A very interesting read in The Wall Street Journal
So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq.
Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr., for one, was quoted last week as saying the Defense Secretary’s “absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq” mean he is not “the right person” to continue leading the Pentagon. Mr. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, joins other ex-uniformed Iraq War critics such as former Centcom Commander Anthony Zinni and retired Army Major General John Batiste. But there’s far more behind this firefight than Mr. Rumsfeld’s performance.
Mr. Zinni in particular neither fought the Iraq War nor supported it in the first place. He is a longtime advocate of “realism” in the Middle East, which is fancy-speak for leaving Arab dictators alone in the name of “stability.” What Mr. Zinni really opposes is President Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom,” not the means by which the Administration has waged the Iraq campaign.
As for those who’ve raised the issue of competence, we’d be more persuaded if they weren’t so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength.
If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the “small footprint” strategy–the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.Our point here isn’t to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there’s a reason the word “snafu” began as a military acronym whose meaning we can’t reprint in a family newspaper. But if we’re going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.
A recent article by former Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the Center for Defense Information details how the U.S. advance on Baghdad in March and April 2003 was slowed against Mr. Rumsfeld’s wishes by overcautious commanders on the scene. That may have allowed Saddam and many of his supporters to escape to fight the insurgency. General Abizaid also resisted the first assault on Fallujah, in April 2004, which sent a signal of U.S. political weakness. We don’t agree with all of Mr. Macgregor’s points, but it is likely that these Rumsfeld critics are trying to write their own first, rough draft of historic blame shifting.
Our own view is that the worst mistakes in Iraq have been more political than military, especially in not establishing a provisional Iraqi government from the very start. Instead, the U.S. allowed itself to be portrayed as occupiers, a fact that the insurgency exploited. But the blame for that goes well beyond Mr. Rumsfeld–and would extend to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and to Mr. Bush himself.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s largest mistake may have been giving L. Paul Bremer too free a hand to govern like a viceroy in 2003 and 2004 when a more rapid turnover of political power to Iraqis, and more rapid training of Iraqi forces, might have made a big difference. More than anything else, that unnecessary delay in Iraq’s political and self-defense evolution has contributed to the current instability.
Related links:
A General Misunderstanding
Generals defend Rumsfeld but cite ‘severe’ errors
Putting 6 Retired Generals into Perspective
Just curious… how much military battlefield experience does Rumsfeld have, as opposed to the Generals calling for his ousting? Right, that’s what I thought.
Last I heard, officers could still be recalled (myself excepted, they lost some of my paperwork when I got out) and are to be considered on inactive reserve for at least 6 years after retiring from the military. As such, these generals should be damn glad I’m not the Commander in Chief. I would make a few calls, have them activated and assigned as Rummy’s lapdogs. I’d then give them the choice of resigning for the good of the service or face general courts martial for conduct unbecoming an officer, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. That last one is the universal, you’ve p’od the wrong person charge. It covers damn near any action or comment that could be misconstrued as adversely effecting morale or unit discipline. I doubt it would take much to argue that claiming that the Sec. of Defense is incompetent in the press would be considered detrimental to morale.
I can honestly tell you that to become a General requires a few things, and a good sense for politics can be a big boost in that regards. With the Clintons’ well known antipathy for the military, I am certain that while many generals got their stars through competence, I am equally certain that many got theirs through political astuteness rather than military prowess. I personally know one officer who’s connections got him assigned to command a high profile unit after another officer had received orders to command that unit. There is definitely an old boy network that can really be a pain.
And in counter, FrmrArtyOffcr, Rummy has NO stars. The military personel view, as they should, him as a civilian.
It doesn’t take a retired general to see that Secretary Rumsfeld has made “thousands of mistakes”in Iraq.
3-actually toasted, they answer to him.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and no Monday-morning quarterback has ever won a agame.
FAO, technically, once a Commissioned Officer, always a CO. Even though you resigned your commission (I resigned my commission in 1998, throughly disgusted with Klinton as CIC) you are always subject to recall by the CIC. It would have to be an almost unimaginable scenario for that to happen, but technically, we both could be recalled to active duty by the President.
Isn’t there something “un-American”about suggesting that a retired officer can’t speak out against the government? How about free speech?
Shouldn’t the same criticism apply to Robert if he says something bad about President Clinton?
Who here has suggested that?
