I disagree. Rumsfeld and his pals failed to plan properly for post-war Iraq. I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster.
"but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster?"
not Rummy's job.
"his policies?"...
try GWB's "policies"...
Rummy takes his orders from GWB. And if Rummy wasn't doing what he was told and effectively; I'm sure Bush wouldn't have a problem replacing him.
if you have a problem with public relations, "policies" and/or "winning the peace" you need to file your complaint with GWB c/o the WH.
and if you have better solutions; we'd all be anxious to hear them. LOL
" I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster."
You are very correct. The Iraq war PR has been a disaster.
Immediate corrective steps needed would be to deport all members of the MSMedia and all Democrats (except Lieberman and a couple others) to North Korea, Cuba, or some other country where they would feel more at home.
" I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster."
You are very correct. The Iraq war PR has been a disaster.
Immediate corrective steps needed would be to deport all members of the MSMedia and all Democrats (except Lieberman and a couple others) to North Korea, Cuba, or some other country where they would feel more at home.
What is your baseline of comparison? Which war has been more successful than the two under Rumsfeld's tenure?
An absolute ridiculous position to try and take - The success we have had in the WOT in the last 4 years is utterly amazing. The success in Iraq by all historical measures has been incredible.
Of course bringing a Country out of 30 year rule from a brutal dictatorship that sits in the heart of the Middle East isn't (wasn't) going to be easy.
But the reality is Iraq has come a very long way. The values of freedom and self-worth are spreading in both Iraq and Stan....these two values are our biggest allies in the WOT (in the years to come)....it is precisely because of our actions ...and steadfast resolve of SecDef Rumsfeld and CIC GWB that these values are spreading.
Since Sept 11th our enemies have suffered one strategic defeat after another....we have not suffered one.
Describe the parameters of what a proper "plan for post-war Iraq" might have looked like. Be as detailed as possible. And then with each detail you list, I'll point out how your "plan" would likely have been rendered D.O.A. by events on the ground.
And what part of your "plan" would have prevented the Sunni minority from embracing terror-insurgency? Too often, these mystical "plan" things are spoken of as if the right, carefully-calculated "plan" can somehow engineer the behavior of other humans. I am skeptical of a standard of "planning" by which it is considered to be evidence of "bad planning" on our part if some foreigners make decision X instead of decision Y. What foreigners decide to do or not do is beyond our control; it is how we react and adjust, which we can control.
"Plans" are overrated. Adjustments are what is important. Now maybe Rummy can be criticized for not having adjusted quickly enough, but you have not done so here, and regardless, this war has been one of the most successful in human history, so forgive me for not being too swayed by Monday morning quarterbacking.
I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster.
I certainly will not insist that Bush has the best PR team in the world. But you must acknowledge that with a hostile media and a left determined to paint any and all circumstance (including victory) as failure, Bush could have had the best PR team in the world and it still wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, that is not a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency. You don't seem to have a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency.