Wordsmith: My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

In looking back, as that is all we can do now, there were opportunities to bolster sanctions and tighten the noose on Saddam. Weighing the outcome and costs (as we see them today) was it worth it if we could have achieved our goal of containment and verifiable disarmament. We lived with Kadafi for a long time, and we lived with other despotic regimes with unfriendly intentions. There are many players in the game who dwarf Iraq’s strategic threat to our security; namely, Russia and China.

Wordsmith: Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

That blame probably should be shared with all you mentioned as that was their responsibility to ask the questions and hold accountable those who worked for them. The buck has to stop somewhere.

wordsmith: As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort.

I agree with you. There has to be a reality between the positions of the right and left as neither side owns the truth, or at least not all of the time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Whoops, it was Tommy Franks that called Clarke useless, etc.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Word, I think we saw that with General Sanchez. For those that don’t remember him, it was on his watch that everything went to crap, but he later turned around and attacked the Bush admin who had backed him until it was clear his way simply wasn’t working.

I’m also not a fan of Richard Clarke. He’s proof that nothing good happens when a leftwing idiot rises thru the ranks of the military. He was strictly a political pick because he had the correct leftist beliefs. I tend to listen to Wesley Clark who also happens to think Richard (Dick) is an incompetent partisan hack. He complained in his book that Dick Clarke never gave him ANY actionable intelligence. Not once.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Hard Right:

The sad thing is that some of the generals responsible for the mess later tried to blame Bush and the media ate it up without question.

I was going through Richard Clarke’s book the other night, Against All Enemies, and in defending the Clinton Administration, he mentioned how sometimes senior military officials would let it spread down the ranks that politicians in the White House were to blame for unpopular decisions, rather than taking responsibility themselves.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@blast:

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us.

What I refer to is, catching Saddam off-guard by such a quick, mobile, and light footprint. Saddam didn’t think the war would start until the 4th ID was in place. Had the war been delayed further, Saddam would have had more time for booby-trapping bridges and oil fields, as he had done during the Gulf War. Iraqis had begun such rigging, but did not see them to completion, due to the untimely start of the war. I’d say that saved lives, during major combat operations.

Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

CENTCOM planners relied on the CIA’s assessment in calculating troop levels for the invasion; they assumed that large numbers of Iraqi police would be available to maintain public order after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

The criticism that Rumsfeld is to blame for “not enough troops” is misplaced, imo. According to Feith, Rumsfeld would have given Franks the troop level he wanted, if he had asked. He didn’t ask. Generals who have criticized the troop level didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince General Franks.

No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid.

If it’s criticism based not on political partisanship, but upon legitimate criticism that certain conditions that took place could have been averted by foresight planning. As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort. I’m not saying you’re doing it, but there are critics who have engaged in this.

What is invincible to most people are all the things that went right and things that were averted because of the “adequate” planning.

If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

That’s fair. Sometimes it’s hard to separate someone like yourself from the BDSers who are more interested in laying blame, and nothing else.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

Thank you. To you as well.

@MataHarley:

So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.

No insult was intended. By “eyes glazed over”, I wasn’t saying what you and Blast had to talk about was not worth the read, but just that I was scrolling through, it looked like a lot to catch up on, when I was pressed for time. It just looked like a lot to go through, but it’s really not. And I always appreciate the amount of time you put into your comments, complete with relevant links.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Blast you agree we didn’t need more soldiers to invade and take Iraq. That is something we MUST be able to do in the future as we can’t bet on some tyrant doing nothing and letting us amass our army off his border before we invade. Should we have brought in more soldiers after that? Yes. I can’t recall if we had them available, tho. Unfortunately it took some time to build up our forces and later find a general who could handle the situation that previous generals had allowed to spin out of control. The sad thing is that some of the generals responsible for the mess later tried to blame Bush and the media ate it up without question.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

blast: They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.

So what does that mean in your analysis? Say… in the summer of 2006, when the Iragis finally put into place their first permanent elected government, that we just say “ooops! Sorry… we made an error. See ya!” ?????