WHY OH WHY do some conservatives choose to attack the messengers and not the message?
Why are you talking about the generals and not talking about Rumsfelds performance as Sec. of Defense?
IMAGINE FOR ONE MOMENT, the roles reversed and a democratic president and administration making the mistakes in Iraq, not your Dear Leader.
You people would be tearing at your clothes and gnashing your teeth like in the old testament, HOWLING for the head on a spike of the Democratic Sec. of Defense.
right?
San Fran….one of the generals (Zinni) signed off on the USS Cole porting in Aden for refueling. Because of decreased military funding (Clinton) ships had to pull into port rather than refueling at sea. Obviously, when you have a “message” like that it does sink in.
As for the roles being reversed, it just wouldn’t happen. Why? Because democrats WON’T fight.
10.
Well, the evidence does tend to back that up…
Practitioners of the “religion of peace” attacked the US in
1993 WTC
1996 Saudi arabia
1997 Kenya
1997 Tanzania
2000 USS cole
and the democratic pres and secdef did………nothing.
“one of the generals (Zinni) signed off on the USS Cole porting in Aden for refueling. Because of decreased military funding (Clinton) ships had to pull into port rather than refueling at sea.”
That has nothing to do with the Iraq Failure. And, if I may, it is very unbecoming of you to blame the victim. (!)
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton…it’s like a disease some of you people have. A obsessive compulsive disorder of sorts. Blame Clinton. People, Clinton had NOTHING to do with the Iraq Failure. That’s all you guys.
“As for the roles being reversed, it just wouldn’t happen. Why? Because democrats WON’T fight.”
Please. A democrat president helped save tens of thousands of Europeans in the 1990′s. His leadership on Bosnia helped win a war, and with ZERO American casualties.
Seriously, just TRY to imagine a complete role reversal here. Imagine if, say, Clinton – your arch enemy apparently – started a war that went disastrously wrong, thousands of US lives lost…and the administration ADMITS it has made “thousands of tactical errors” in the war…
WHAT WOULD YOU DO/SAY?
Guys…”My country, right or wrong”….is crap. When your country is wrong, you have a DUTY to let them know and to make sure it NEVER happens again.
It seems that about the only person in America who thinks Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a good job is President Bush. Rather than discuss the real issue (Secretary Rumsfeld) it’s easier to discuss a non-issue like retired Generals right to free speech.
“1993 WTC
1996 Saudi arabia
1997 Kenya
1997 Tanzania
2000 USS cole
and the democratic pres and secdef did:::nothing”
Nothing??? The planners and in some cases the actual attackers in most of those listed above were caught by law enforcement, put on trial and sent to jail. Especially the WTC `93 attackers…Ramsey Youseff or something…IN JAIL. Thank you Clinton – D of J. (!)
You just want to bomb, smash, and destroy…that’s not the correct way to stop the cycle of violence.
Catch `em, and put `em in jail where they belong – with the other criminals.
But to say the Clinton Admin did “nothing” is HIGHLY incorrect and overlooks the historical evidence…
guys, terrorism is a fact of life. It has been around since the begining of time, and it will ALWAYS be here. You can’t defeat it with the military, that’s for damn sure.
SF Dope Head, it was because Jaime Gorelick didn’t allow US Intelligence to see what DoJ had on Al Qaeda from the 93 bombing enabled Bin Laden to try again without having to dodge bombs and US Troops.
Clinton is a doofus when it came to terror.
That’s not true Zelda. There are alot of generals, etc. who think Rumsfield is doing a great job.
As for Clinton doing nothing. Yes, that’s exactly what I said and I believe it from the bottom of my heart. Clinton did nothing to catch terrorists and as for law enforcement, fighting terrorism is NOT a law enforcement problem.
Jamie Gorelick (CLINTON’s appointee) erected a wall of information sharing between intelligence agencies and the list goes on and on.
“There are alot of generals, etc. who think Rumsfield is doing a great job.”
Are you referring to the Generals below him who still want to keep their job?
Yes Zelda, I am
Wasn’t Shinseki a Clinton appointee hold over? People like SF Dope Head forget all the Clintonistas Bush left in place when he took office. Many of the Clintonistas have done partisan damage to the Country.
A little Zinni history: Source
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”
“…it was because Jaime Gorelick didn’t allow US Intelligence to see what DoJ had on Al Qaeda from the 93 bombing enabled Bin Laden to try again without having to dodge bombs and US Troops.”
