So much ignorance from an arm chair quarterback. Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades. This was not the incompetence of the military but of the civilian leadership, particularly Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight with smaller less expensive forces.
Lestat - 10:03am on 03/16/2008
Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.
Does it compare in size and scope to what we are doing now?
When you’re done telling Rob how ignorant he is, maybe you can start to look at the big picture here.
likwidshoe - 11:03am on 03/16/2008
Lestat:
Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.
That is true, but the military doctrine developed by Petraeus and others is new.
This was not the incompetence of the military but of the civilian leadership, particularly Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight with smaller less expensive forces.
I agree with you that the civilian leadership, especially Donald Rumsfeld, played an important role in “getting us where we are now”. Obviously that is a fact. Some of the things I point to are the ignoring of all of the pre-war planning within the Pentagon and State Department , the disbandment of the Iraqi Army and the overly zealous de-Ba’athification process.
While I would have supported a larger invasion force, predominantly to maintain peace after the war, it is not obvious that this wouldn’t have had its own set of unintended consequences.
If you look at the biggest problem that was addressed by the change in strategy in the Petraeus document, that involved placing our troops in the cities and not leaving. This didn’t require a huge increment in military forces, but a refocussing of the mission there.
So much ignorance from an arm chair (sic) quarterback
Meaning yourself, I presume.
Carrick - 11:03am on 03/16/2008
I should note that point wasn’t to say that we didn’t make any mistakes with the invasion of Iraq. We did, clearly. But there’s no questioning that the initial invasion (which is separate from the post-invasion occupation for the purposes of this discussion) was an unmitigated success. We achieved our objective - the defeat of Saddam’s forces and the capture of Iraq - quickly and with little cost to our own forces.
However, once the invasion was over we made a lot of the mistakes Carrick noted (and, to be clear, a lot of those mistaken decisions were made during pre-war planning).
But my point here is to say that our military is evolving to face modern threats. We’ve faced insurgencies before, but none like what we’re facing in the middle east. It’s a new situation, and Petraeus’ approach to it is new as well.
A couple of years ago I read an article about the Pentagon formulating plans to re-deploy our military globally from cold-war ear positions to positions more in tune with facing threats from Islamic extremism (among other things). I don’t know what ever became of that initiative (I haven’t heard anything about it for some time) but I consider that to be the same sort of evolution as I described above.
And as for my being an armchair General, seems to me that as a free citizen of a free nation I have as much right to an opinion about military affairs as any General.
Rob - 11:03am on 03/16/2008
The snag came before the invasion:
“There is bullet-proof evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
-George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
And continued into the occupation:
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Donald Rumsfeld
And what was the news the other day?
U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda
The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no “smoking gun” or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam’s Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.
The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam’s government who are now in U.S. custody.
realitybasedbob - 12:03pm on 03/16/2008
Not that things like “facts” and “reason” matter much to you, boob, but there is a difference between “links” and “direct operational links.”
Saddam had links to al Qaeda, but none that were direct and operational in nature.
But hey, whatever is convenient for your agenda of the moment right?
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/16/2008
Tell it to the pentagon, rube.
I think some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used ‘grave and gathering’ threat.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Jan. 31, 2004
This is about an imminent threat.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Feb. 10, 2003
realitybasedbob - 12:03pm on 03/16/2008
And now you’re changing the subject. McClellan was talking about WMD’s. We were talking about al Qaeda.
And before we invaded Iraq could have been an imminent threat for all we knew. Certainly just about every elected politician in America - both Republican and Democrat - felt Iraq had WMD’s. We didn’t find out otherwise until afterward.
But regardless, removing Saddam from power was a good idea in general. Not, again, that things like “facts” and “reason” are going to sway you, right genius?
Rob - 12:03pm on 03/16/2008
It’s all tied to the pack of lies bushco sold his war on.
It’s the snag before the invasion.
There were many inside our intelligence services that disagreed as did the inspectors on the ground right before bush invaded a country that did not attack us.
Not to mention the generals who spoke about the forces necessary to win the war and control the pop after the invasion. To bad your bush didn’t listen to the generals then. They “retired”. And now Fallon quits?
But don’t let the actual facts get between you and your box of Cheetos.
