A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

Brandon I give up I do not have the facility of speaking to an empty hole.

au1929 wrote:

Brandon, not happy but dismayed and disgusted.
As for what went wrong in Iraq. The planning or lack thereof for control once we were in. And all the attendant problems related to it. You don't think it was well planned or do you?

Well, we won easily in 3 weeks. We didn't predict the subsequent insurgency, but who says wars are simple or predictable, or that enemies are pushovers? They haven't usually been such in the past. Probably we ought to have gone in with more troops. I am sure that most past wars were just overflowing with screw-ups. The difference was that in the past we usually had a loyal populace and press who didn't delight in crowing about every imprefection from a picture perfect sequence of events.

If Dubya Had Read What Poppy Wrote . . .

In his memoir, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

In a 1996 Frontline Special on The Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkoph spoke these prophetic words.

Quote:

Gen. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

Transcript

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Brandon, not happy but dismayed and disgusted.
As for what went wrong in Iraq. The planning or lack thereof for control once we were in. And all the attendant problems related to it. You don't think it was well planned or do you?

Well, we won easily in 3 weeks. We didn't predict the subsequent insurgency, but who says wars are simple or predictable, or that enemies are pushovers? They haven't usually been such in the past. Probably we ought to have gone in with more troops. I am sure that most past wars were just overflowing with screw-ups. The difference was that in the past we usually had a loyal populace and press who didn't delight in crowing about every imprefection from a picture perfect sequence of events.

Come back to reality Brandon.

Are you capable of being specific?

We didn't predict the subsequent insurgency, but who says wars are simple or predictable

Brandon9000 wrote:

Are you capable of being specific?

mesquite posted two quotes to back up what he perceives as loss of reality on your side, Brandon.

You wrote

Brandon9000 wrote:

We didn't predict the subsequent insurgency, but who says wars are simple or predictable

And mesquite quoted some resources that state that the current situation had almost exactly been predicted. That's quite a specific reply to your post, I would say.

Why do you think it is not specific, Brandon?

Why do you guys argue with Brandon? He's obviously right. He even said so, so it must be true.

So let's move on to how the pentagon is filled with incompetent as*holes, shall we?

kickycan wrote:

Why do you guys argue with Brandon? He's obviously right. He even said so, so it must be true.

So let's move on to how the pentagon is filled with incompetent as*holes, shall we?

It seems to be a characteristic of you liberals to make these slash and run attacks, in which you make some little wisecrack, but avoid like the plague any kind of direct discussion or analysis of the points your opponent has made. I think the prevailing sentiment would be that it indicates an inability to support your views.

You seem to think that responding to a specific argument with a wisecrack means you win something. The truth is that most people know it means you can't defend your position.

Because if you post your opinion about something, "old europe," I can simply write down links and excerpt other people's words without making any attempt to answer your logical points myself. This does not constitute debate. If Mesquite has any intelligent response to the quotation of mine he gave, let him make it. If he cannot state a viewpoint and give an argument to support it, he shouldn't be playing with the adults.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Because if you post your opinion about something, "old europe," I can simply write down links and excerpt other people's words without making any attempt to answer your logical points myself. This does not constitute debate. If Mesquite has any intelligent response to the quotation of mine he gave, let him make it. If he cannot state a viewpoint and give an argument to support it, he shouldn't be playing with the adults.

I thought that the point I was making was self evident. Old europe agreed and explained it. I then confirmed that his take was correct. What more do you need? I have in the past given you detailed explanations as in this post only to have you leave the discussion without responding.

And mesquite quoted some resources that state that the current situation had almost exactly been predicted.

I will grant that among the numerous predictions, were some that are more or less what really ended up happening.

I will grant that among the numerous predictions, were some that are more or less what really ended up happening.

I would like to think that I would have listened to my generals from the beginning. PBS Frontline recently aired "Rumsfeld's War", which was a remarkable program IMO. It should be required viewing for all political junkies. The full 90 min . program can be viewed online HERE. The online version is broken into six 15 min. segments.

Here is an excerpt from the program. Note that this is NOT HINDSITE. this testimony was given to congress three weeks prior to the invasion.

Quote:

Feb. 25, 2003

Shinseki goes public with doubts over troop size.

Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq is to begin, Gen. Shinseki is forced to take his internal fight with Rumsfeld public in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Responding to a question from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) about the size of the force required for an occupation of Iraq, Shinseki responds:

I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz respond with public rebukes of Shinseki. Rumsfeld calls Shinseki's estimates "far from the mark," and Wolfowitz comments two days later in testimony before the House Budget Committee, "First, it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine," he said. Wolfowitz also argues that the Kurdish northern third of Iraq had been liberated from Saddam after the Gulf War and that the area had stayed relatively stable without the presence of U.S. troops.

Source:Timeline