0
   

Americans are losing the Victory... Check it out!

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 02:41 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
real simple dlowan those people felt as they do now before..but were hedging their bets just in case...now that they've swallowed that mandate and earned capital nonsense they feel empowered and have no need to pretend to be reasonable....just my thought on it....


Hmmm - I suspect it is a bit more psychological than that - and hence invisible to those affected - (as it truly seems to be) - and that it comes more from the extraordinary bitterness of the division amongst the more politicized Americans (I HOPE it doesn't exist so much for Americans not so intensely politicized - cos it's damn bad news for the country if it is).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 02:44 pm
"blame the sole country who stepped up to the plate to stop the madness? "

Hmm - that's interesting - I thought there was a mighty "coalition of the willing"? Didn't Kerry get in a lot of trouble for saying something about the thing that only mentioned America?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 02:45 pm
"he forgot Poland"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 02:56 pm
" have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they? Sun Tzu wrote; a war plan becomes useless the moment the first shot is fired."

Interesting point.

I think you are quite right - that it was not planned poorly deliberately.

What I DO think is that Rumsfeld's thoughts about how the military should be - which he battled to impose on the Pentagon - affected the plan.

The war plan finally adopted - while I understand it was something of a compromise on the even smaller military presence desired by Rumsfeld - was way below that felt necessary by the military in the plans they had drawn up post-Iraq I - and that Rumsfeld refused to listen to those who disagreed with him - bullying, marginalizing, or getting rid of, those who continued to speak out against his beliefs - including Powell, who, in the end, attempted to counsel from his position in State.

My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of military leaders thought (and many thought the invasion itself a mistake) that the military commitment was way too small - even to keep order after an initial victory - and certainly far too small to deal with an insurgency of any size.

I also understand that Rumsfeld and other neocons in power got rid of many folk in other areas germane to giving advice about such an undertaking (like Middle East experts in wherever the American government keeps them!) and installed their own people - or ignored advice they did not like.

I do not think they are alone in such behaviour in the history of people going to war - nor do I think that anyone goes about making wrong decisions militarily on purpose - but I DO think their ideology got in the way of making the most rational decisions about this.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 03:16 pm
Every war plan by committee has to be a compromise between opposing opinions. When you ask a committee anything, someone's advice will be ignored or at least be deemed less accurate. The opposing side will always attempt to capitalize on the dissenter who was ignored when errors take place. This is normal, and proves nothing. I'm glad we agree that it was not deliberately screwed up. While some may think that it was, to keep Halliburton & Friends busy, I suspect we'd have simply been on to our next theater sooner if this one had went betterÂ… and consequently they'd have stayed busy enough anyway.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 03:19 pm
Hmmm - so you have no qualm with Rummie's behaviour in the Pentagon?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 03:20 pm
BTW - where did anybody say that it was deliberately screwed up?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 03:31 pm
dlowan wrote:
Hmmm - so you have no qualm with Rummie's behaviour in the Pentagon?
I don't feel that I'm sufficiently informed to have a qualm with Rummie's behavior in the Pentagon. I don't know that the War in Iraq isn't going as well as could possibly be expected, or worse than the worst Pentagon models predicted. I do know that I think it's work that needs to be done and I have little choice but to trust in the powers that be to get the job done. I also know that it's not always the most popular guy who gets the job done.

dlowan wrote:
BTW - where did anybody say that it was deliberately screwed up?
Perhaps a poor choice of words, but the implication is all over A2K. Read Squinney and Bear's responses if you think I'm imagining it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 07:00:09