize they are polls (spit). But again, the links I provided tell you their methodology and when I mention diverse sources, it's to point out that these all aren't coming from the left wing.

You seem to be saying that there is no way to find out what the Iraqi people want since they will refuse to answer polling questions accurately. If that's the case, the anecdotal evidence provided by the soldiers isn't any more valid than the anecdotal evidence provided by the numerous blogs and polls (spit) that are out there. I don't see any more evidence for your position that the majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave than evidence that they do. And again, if you discount statistical samples, there's no way to ever gauge this. I will say that with what I understand to be happening there, it wouldn't surprise me at all that most Iraqis want us to leave. Once we toppled Hussein, there really isn't much we've been able to accomplish. Sure, they had elections. But at what cost - they had to close down the cities for days, thousands of American/coalition soldiers were needed to run them, and it would be surprising if many Iraqis had confidence in the government that is in place now. Police are corrupt or ineffective, and I don't see the government there doing a lot to hep the security problem. Besides, the government there is weak - at no time was this more clear than when Condi went to visit. We didn't even give their government any advance notice that she was going to show. Supposedly, it's their country, but we obviously couldn't trust even the president there to keep Condi safe if he knew she would be there. Obviously, I don't think we've made a good case to the Iraqis - all factions - that we are there to help them. There is a native distrust of the United States in the Middle East, and I have trouble believing that there are a lot of people in that region who believe that we are there for purely humanitarian reasons. It's very easy for me to believe that a lot of Iraqis want us out, if not immediately, than soon on a timetable.

[word_warrior_bob]

What went wrong?

We conquered a hostile country of 32 million people and held it for the past four years.....with fewer casualties in all that time than we have sustained in single battles in most other wars.

The media has proclaimed it a stunning defeat.

___________

Propaganda is amazing isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Half of the country are just idiots. With all of the sheeple being brainwashed, I don't see how we can win another war.

Wouldn't you love to see the media of 2006 cover WWII?

People wonder how Hitler came to power, your statement of reality is in direct opposition to the reporting of this war. There is a mass consciousness of a people, and most people will agree with what the majority of others believe. Ever see the psychological experiments of taking ordinary people and seperating them into guards and prisoners? The guards became as vicious as any Nazi.

There have been other real life situations where people will do things they would never DREAM of doing in circumstances where they go along with the crowd. It seems like half of elected REPUBLICANS seem to think the war is going badly now, or it's a mistake, etc.

It's not as hard as you think to brainwash a population.

LOOK AT THE ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.

Many believe that Jews make their bread from the blood of muslim children, etc.,etc. They have brainwashed most of their population, and the ones who don't believe it dare not speak a word for fear of being killed. Islamic populations are more fervent than Germans ever dreamed of being, and we're blind to it.

We'll wait until an American city gets nuked, just hope it isn't yours.

[Just A Nobody]

Hi Stone! ;*)

You make some good observations, and depending on the enemedia for information, or disinformation as it were, it is difficult to know what to think.

I reeeeeallly need to sleep. I will leave you with some links to check out and perhaps you will have thoughts and comments I can address in the morning.

Report #1 from FREE IRAQ! 11-6-06
Report #2 from FREE IRAQ! 11-7-06
Report #3 from FREE IRAQ! 11-9-06
Iraq Report - On the Homefront, 11-17-06

Photographs From Historic Trip to Iraq, 11-4-06

Back from Iraq: 11-19-06 by Debbie Argel

The troops we visited sent a message home.
They wanted the US to know that they want to complete their mission.
They have not asked to be rescued or brought home by the Dems.
They asked that CNN not subscribe to any more snuff films of soldiers being targeted for the benifit of news ratings.
They asked that CNN not report where they are going before they get there.

Photos From Gold Star Parents' Trip To Free Iraq -
Nov, 2006 (HEAVY GRAPHICS)
Photos by Kristinn | November 20, 2006

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

But, that level of destruction comes with a huge price tag. Since the end of WWI, we have largely been unable to shed Europe from suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer. Beginning with the Marshall Plan and continuing under the guise of foreign aid, we have paid to re-build the cities and infrastructure our bombs destroyed in WWII. The whole purpose of the Neutron bomb, developed in the 80s or 90s, was to be able to kill the enemy without destroying cities and infrastructure. Sooner or later, in order to prevent anarchy or the mad mullahs (in the case of the ME) from taking control, buildings must be rebuilt, roads cleared and restored, electricity, water, telephones must all be reinstalled, and the means to support commerce created. That was part and parcel of what happened in Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. And all that rebuilding comes with a price tag.

I agree except the cost would be less than the cost of what appears to be the outcome we are looking at today, withdrawal without securing the country.