Once we removed Saddam, we were obligated to stand by their new govt until they could stand safely and effectively on their own. Yet the Dems advocated desertion at every opportunity because it affected the US and public opinon. The Iraqis? They could give a damn for their outcome.

Their success meant vast progress on our national security. Their failure meant the converse.

So ‘splain, please Mr. blast… what does that “… make mistakes.. and “…. admit it and move on… mean in this instance?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mataharley: INRE the economics of war… using your analogy for costs, I’d have to wonder if anyone would support wars that were not active invasion of US soil.

Mataharley: I may disagree when the decision is being mulled publicly. But once committed, I drop those protests and say “go for it full bore”. I did that thru the 90s. I did that as a military wife during Vietnam.

Your experiences are different from mine, and I think you know (or I hope you do) that whither or not we agree or disagree that I value that perspective. When I respond to something is because I have an opinion or are interested in discussing a point. No doubt that ends at the waters edge and am American first and foremost. I do however feel that if a policy needs to be changed, or some value is being misused I will say so. It is not a matter of who is president, Bush, Clinton or Obama, as to supporting or opposing some policy they embark on. I did not disagree with the Iraq invasion at the time and trusted the people above my pay grade to make the right decisions. No doubt they had many right calls and some that were bad too. The price of admission to being President is having people agree and disagree with nearly everything you do. President Bush is not an evil person in my opinion. Do I think we needed to go into Iraq (now with hindsight) at the time we chose, no I don’t. I expect our leaders to make better decisions than I can, given the resources and smart people (all above my pay grade, lol) they have at their disposal. They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.

And BTW, thank you not only for your service, but for not labeling our CIC a “liar” at any time… even tho you disagree. You’re a liberal I could break bread with any day, and not walk away with steam pouring from my ears. LOL

Well, with Martha Stewert’s cookies of mass destruction on my mind and breaking bread… I am hungry. I probably come across liberal in this forum, and maybe I am. I don’t consider myself liberal, I see myself more as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican with some Libertarian leanings. Maybe the cookies had something smokeable in them… Oh, and thank you too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us. That sewed the seeds that allowed things to devolve to near chaos. Our warriors deserve all the credit for pulling the place together and the lessons learned on the battalion level that turned the tide. No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid. If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.

This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

blast: I would have to say Airplanes would fit that bill then. What do you think the number should be?

Here is a place we can agree on a concept of WMD. To me, it has no number, but is a weapon of any sort used to maximize death count… whether it succeeds or not.

So yes, I consider biological attacks, such as the very minimally successful (in the cost of lives) a WMD. This is why I do not hold with the rallying cry of “no WMD”. I know very well that Saddam’s chemical labs could churn out bio/chem stashes like Martha Stewart can churn out cookies. When you compound that with proscribed missiles that he acquired after 1998, Saddam possessed WMDs that he could put together for his own use, for for sale on the black market. So I think it’s just a matter of what one considers a WMD… or, in more popular phrase’ology… “what the meaning of ‘is’… is”.

INRE the economics of war… using your analogy for costs, I’d have to wonder if anyone would support wars that were not active invasion of US soil. That’s only happened a few times…. American Revolution, Pearl Harbor and 911 being the most well known. The first two were easier to discern the enemy as they were nation/states. The last? It’s like being attacked by the Bloods ‘n’ Crips, fer heavens sake. It’s a war foreign to our modern comprehension (not that the ideological war hasn’t been fought before in history).

I have a very American attitude towards wars… and that includes Clinton’s wars that I did not support. I may disagree when the decision is being mulled publicly. But once committed, I drop those protests and say “go for it full bore”. I did that thru the 90s. I did that as a military wife during Vietnam. And I’d do it under a President Obama as well. I wish it were an attitude more widespread. After we are committed, the time to whine is over.

And BTW, thank you not only for your service, but for not labeling our CIC a “liar” at any time… even tho you disagree. You’re a liberal I could break bread with any day, and not walk away with steam pouring from my ears. LOL

So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0