I doubt the DOD underestimated the potential for guerrilla operations. They simply did not publicly discuss it in any explicit terms before the invasion. Recall Bush said at the outset, there is a long struggle ahead. The DOD, State department and the academic community in general all understood the fractious, volatile, and violent nature of Iraq. This is a country that was roped together by force and whose people behaved under the threat of death or torture then death. The Americans are apple pie to them compared to Saddam's apparatus. The only question for the White House is did they underestimate the public's stomach for a steady trickle of dead GIs. They will get them out of harm's way when and if the fallout of the mounting casualties threatens the re-election 2004. But they will have to do so either through success or barring success, in a way that does not appear like withdrawal and an undone job. Bush can't spend too many lives without concrete results in the Middle East. The Arabs know this and they are going to make him pay.
AAA it will take time for you to admit it but Iraq is shaping up as another Vietnam. Pretty soon the media may stop mentioning the deaths of US soldiers because they may happen everyday. This war was a mistake and was not justified it's very clear now Where are the elusive WMD? I said previously it will be a mess and the UN troops will be eventually sent there to take the hits when Americans are sick of it. What the US Gov't shoudl do is admitting the mistake, start withdrawing the troops and get the UN there. You are right to say US troops are not trained for law enforcement and maintaining order, it's not their job. The guys want to go back home, letthem go home. But Bush&Co will never do that of course cause nobody can admit a mistake in Washington and that will be seen as a weakness by the electorate.
You appear to know very little about Vietnam, but a lot about giving in. I won't bother with your rendition of the war justifications, as I've written about them at length elsewhere. Your suggestions are a recipe for disaster, the kind of disaster that this country and people all around the world would be paying for for generations.
W´s (s)election was a recipe for disaster for the USA ... and for thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis
Pulling out is not an option. That would make the sacrifices to date a waste. There is no question that some casualties are inevitable. There is also no question that, like the N. Viets did, the terrorists keep a close eye on the US news. They know this body bag parade is a nightmare for the administration. The more the leftwing pol's and major media play it up, the more body bags we will get. I take all that as givens. My point is we should adjust tactics to minimize casualties. There appear to be plenty of things we could do to minimize the risk without compromising the mission. Let's do them. About pulling out. You can make book that we will be in Iraq 20 years from now, unless we get some Howard Dean/Jimmie Carter type in the White HOuse who is indifferent to US national security. The Dick Morris column posted in the "no Alternative" thread makes this point quite clearly. It is a huge coup for us to control a big country in the heart of the world's biggest oil basin, which also happens to be in the middle of terrorist central. We would be very ill-advised to pull out, no matter what the Iraqi's or Koffi Annan want.
Well, here is a very disturbing mentality. First, AAA and KF argue that the end justifies the means. Not good. Second, AAA & KF argue that admitting a mistake is a bad thing to do. The trading parallel is obvious -- stop loss. It's like saying "yeah, well, I bought priceline.com at $100 and to sell it now would be a mistake." You guys can't polish a turd, and as soon as the media decides that it's in their best interests to stop supporting the Bush regime and focus instead on the Bush/Cheney scandals, the administration will be totally fucked and that will be the end of it. (Think about how much they made off of Monica and it will be pretty obvious to them around election time who the next sucker's gonna be once the cameras make that 180 degree turn). Third, the oil statement is sick, AAA. Frankly, I would expect more from you, but your support of a war that will kill innocent civilians and soldiers in the wrong place at the wrong time to support our disgusting lifestyle of obnoxious SUVs and fat, disgusting people is frightening to me. For the record, I am no longer purchasing American cars or anything else that will go to support this deranged culture. Frankly, there are many things that I love about this country, but as time goes by, I find that I have more and more contempt for its citizens who would rather enforce this circle of money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism-money-oil-terrorism than actually think for themselves and do something to change it. Stop wasting energy making excuses for your party, AAA, and instead spend it finding some members who don't turn everything they touch into shit. Seriously, any idiot can cut taxes. Raise the bar for your party and the world may become a better place. Your guy is not only the biggest liar and money grubbing little shit, but also the biggest outright dipshit the white house has seen in ages. "Oh, but he surrounds himself with such good people who will help him make good decisions and be a good leader" -- bullshit. Look at old Harvey Pitt, Jack Snow, and the 5 former Iran contra indictees in his cabinet (such as Otto Reich, in spots that did not require congressional approval). http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/22/bush.appointments/ Face it -- a loser is a loser, and the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of him and find a republican who doesn't suck.
Our troops lives are more important and should have been taking into account when the bone heads in our government's think tank thought up this War.... But at this point we dont need me pointing fingers; we need solutions and given the situation we have and the lives of our innocent soldiers, I think you're reccomendations would be a good place to start....
