Posted on 04/18/2006 5:51:54 PM PDT by kellynla
If we had completely devastated the military and the capital, destroyed the infrastructure, and killed all the people who took Iraq to this point in history, we probably would have never had problems with them again no matter who emerged as the new leader of Iraq.
I think that is precisely the problem we are having in Iraq. The military should not be nation-builders. They are nation-breakers, trained to kill and destroy.
Did I say Bush?
Trickled down from the left?
Ken Adelman said "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. . This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as 'coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right."
Cheney said, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."
Ahmed Chalabi said, “American troops will be greeted with flowers and candy”
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth wrote, "In the run-up to the war in Iraq, administration officials had consistently argued that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the costs of reconstruction."
Richard Perle predicted that support for Saddam would "collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
Donald Rumsfeld said "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Paul Wolfowitz said, "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
Cheney said "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
Some Afghanis welcomed the Soviets too. We know how that turned out.
I think we would have had to blanket the country with nukes to achieve the effect you envision, but I suppose you do have a point.
[It is not ridiculous to stick around in Iraq and wield influence on the future direction of their government.] I think that is precisely the problem we are having in Iraq. The military should not be nation-builders. They are nation-breakers, trained to kill and destroy.
Well they are inevitably going to have to learn to become "nation-builders" (i.e. government-safeguarders and counterinsurgency-experts). Either that or we are inevitably going to have to spin off a new branch dedicated to such endeavors. Because that is the type of thing our national security tends to require nowadays.
In case you haven't noticed we don't often find ourselves in a position where we can fight army-on-army battles out on a well-defined battlefield somewhere. We are too powerful to the point where no one in his right mind would take us on in that manner. You can hold your breath and say "But that's what armies are for! We should still use our army only for that!" or you can acknowledge the change that has taken place and adjust. Needless to say which approach I favor.
[straw-men about "quick", etc.] Did I say Bush?
Bush is the President. You were describing how you think the war was "sold" (eye-roll). To me, that implies, by the President in some official capacity, before Congress (who is, after all, the audience to which the war had to be "sold").
Ken Adelman said "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. .
1. Who the hell is Ken Adelman and how the heck does some utterance of his bear on "how the war was sold"? What was his position in the administration?
2. Read his statement again. In case you didn't notice, demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq was indeed a cakewalk. 3 weeks.
Cheney said, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."
We were greeted as liberators. Not by EVERYBODY but there were (and are) Iraqis who greeted us as liberators.
Anyway, this is nothing but a statement of professed belief by the Vice President. Still not "how the war was sold". Cheney was not allowed to have a belief on how we would or would not be greeted?
Ahmed Chalabi said, “American troops will be greeted with flowers and candy”
1. Kindly state Mr. Chalabi's position in the administration and briefly describe in what official capacity exactly I am supposed to think he participated in "selling" the war.
2. Flowers. Flowers. As for candy, it's more our soldiers giving them candy. Anyway, geopolitical discussions have really sunk to a nursery-school level these past 3 years, with fully half the alleged-adult population seemingly convinced that whether or not a foreigner gives a piece of candy (or how many foreigners give candy, or the percentage of candy-giving, or the candy-giving-frequency perhaps?) to a soldier halfway around the world proves some military-strategical point of some kind.
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth wrote, "In the run-up to the war in Iraq, administration officials had consistently argued that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the costs of reconstruction."
Well, if Stephen Moore (who?) said it, it must be true. Nice to have such solid info on these unnamed "administration officials" allegedly saying these things.
Richard Perle predicted that support for Saddam would "collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
"Support for Saddam" as such was never that high to begin with. You think it was/is?
Donald Rumsfeld said "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
"unknowable". What a solid ironclad prediction Rummy made there! Yes, he tricked us all.
Paul Wolfowitz said, "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
You think Wolfy was incorrect about this?
I don't.
Some Afghanis welcomed the Soviets too. We know how that turned out.
Ok. Which only goes to show that these informally-gauged off the cuff estimates of "how much they welcome us" per se doesn't really tell us a whole lot.
I haven't read that Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators by SOME Iraqis, but not by EVERYBODY. I have no doubt that there were and are Iraqis holding that view. The point is that an impression was cultivated that Iraqis in general would greet us as liberators.
Anyway, this is nothing but a statement of professed belief by the Vice President. Still not "how the war was sold". Cheney was not allowed to have a belief on how we would or would not be greeted?