Neo-cons do not crack me up.
I think B. Hussein Obama spoke out against the invasion.
Kinda make him look now good, doesn’t it?
realitybasedbob - 12:03pm on 03/16/2008
Our enemies change their tactics and we must not only keep up but be one or two steps ahead. We changed to defeat the JAPS when they hid in caves and that got flame throwers involved. Not many armies will meet us in open fields. That is one reason that Donald Rusmfeld cancelled the artillery buy, and justly so.
So much ignorance from an arm chair quarterback. Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades. This was not the incompetence of the military but of the civilian leadership, particularly Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight with smaller less expensive forces.
Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.
Does it compare in size and scope to what we are doing now?
When you’re done telling Rob how ignorant he is, maybe you can start to look at the big picture here.
Lestat:
That is true, but the military doctrine developed by Petraeus and others is new.
I agree with you that the civilian leadership, especially Donald Rumsfeld, played an important role in “getting us where we are now”. Obviously that is a fact. Some of the things I point to are the ignoring of all of the pre-war planning within the Pentagon and State Department , the disbandment of the Iraqi Army and the overly zealous de-Ba’athification process.
While I would have supported a larger invasion force, predominantly to maintain peace after the war, it is not obvious that this wouldn’t have had its own set of unintended consequences.
If you look at the biggest problem that was addressed by the change in strategy in the Petraeus document, that involved placing our troops in the cities and not leaving. This didn’t require a huge increment in military forces, but a refocussing of the mission there.
Meaning yourself, I presume.
I should note that point wasn’t to say that we didn’t make any mistakes with the invasion of Iraq. We did, clearly. But there’s no questioning that the initial invasion (which is separate from the post-invasion occupation for the purposes of this discussion) was an unmitigated success. We achieved our objective - the defeat of Saddam’s forces and the capture of Iraq - quickly and with little cost to our own forces.
However, once the invasion was over we made a lot of the mistakes Carrick noted (and, to be clear, a lot of those mistaken decisions were made during pre-war planning).
But my point here is to say that our military is evolving to face modern threats. We’ve faced insurgencies before, but none like what we’re facing in the middle east. It’s a new situation, and Petraeus’ approach to it is new as well.
A couple of years ago I read an article about the Pentagon formulating plans to re-deploy our military globally from cold-war ear positions to positions more in tune with facing threats from Islamic extremism (among other things). I don’t know what ever became of that initiative (I haven’t heard anything about it for some time) but I consider that to be the same sort of evolution as I described above.
And as for my being an armchair General, seems to me that as a free citizen of a free nation I have as much right to an opinion about military affairs as any General.
The snag came before the invasion:
And continued into the occupation:
And what was the news the other day?
U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda
Not that things like “facts” and “reason” matter much to you, boob, but there is a difference between “links” and “direct operational links.”
Saddam had links to al Qaeda, but none that were direct and operational in nature.
But hey, whatever is convenient for your agenda of the moment right?
Tell it to the pentagon, rube.
And now you’re changing the subject. McClellan was talking about WMD’s. We were talking about al Qaeda.
And before we invaded Iraq could have been an imminent threat for all we knew. Certainly just about every elected politician in America - both Republican and Democrat - felt Iraq had WMD’s. We didn’t find out otherwise until afterward.
But regardless, removing Saddam from power was a good idea in general. Not, again, that things like “facts” and “reason” are going to sway you, right genius?
It’s all tied to the pack of lies bushco sold his war on.
It’s the snag before the invasion.
There were many inside our intelligence services that disagreed as did the inspectors on the ground right before bush invaded a country that did not attack us.
Not to mention the generals who spoke about the forces necessary to win the war and control the pop after the invasion. To bad your bush didn’t listen to the generals then. They “retired”. And now Fallon quits?
But don’t let the actual facts get between you and your box of Cheetos.
Neo-cons do not crack me up.
I think B. Hussein Obama spoke out against the invasion.
Kinda make him look now good, doesn’t it?
Our enemies change their tactics and we must not only keep up but be one or two steps ahead. We changed to defeat the JAPS when they hid in caves and that got flame throwers involved. Not many armies will meet us in open fields. That is one reason that Donald Rusmfeld cancelled the artillery buy, and justly so.