Ummm…yeah, it was all the fault of one person. Oh, two, if you include the EVIL Pres. Clinton. Please.
Are there any republicans whose boots you WON’T lick?
“Clinton is a doofus when it came to terror.”
Ok, maybe…but be fair and admit that Bush is a moron when it comes to terror. He invaded the wrong country, and he diverted valuable resources from the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin…internationally the past 5 years under Bush we have seen increase in terror attacks and legions of NEW terrorists. But, since Bush is a Republican, PCD continues to lick his boots. Shame.
“As for Clinton doing nothing. Yes, that’s exactly what I said and I believe it from the bottom of my heart.”
Feel free to believe what you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
“Clinton did nothing to catch terrorists and as for law enforcement, fighting terrorism is NOT a law enforcement problem.”
The Clinton D of J caught, prosecuted and sent to jail numerous terrorists, including the planners and perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack. Those terrorist scumbags are STILL in jail and are a threat to no one anymore.
So, I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about on that one. Except, of course, when it concerns how you “feel”.
As far as evidence supporting my theory that military intervention on a large scale does nothing to stop terrorism, look no further than Iraq. Has three years of US military might made a dent in the bombings there? Nope.
Globally, have terror attacks INCREASED in the three years since Iraq was invaded? Yes.
“Wasn’t Shinseki a Clinton appointee hold over? People like SF Dope Head forget all the Clintonistas Bush left in place when he took office. Many of the Clintonistas have done partisan damage to the Country.”
Ummm…yeah. Leftover Clinton appointees have done more damage to America than an unnecessary, unpopular war against a nation that didn’t threaten us, resulting in damaged national prestige and thousands of American dead and wounded.
“But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,”adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions : Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”"
So what? We already know that nearly EVERYONE was fooled into thinking Iraq still was a threat. Repubs and Dem’s both were wrong. Our government has admitted as much.
The only ones who were right on all this, were the ones calling for patience, calm, and more time for weapons inspections.
What makes a REAL man or woman, is the ability to look back and say “I was wrong and I want to do what I can to rectify my mistake”.
I guess SF Liberal hasn’t heard of the Army intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta and wanted to turn the intel over to the DOJ but was prevented by attorneys for the Klinton Administration because of the policy (the wall) formalized by Jamie Gorelick. 911 would have likely been prevented had that wall of separation not been put in place. And that single fact just takes everything about Klinton regarding what he did, that you posted, and renders it meaningless. The “wall” was formally put into place even as the terror threat was rising. And if Klinton was so effective at rounding up terrorists, how come he couldn’t catch Bin Laden?
Klinton inherited a rising economy, and left a falling economy. Inherited cheap, plentiful energy form Bush Sr., and did absolutely nothing suring his tenure to ensure that America’s economy would have the energy it needs. He left expensive, uncertain supplies.
Let’s face it, SF Liberal. Bush has had more challenges in his time in office than any other President in the last 50 years, and much of it has to do with the pile of crap the Klintons left as they glibly snuck out of the White House (while trying to steal $250,000 worth of furnishings.
When you are faced with difficult situations, you make choices and take chances. Nobody is perfect. But at least he is acting, rather than pretending the threat doesn’t exist while indulging in continual self-gratification.
Remember: Clero masturbated while America’s security burned.
And while Bush has been in office there have been NO terror attacks on the U.S. NO more 911s. Although I am sure that the Left is very disappointed; as evidenced by their attempt to stop the FBI from wiretapping calls made from out of the country to suspects here. And the Left would no doubt just love to release the Guests at Club Gitmo so they can go out and rejoin their comrades fighting Americans or strap bombs on themselves and go blow up some soft targets.
How do I feel about the Gitmo “detainees”? I would have fed them to the sharks two years ago.
-But they were not wrong and the evidence is pointing to that..And why are you defending Zinni? How is his mistake any worse than Runsfeld? Who, btw, has been a great SOD…
read san fran he is dead on with this one.:oops:
I don’t know Robert, but I’m betting you and I could probably run the war. I’d pretty much bet the libs wouldn’t like it much but the terrorism in IRAQ would come to a screeching halt within a couple of months. Of course I would be acting under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions so international law wouldn’t come into play. Unfortunately, the liberal sensitivities would be highly offended. First thing I’d do would be to hold the Geneva Convention mandated military tribunals for the internees at Gitmo, followed by the Geneva Convention mandated executions. Meals for internees would be brought to the level of US troops in combat training on a cca meal cycle. Two MREs and a meal of boiled chicken thighs, rice, canned corn, white bread and BAD coffee. Hey it’s good enough for our troops, it’s good enough for them. We are NOT required to provide three hot culturally acceptable meals a day.