If Cheney, as Vice President, publicly expresses a belief on the friendly reception of American troops in Iraq, do you suppose it is private and not meant to influence?
I said earlier: If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR. I stand by that, and provided quotes from prominent conservatives both in and out of the administration to back up that claim. You respond with the unsupported contention that its all just a bunch of straw-men created by the left.
You responded: No, it's because reality doesn't match the cartoonishly impossible fantasyland ahistorical standard for success in war which has set up by a hostile media and straw-man-building left.
The "cartoonishly impossible fantasyland" was created by the administration, perhaps you weren't paying attention at the time.
Here is another cartoonishly impossible estimate from Bush's director of the OBM: Mitch Daniels provided an initial budget estimate for the Iraq War of $50 to $60 billion. He said the war would be an, “affordable endeavor” and characterized the estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.”
At some point we have to begin taking responsibility or risk loosing more credibility. Blaming leftist for everything is nearing the end of its shelf-life.
So it's your contention that Dick Cheney said - and meant to say - that we would be greeted as liberators by literally each and every single person in Iraq? And that didn't happen (obviously), therefore Cheney was wrong/bad/etc in how he "sold" the war?
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? Sure must be easy to argue against your opponents when you feel at liberty to stretch their claims to the most absurdist lengths imaginable. You're right, if Dick Cheney actually said, or meant to say, or implied, or meant to imply, that he believed every single Iraqi would greet American troops as liberators, then he was wrong in that belief. (That would be the least of our problems; it would also mean Cheney has mental problems.)
But is that even a remotely fair characterization of Cheney's statement?
I have no doubt that there were and are Iraqis holding that view. The point is that an impression was cultivated that Iraqis in general would greet us as liberators.
Oh. Well, so what? I'm not even sure it's incorrect that Iraqis "in general" have greeted us as liberators. It all depends on what "in general" means, doesn't it? i.e. If you only pay attention to the ones exploding bombs, then no...
If Cheney, as Vice President, publicly expresses a belief on the friendly reception of American troops in Iraq, do you suppose it is private and not meant to influence?
A publicly expressed belief is not private no. So, Dick Cheney had that belief. Was he required to keep his mouth shut? He believed what he believed and said so. What is the point here?
Nobody forced Congress to vote the way they did on the basis of Dick Cheney's personal beliefs. If Dick Cheney's beliefs entered into any Congressman's vote, that's the Congressman's fault, not Cheney's.
I said earlier: If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR. I stand by that, and provided quotes from prominent conservatives both in and out of the administration to back up that claim.
For every quote you dug up from some no-name or another, I could dig up a quote actually from Bush explaining how the war would be long, difficult, painful and costly. The problem is that what you perceive as their "pre-war PR" has gotten to you filtered through the media. i.e., The media choose to pretend that Bush said "quick" (which he didn't!) and choose not to remind anyone that Bush said it would be long.
In a way, I suppose your claim here isn't incorrect. It's just that it doesn't go against what I'm saying. Reality didn't match "the PR", but what are peoples' perceptions of the PR based on? Based (in large part) on what the media chooses to emphasize.
The "cartoonishly impossible fantasyland" was created by the administration, perhaps you weren't paying attention at the time.
I was paying attention, which is precisely why I know that claims that Bush "sold" the war as quick, cheap, and easy are full of crap.
Here is another cartoonishly impossible estimate from Bush's director of the OBM: Mitch Daniels provided an initial budget estimate for the Iraq War of $50 to $60 billion.
Never heard the name before. Did Mitch Daniels's utterance affect the war debate at all, in your opinion? Were there Congressmen who were gonna vote no but decided to vote yes on the basis of what Mitch Daniels said? If you go amongst the American public and say "Mitch Daniels" how many glimmers of recognition you think you'll get?
This is simply not relevant to a discussion of how "the war was sold".
Nope, didn't say that.
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? Sure must be easy to argue against your opponents when you feel at liberty to stretch their claims to the most absurdist lengths imaginable.
Isn't that exactly what you've done above?
You're right, if Dick Cheney actually said, or meant to say, or implied, or meant to imply, that he believed every single Iraqi would greet American troops as liberators, then he was wrong in that belief.
But is that even a remotely fair characterization of Cheney's statement?
Its not my characterization of Cheney's statement, its your straw man.
Splendid! I guess that means when you said this,
"I haven't read that Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators by SOME Iraqis, but not by EVERYBODY."
...I should have just ignored 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.
