Signs Show U.S. Underestimated Iraq War

Associated Press ^ | September 26, 2003 | Robert Burns

[Pukin Dog]

Thank you.

[AngryJawa]

Thanks P.D...especially for your service.

I really appreciate your perspective on this. It helps cut through all the crap we hear everywhere else.

Praying for Rummy's continued good health...

[Steve_Seattle]

"But there is nothing wrong with act of pointing out mistakes and areas requiring improvement."

No, but I would like an honest admission (by critics) that any undertaking the size of the Iraq war would inevitably include mistakes and unforeseen developments, and that the existence of such isn't necessarily a sign of bad planning. I have been involved with several major computer projects, and there are ALWAYS unforseen developments and problems, and there are ALWAYS prophets of doom who insist the project will fail. But none have failed yet. It's the arrogance of the critics that bugs me, not the criticism itself.

[arete]

Yep, we were on a mission to save the world from communism and protect the American way of life in Viet Nam and bring enlightenment to those backward people. Bombed them right back into the stone age and back again. We couldn't lose -- until we did. It only cost 55,000 Americans to prove how superior we are.

Richard W.

[Cacophonous]

That's a fair statement.

It is also true that there were many that predicted many of the problems we see now in Iraq, and that warned that it wouldn't be the cakewalk many of the rah-rah warriors in the media touted. These folks were shunned aside, many were called traitors.

An acknowledgement that perhaps they weren't crackpots or traitors is called for. Honesty is a two-way street.

Most important, an acknowledgement that war planners learned from these lessons, and will plan accordingly in the future.

[Pukin Dog]

Hey, you guys should not be thanking me. Serving our country is an honor. I had a dream job, and I loved every minute of it. I thank you folks who paid for it.

[Pukin Dog]

Excuse me, but we did NOT lose in Vietnam. Our leaders quit, and before that, they were too cowardly to let us win. We were able to draw the North to the negotiating table whenever we wished by bombing the crap out of them. We quit the war because our leaders allowed the public to withdraw their support. We also quit because we mistakenly believed that conscripted soldiers would have the same discipline as volunteers. Some actually did, but not enough. What should have happened, was a sustained bombardment of Hanoi until we achieved surrender, not just agreement to negotiate. Neither the Chinese or Soviets wanted to take us on directly over that country. If they would not fight for Cuba, they were not going to fight for Vietnam.

[mystery-ak]

Bravo.....I couldn't agree more....one more example, for 6 years my hubby's unit canablized their own choppers for spare parts....he was going to retire in 2000 if Gore was elected...thank God he wasn't.

[lawdude]

Isn't it "misunderestimated"?

[arete]

Excuse me, but we did NOT lose in Vietnam. Our leaders quit, and before that, they were too cowardly to let us win.

Okay, we got our butts kicked real good by people without shoes and wearing PJ's. Then we quit.

Richard W.

[OXENinFLA]

What did we underestimate?


How fast and hard we were going to kick Saddams'a$$

[dalebert]

They might have underestimated it but I didn't. Some things take a little time, money and hard work. I think we are doing great.

[Pukin Dog]

If you want to consider more than 1.1 million NVA deaths compared to 58 thousand american deaths a 'buttkicking' for our side, then you need a history lesson. This is not something deserving argument; you should have more respect for the brave men who died then to suggest that we LOST that war. We did not. And if you knew anything about the Vietnam war, you would know better than to suggest they were nothing but people without shoes wearing PJ's. The North Vietnamese were motivated, skilled combatants, with the advantage of not having to listen to public opinion shaped by their own Walter Cronkite. If you dont intend to discuss the matter factually, might I suggest you show more respect for those who died for their country and STFU?

[arete]

This is not something deserving argument; you should have more respect for the brave men who died then to suggest that we LOST that war.

Has nothing to do with respect for the mostly conscripts sent to Nam. Get over it. Regardless if we lost, quit and just ran (which we did), our so called leaders chose to sacrifice American lives and resources in a place that no one gave a darn about. What a waste.

Richard W.

[geedee]

I did a little Google search under "News" for our esteemed Mr. Burns and . . . out of the first 50 articles written by him that showed up, based strictly on the titles as I have no desire to read his crap, 2 of them could be described as "neutral" and they dealt with Liberia and the other 48 could be described as NEGATIVE.

Perhaps in the AP's world nothing positive has happened in Afghanistan or Iraq but I suspect the American people disagree.

IMHO this is a GREAT post because it helps us keep track of the enemy . . . and they ain't all in Iraq.

Hitler had Goebbels.

The liberals have the media, especially Reuters and the AP.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"We never really had a nation-building plan," Cordesman said.

The article is based on a quote from --"Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington."

Yeah, HE'S privvy to the inside track.

Nothing but anti-American, anti-Bush spin.

[sarasmom]

Carter was worse than Clinton.
Thankfully there were only four nightmare years of Carter.
But nightmarish and with long lasting damage they were.
I think an ammendment must be made to the Constitution to prevent degredation of the armed forces of the USA, under any, shudder, future Democrat POTUS.
I am not sure how it should be worded exactly, but something to the effect that any POTUS must have a separate vote of approval, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the House of Representatives, prior to attaining status of military CINC.
Or we could just ban socialists and criminals from the position of POTUS.
Either way would work.

[Pukin Dog]

No, YOU get over it. I have more respect for our men than to let your bullshit go unchallenged.

[Cacophonous]

So what was the nation-building plan?

[winker]

You have to go in with the solid understanding that there is no substitute for Victory! When you put all the logistical & technical expertise to form a team you cannot cut and run when you get a bloody nose! Its a concerted effort all the way. War is a nasty tough and thankless business and it always will be! Its not for the weenies or the squemish!