I would then have the Iraqi Army close the entire border with Syria and Iran. That way if the Terrorists try to make a run for the border from either side, they won’t make it. You then do a hammer and anvil sweep through each town forcing the terrorists to run from the towns directly into a blocking force that will shoot anyone not surrendering immediately. Anyone captured would be turned over to the Iraqi Army for debriefing and the appropriate treatment under Iraqi law. Seeing as many will undoubtedly choose to not cooperate, what the Iraqis do to them wouldn’t be our problem.
Liberals will never be able to run a war. They simply are too unrealistic in their thought processes to be able to make the tough decisions necessary to fight and win a war. As for Clinton saving thousands of lives in Europe, hardly the NATO military did that. But even if he did save the Balkans, what is his excuse for ignoring the genocide in Rwanda?
Agreed, FAO. Liberal thought and doctrine is incapable of waging and winning war. Never has, never will, throughout history. It simply is impossible to win a war, especially against an unprincipled and thoroughly ruthless, determined enemy if you worry about what others will think of you. You do what you need to do to win, period.
Now I am sure the Left will jump all over what I just said and bring up some absurd hyperbolic arguments, but fact is fact. The Leftists in America will never even acknowledge that the only reason they can exist, that there is a place where they have the latitude to be what they are, is because of the service and sacrifice of those who understand this reality. Perhaps the Leftists (like Ramsey Clark and other baldfaced traitors) think that if the Islamofascists triumph against us, the Leftist fifth columnists will be rewarded. If so they are bigger fools than we thought.
“I would then have the Iraqi Army close the entire border with Syria and Iran.”
Ummm…WHAT Iraqi Army? You guys disbanded it, remember? That was one of the first of a thousand tactical errors…
“Liberals will never be able to run a war. They simply are too unrealistic in their thought processes to be able to make the tough decisions necessary to fight and win a war.”
Gee, that’s nice and I bet you feel good when you say it and your neocon buddies feel good reading it…but, the fact remains that it’s CONSERVATIVES RUNNING THIS FAILURE OF A WAR, NOT LIBERALS. You can’t pin this sh*t on us, and the US public KNOWS IT.
“But even if he (Clinton) did save the Balkans, what is his excuse for ignoring the genocide in Rwanda?
Gee, I don’t know. Let’s ask Bush why he would do nothing about Darfur in Sudan; maybe their answers will be similar. (!)
San Fran, what can I say. You’re either an idiot or a stoner. I’m going to give you some advice from someone with classified training in Chemical warfare. When the Koolaid smells and tastes like bitter almonds, put the cup down and walk away.
Your responses on this and any topic involving the military or intelligence communities are so totally lacking in any substance that you are simply wasting band width. You have such a lack of fundamental knowledge of history that it’s frightening. Believe it or not (and I know you won’t because it’s a fact and God knows you haven’t believed any of those yet) there is a very large and increasingly well trained Iraqi army. An Iraqi Army that, unlike the one that was disbanded previously, is actually inclusive of ALL sects of the Iraqi population not solely Sunnis who had pledged allegiance to Saddam Hussein. I thought you’d be at least cognizant of that fact seeing as inclusion and diversity are supposed to be so high in the Liberal lexicon.
You’ve got one thing right, the liberals aren’t running this war. We’re actually winning it. Anyone saying to the contrary is simply ignoring the facts. I hope the Democrats keep running their mouths the way they are. There are over 100,000 troops in Iraq who are able to vote in November and they will remember who was really supporting them in their mission. I would love to see the Congress become over 65% Republican.
SF Liberal and others are convinced the war on terror, and/or the war in Iraq, is a failure. They say this not because they have any real information from anyone that knows; they are just parroting the Democrite/MSM #1 talking point.
