Posted on 07/31/2007 11:06:10 PM PDT by darkness78
``It turned out to be incorrect,'' Cheney said in an interview with CNN's Larry King, the same interviewer to whom he made the statement in May 2005. ``The insurgency turned out to be more robust.''....In the interview, Cheney said he expects Petraeus's report will show ``we have made significant progress.''
He wasn’t wrong, his timing was just a bit off.
And Dems are saddened.
Would it follow Cheney would say Powell and generals arguing for more troops were more right, than they were given credit for, at the outset?
Hopefully the Iraq adventure will heavily influence “lessons learned” along with the blunders by State, Intelligence and other support departments.
It is as if WWII Germany and Japan happened so long ago, that we had zero institutional memory.
If we plan to invade and change regimes, we need a bigger military, in my opinion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1874427/posts
Check out post 39, unless I am missing something here, something does not smell right?
what difference do you think more troops would have made in fighting the insurgency? As an example where more troops didn’t help, look to Vietnam. We fought an insurgency there and it took even longer to put down the Viet Cong with half a million troops.
It’s kinda obvious.
Meanwhile the Democrats are undeterred with their calls for censure, impeachment, and continual investigations to undermine the war on terror.
Well obviously I am not a troll exposer, although I did try.
You did a great job!
Thank you, I like your approach better, right to the point. How does one get this dark side donkey dung about the Vice President removed?
I think your ping to JimRob may do it. Good catch my FReeper!!
You too. Goodnight.
Every war is different, and going in, the military thinks they have a handle on it. They never do, and their success depends on being willing to make the necessary changes.
Unfortunately, beginning with Vietnam, the military doesn't have the luxury of time to make those changes. The Democrats have fought the military every step of the way, and use any mistakes to pound them in the press. They try their best to turn public opinion against the military, especially in long, protracted operations such as Iraq. Gulf War I was an anomaly, but since all wars are judged based on the most previous one fought, many Americans expected this one to be just as short. They were different wars for different reasons, but the media and Democrats don't want to admit that. They use the length of the conflict against the military, disregarding the nature of the enemy. We're not dealing with the army of one country, we're dealing with Islamic fanatics from around the world, supported by a radical Islamic government outside the boundary of the country in which we're engaged in battle.
Briefly summarizing:
Saddam never planned a conventional response to our invasion. He intended a guerrilla war from the beginning. This caught us completely unprepared...and for 2 critical months Rumsfeld refused to acknowledge reality. When he finally did we were very vulnurable and desperate for a response.
And there was another surprise; the Shiites had been organized by the Iranians for the previous 10 years and were fully prepared to govern the country following our "victory". We agreed to let them if they would help us with the Sunni guerrillas.
It turned out we didn't need as much help as we thought. Money bought the loyalty of Saddam's "army". So we reneged on our deal with the Shiites. That and factional disputes within their ranks are what led to the ensuing disorder.
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.