Most soldiers sign up for future tuition money ......... Thats why most of the soldiers being interviewed are black or hispanic....I can assure you they didnt sign up to be killed over big oil money.....
The New American Colonialism Sunday, February 23, 2003 By Joseph Cirincione, Director, Non-Proliferation Project Originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, February 23, 2003 Begrudgingly, senior administration officials are beginning to discuss prospects for post-war Iraq. While publicly they are as cheery about Iraq without Hussein as they are dire about the risks of leaving him in power, privately, they harbor grave doubts. As one senior official told a New York Times reporter, "We still do not know how U.S. forces will be received. Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get there." We should not be surprised at the uncertainty, for what they're planning is unprecedented in U.S. history. This will not just be our first pre-emptive war, but it will be followed by a massive, indefinite occupation. President Bush intends to send more than 200,000 American men and women to invade and occupy a large, complex nation of 24 million people half a world away. The last time any Western power did anything similar was before World War II. The last time any nation did this was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. As retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former head of NATO forces, says, this war will "put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain, following the Ottomans. It's a huge change for the American people and for what this country stands for." To the rest of the world it will indeed look like colonialism. With the best of intentions, and with surprisingly little public discussion, we are about to overthrow a government, appoint a U.S. military ruler, and, after several years of transition, install our hand-picked alternatives. There is little discussion of an exit strategy -- a key part of the Powell Doctrine, as are the use of overwhelming force and support of the American public, now forgotten even by the doctrine's author, Secretary of State Colin Powell. NO EXIT There is no exit strategy not just because it's hard to devise, but because many of the president's men don't want to leave Iraq. For them, Iraq is just the beginning. American military forces will unleash a "democratic tsunami," they believe, that will transform all Arab governments and fortify the region for American interests for decades to come. Inspired by the model of a democratic Iraq, the people of Syria and Iran will overthrow their leaders. This will lead to a democratic Palestinian Authority that will give Israel a reliable negotiating partner for a final settlement. The reason the administration has abandoned any effort to negotiate a Middle East peace plan is that for them the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. President Bush hinted at this vision when he told the United Nations last September, "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world." This democratic revolution, of course, will be accompanied by the use of U. S. troops. The president's National Security Strategy of September 2002 notes, "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops." These extensive deployments will require huge increases in defense spending, with the president's new budget projecting rises over the next few years to $500 billion annually from the current $350 billion. This does not include the estimated $40 billion per year that will be needed to maintain 150,000 American troops in Iraq. A DANGEROUS FANTASY This "vision" is a dangerous fantasy. Iraq will be in chaos after a war, with long-suppressed hatreds boiling to the surface, surrounded by Arab nations whose leaders give grudging backing to U.S. war plans, but whose officials and publics seethe at American arrogance. Some Iraqis will certainly welcome us as liberators; many will certainly not. Even in the Kurdish areas of Iraq where we already have alliances with friendly groups, there are fiercely anti-American factions allied with al Qaeda that maintain the terrorist training camp shown in the photos Secretary Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council. In U.S.-occupied Iraq, our troops will become convenient targets of terrorist snipers and bombers. The problems of massive shortages of food, medicine and jobs will become our problems. If the Kurds decide this is the time to realize their generations-long dream of an independent Kurdistan, will it be a U.S. commander who tells them that freedom for Iraq does not mean freedom for them? Or will we just let the Turkish troops cross the border to maintain "order"? When Kurdish and Turkmen minorities forced from several key cities by Saddam's ethnic cleansing decide that they want to return to claim their homes, will U.S. troops help them or block them? Just one refugee camp outside the city of Kirkuk holds 120,000 displaced Kurds and Turkmen. Who will explain that liberty for Iraqis does not mean the liberty to return home? For all those administration officials who abhorred and condemned the arduous efforts at ethnic conflict resolution in Bosnia and Kosovo during the Clinton years, welcome to nation-building. BREEDING GROUND FOR Al QAEDA But these are comparatively minor problems. Far more serious will be the regional animosity let loose by a U.S. invasion. Even if the war itself goes well, and we can avoid the horrors of chemical weapons, house-to-house fighting and torched oil fields, the bombing campaign said to involve 3,000 bombs in the first two days alone will kill thousands. And this time every television station in the world wants to be live from Baghdad. CNN was alone in 1991; now there are dozens of CNNs. Each will broadcast live photos of dead Iraqis being pulled from the rubble. The war will be a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists. The leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other neighboring states fear for the stability of their governments. Will Pakistanis riot, throwing the world's only Muslim nuclear nation into chaos? There will certainly be a regional reaction to the U.S. invasion, but it almost certainly will not be a wave of democratic revolutions. How can we know? We just have to look back at the previous efforts of empires with the best of intentions -- the British, the French, and the Germans -- to understand what happens when Western nations try to bring "civilization" to the Middle East on the points of their bayonets.