Everyone I know who has been there tells the same story: The troops there see what the MSM is reporting and they are just amazed, astonished at how wrongly the situation is being portrayed. EVERYTHING from the progress in Iraqi forces capability, to what we are doing to the “insurgents’ (and folks, they are getting whacked, bigtime) to the support by the Iraqi people is vastly different from what the Hyenas are shrieking. The terrorists (that’s right, terrorists, NOT insurgents) are limited to suicide bombers, IEDS, and an occasional small ambush because that is all they are capable of).
I shake my head in amazement at the ignorance of those simply regurgitating the crap they are systematically spoon-fed by the MSM and its Democrite comrades, who of course have the vested political interest and are quite willing to misrepresent, distort, and lie to achieve political benefit.
“San Fran, what can I say. You’re either an idiot or a stoner. I’m going to give you some advice from someone with classified training in Chemical warfare. When the Koolaid smells and tastes like bitter almonds, put the cup down and walk away.”
Wow. Frustration showing just a little bit there, huh? Let me give YOU some advice pal, the sure sign of a weak argument is to toss insults. “Idiot” or “Stoner” doesn’t help convince me or anyone else that what you are saying is credible. In fact, it makes you less credible and has you sounding like a high school kid. And I’m unimpressed by your “classified chemical training”…..~yawn~!
“You have such a lack of fundamental knowledge of history that it’s frightening.”
Nice. Keep `em coming, it only makes you and your argument look weaker. (!)
“Believe it or not (and I know you won’t because it’s a fact and God knows you haven’t believed any of those yet) there is a very large and increasingly well trained Iraqi army.”
Tell you what, guy. Why don’t you post some links and sources to back this little nugget up? And your wacko, far-right-fantasy-world sites don’t count as a source.
Everyone except you and your wacko cronies understands that the current Iraqi Army is not operational on a large scale, and are unable to operate independent from the US military, with the exception of a unit or two. So…FAO, I call BULLSH*T on that claim of yours until you can back it up with some evidence.
Anyone can make up something to help their argument along, but it it only counts IF IT’S TRUE.
“You’ve got one thing right, the liberals aren’t running this war. We’re actually winning it. Anyone saying to the contrary is simply ignoring the facts.”
I really think you don’t understand the depth of the situation – I’m not saying I know more than you, this isn’t a contest, but your recent statements show a very weak grasp on the reality of the situation in Iraq.
“I would love to see the Congress become over 65% Republican.”
Well, you’re going to have to wait. All signs point to republican losses this November.
And not everyone who has served in Iraq supports the missions and the administration. Read a book on it!
31. When were you over in Iraq? What did you see when you were there? Who did you speak with? Just because 65% of americans have never been there doesn’t mean they are making an informed decision.
“SF Liberal and others are convinced the war on terror, and/or the war in Iraq, is a failure. They say this not because they have any real information from anyone that knows; they are just parroting the Democrite/MSM #1 talking point.”
No Robert, there is actually overwhelming evidence that the Iraq mission is a quagmire, and the global war on terror isn’t going too well. Increased terror attacks globally for starters.
Look, I don’t have to waste my time or breathe to convince True Believers like you or FAO or anyone else here. Most of you people have blinders on that physically prevent you from accepting that Iraq has gone sour.
You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.
If you hear something that doesn’t fit with your ideology, you label it biased or liberal, tainted to a point.
How nice and comfortable your little world must be. I wish I could live in my own fantasy land despite the facts. That would make life so much easier if I could ignore reality like many on your side does.
It doesn’t have to be this way. I know plenty of DIE-HARD conservative Republicans personally and on the media scene who have accepted the changing situation and come to re-think their support of the Administrations policy on this matter.
They aren’t turning liberal, they aren’t even turning Democrat…they are just living in the real world with all the rest of us.
Let go of your sinful pride, and accept that you were wrong. It takes a strong man or woman to do that. Do you have it in YOU to admit your error?
probably not.
BonBon: “When were you over in Iraq? What did you see when you were there? Who did you speak with? Just because 65% of americans have never been there doesn’t mean they are making an informed decision.”
On October 5, 2005, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt General William Odom, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”
“William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said George W. Bush’s presidency will be judged entirely by the outcome of a war in Iraq that is now a failure.”
Republican congressmen against the War in Iraq…
I could do this all day, look up republicans, conservatives, Iraq veterens all who oppose the war, after once supporting it.
“You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.â€
Well said. It’s almost like a debating religion at this point.