Spending 50 years in a pacified Iraq with military bases and intel opps makes the cost of rebuilding the country cheap compared to the cost we will incur if Iraq falls into Iran's hands. When you add in having the ability to ensure that Iraq’s oil remains flowing at levels we need and at market prices, plus the fewer American lives lost, the cost is far less than we are realistically looking at paying for not doing the job right.

We just didn't want to rebuild Iraq as we rebuilt Europe after WWII. That's why we used smart bombs and tried to fight a more humane war that didn't target a specific region, but targeted actual enemy combatants. In essence, it was a war of political correctness, fought to keep the outcry here at home muted by not killing boatloads of noncombatant "collateral damage".

You're right that it was a war of political correctness rather than a war fought to win. And as we have seen fighting that way didn't stop the anti-war scumbags from whining about collateral dammage or pissing and moaning about how brutal we are.

Doing the job right (fighting to win total domination of the country) would have kept the time frame of the killing compressed giving them months to whine and moan rather than years.

Plus rebuilding with no resistance killing Americans and blowing up things we rebuilt would not have caused Americans to turn against the effort.

Americans are against the occupation because we are shedding American blood with no end in sight. Americans didn't turn against rebuilding Germany or Japan because it just cost money not lives.

It is also a fact that our occupation of Germany provided 50 years of relative peace in Europe. It can be argued (and I do) that a military presence in a pacified Iraq would make the Middle East a quieter place.

While I don't necessarily agree with the tactic, I concede the political reality of fighting a war this way, especially in light of a hostile MSM and hostile "loyal opposition". There are tactics I might have employed to seek out and capture the terrorists, but those wouldn't have made anyone at home any happier, except for those of us who have actually walked a mile or two in a war zone.

The media and the opposition are paper tigers. Note that most Democrats voted for the war. They did because the American people were mostly in favor of the war. The American people would be in favor of the occupation if our guys weren't getting killed and maimed.

A few weeks of intense bombing and a month or two of some violent rooting out the Saddamists and the bad news would have been over. The news and pictures coming out of Iraq over the past 3 1/2 years would have been of GIs walking around in Class A's and children playing in new school yards instead of IED's going off and GIs in full battle gear kicking in doors. By now most people would have forgotten that we destroyed their infrastructure.

Bottom line, Bush ended up in a no-win situation. You and I have traded a few barbs and had an interesting chin-wag (as my British friends call it), but it doesn't make either of us right or insightful. The Iraq War is what it is and, as has often been stated, no one can imagine this level of criticism and second guessing in the US during the height of WWII.

First the criticism and second guessing wasn't this high during the height of the Iraq war either. During the war it was rather muted. It ramped up during the occupation.

Had we faced this kind of resistance during the occupation of Germany and Japan after WW II the press would have been just as bad and the American people wouldn't have been as easy on the administration.

People forget that we could have had a conditional surrender from Japan several months before VJ Day. Truman refused to accept anything less than “unconditional” surrender because he feared it would hurt him politically. He rightfully understood that Americans like to win and with an unconditional surrender there would be no question about who won.

Were there mistakes made then? Yew betcha, starting with Pearl Harbor. But, unlike today, the press and the politicians knew that quarreling over the state of an ongoing war was demoralizing to the troops still fighting, and they didn't do it.

People also forget that the press wasn’t kind to our military during WW II either. They raised so much hell about Gen. Patton slapping that coward that he was relieved of command. How many lives do you think removing our best General during the height of the war cost?

Patton and Monty wanted to shut down Stars and Stripes because the paper poked fun at the officers and the living conditions of the troops. Gen. Bradley was outraged by press reports in Sicily and wanted to ban the press from the D Day invasion.

Patton was eventually relieved of command the final time because the press reported that he was using former Nazis in civil positions. It didn’t help that he told a reporter that Nazis were just politicians like Democrats and Republicans. The press whipped up a firestorm over that.

At this point, it really doesn't matter whether Iraq is overrun with terrorists from outside Iraq, inside Iraq, or insurgents comprised of three-legged Andaluvian goats; the fact is, they are there. And, as long as the Dems and MSM demand exit timetables and undermine the president and the war effort, and demoralize the troops, the terrorists know that this will be a war of attrition that they can wait out much longer than we can.

People are going to demand exit timetables as long as Americans keep dieing trying to build a country in which the locals are killing each other to gain political power. I disagree with my friend, Bender, that the American people will not support the level of violence we need to inflict on Iraq to turn the tide. I think they will if they see results. But I think that window is closing fast.

I think Bush has to move fast and violently and take the short term political hit to change this into a win for America, Iraq and the West. He needs to think like Lincoln and find a Gen. Sherman to turn loose on Iraq. I think there is still time to save this effort. I just worry that Bush isn’t up to the task.