You have not shown any of us how Iraq is a failure. You keep repeating what the anti-war movement has been saying, but you do not have evidence of failure to backup your statements…Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure
“Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure.â€
Well said. But just because you wish for success doesn’t make it a success.
I hope for a success in Iraq, but I know that failure is a very real possibility.
“You have not shown any of us how Iraq is a failure. You keep repeating what the anti-war movement has been saying, but you do not have evidence of failure to backup your statements:”
See my comment: “You have invested SO MUCH emotion and pride into this administration and it’s policies, that backing down or accepting changing situations is unacceptable to you. So you hold on, despite all evidence to the contrary.â€
Peejz, don’t take my word for it. Look towards your own Republican / Conservative scholars. William F. Buckley, the GodFather of Conservatives has said as much. Conservative Blogger Andrew Sullivan owned up to his mistake of supporting the war…
I don’t, and probably can’t convince you that Iraq has failed.
Like Zelda said, at this point with some of you, it would be like debating religion. No amount of information will sway you. You are just too firmly rooted in place with your opinion to change, no matter what anyone tells you.
Just because you wish for failure doesn’t make it a failure
No amount of information will sway you.
the same can be said of you, SF…
can we please get off of this fucking “I know you are, but what am I?? Merry go round???
it’s enough already.
37-There is too much positive change for it to be a failure Zelda
38- So because Buckley and Sullivan say so? Neither of which I read, would read or follow btw..I am not too firmly planted in anything but reality SF..the economy is booming in Iraq, the country is thriving as the country is being transformed. What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park? Hell, we have been in business since 1776 and we are still figuring it out…we still don’t have it just right…but everyday we give it another try..just as the people in Iraq will work together to build a bigger and better live for its’ people! You want this to be a failure and it is just not turning out that way..there is nothing that you would call a success either..you just wont’s acknowlege progress, because if you did that, your thoughts and wish for failure would be prove me right.
San Fran…..if you want to believe op-ed’s then by all means visit some of the soldiers now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan blogs. Michael Yon whose link can be found on this website is an excellent start. First hand information from someone who should know.
“What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park?”
Secretary Rumsfeld for one.
Let me try it this way. How about if some of you post “hypothetical” conditions that would cause you to admit that Iraq has failed.
Can you do that?
Am VERY curious to see what those on the far fringes think it would take to call the Iraq War “failed”.
Stretch those mental muscles, guys and gals!!!
“What idiot thought this would be a walk in the park?â€
“…they will welcome as liberators; the United States when we come to do that.” (Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03)
“Think of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That’s what would happen in Iraq.” (Rumsfeld, Media Roundtable, 9/13/02)
[Rejecting Army Secretary Eric Shinseki's assessment that the mission would require large numbers of troops for a long duration:] “We can’t be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators, although based on what Iraqi-Americans told me in Detroit a week ago, many of them – most of them with families in Iraq – I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down. In short, we don’t know what the requirement will be, but we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.” (Wolfowitz, House Budget Committee, 2/27/03)
In response to your question San Fran…..Saddam Hussein is once again in power because the left in America thought he hadn’t done anything wrong. THAT would be failure in Iraq.
A Democrat gets elected President and undoes all the great work that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have accomplished for the liberated Iraqi people.
Failure is fundamentally impossible so long as President Bush is in power.
come on guys, be serious.
“No Robert, there is actually overwhelming evidence that the Iraq mission is a quagmire, and the global war on terror isn’t going too well. Increased terror attacks globally for starters.
Look, I don’t have to waste my time or breathe to convince True Believers like you or FAO or anyone else here. Most of you people have blinders on that physically prevent you from accepting that Iraq has gone sour.”
Weak, weak, weak…:lol: He can’t come up with anything so he takes the easy way out…any port in a storm…
This is almost like the Global Warming debate. You can say 5,000 scientists believe man is causing it, and there are just as many or more that say the opposite.
One difference: I personally know people who have been in Iraq, on the ground, and what they say is consistent. So sorry, but I’ll put more trust in what they say than what the birdcage-liner (New York Times) says.
I am pleased to say that the Liberals, and anti-war peaceniks have been so consistenly wrong on foreign affairs matters that I have confidence history will show they are on the wrong side again…
SF Liberal, you can also be said to be a religious zealot. You have your own dogma and filter all information that contradicts it.
43- You just proved my point…