Posted on 03/19/2006 8:18:36 AM PST by SmithL
When the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq three years ago, the Bush administration was brimming with confidence that this would be a war only in the sense that a lot of bombs would be dropped and the military would seize, temporarily, a foreign capital. It was going to be swift, high-tech, clean.
Six weeks later, President Bush spoke in the past tense about Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanking the Iraqis who welcomed the U.S. troops and promising that democratic change would sweep the region.
Now, with sectarian violence roaring and casualties rising, the White House increasingly is talking, in the present tense, about a long war, meaning the old-fashioned kind -- "the crucible with the blood and the dust and the gore," as Gen. Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last fall.
Three years on, experts from the left and the right say, the costly Iraq war has barely begun, and if there are to be broad benefits, as the president still promises, they could be years away.
William Odom, a retired lieutenant general who ran Army intelligence and later the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, has called the Iraqi adventure "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."
"What we've learned is that you cannot impose a Pax Americana solution," said Conrad Crane, a Middle East expert at the Army War College who is leading a crash rewriting of the military's counterinsurgency manual in response to the unanticipated tenacity of the resistance. "You are not going to have a Western-style democracy, and you're not going to have a market economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
In fact, he said it would be long and difficult and we needed resolve. And he predicted that people would lose focus and patience. He said this shortly after 9/11.
The "Instant Gratification Crowd" can't grasp the reality of war.
Since when is war easy?
I still ask "what war?" Yes there are still people fighting, but for the most part I compare this to the British and the IRA. When I see an opposing military in the field, I will agree that there is still a "war" in the true meaning of the word.
Well, that's B.S. The Iraqis are embracing good old-fashioned capitalism and we're teaching them how to trade on the global economy after the years of their isolation caused by the sanctions.
They are very avid learners on that subject.
When did the white house EVER see a quick end to the war? Long, tough slog is what was always said.
Say WHAT?? Did this guy ever actually listen to a word Bush has ever said? He said from the beginning that it would NOT be easy, NOT be clean, NOT be quick, that we would have to stay the course, go the distance, on and on.... what the hell is the matter with these people's hearing??
Well, if the San Francisco Chronically Wrong says it, it must be true.
They're so knowledgable about fighting wars and national defense there.
The Iraqis refer to Desert Storm as "the first American war" and Operation Iraqi Freedom as the "second American war."
By the "second" one, they mean the initial invasion that resulted in the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
There's nothing derogatory in how they say it; it's just what they've called the two conflicts.
Those we fight against in Iraq are not Iraqis, but Iranians, Syrians, Al-Qaeda fighters from foreign nations as well as Al-Qaeda members who are Iraqi.
Iraq just happens to be the current front in our war against Islamic terrorism. That war was never going to be a quick one, and no one in the Bush administration ever said it would.
I never heard President Bush say it was going to be easy, i only remember hearing him say it was going to be difficult.
Important distinction, it is roundly ignored.
I wonder what this guy's rationale is for this statement. There are plenty of mistakes in our recent history with much greater consequences.
-Not confronting Hitler during his military buildup, millions killed, large sections of Europe destroyed
-Underestimating the Japanese willingness to go to war, having to fight a two front world war.
-Not supporting the Nationalist Chinese enough after WWII and allowing the Reds to take China with massive assistance from the Soviets.
-Not forseeing the entry of the Red Chinese in the Korean War, heavy casualties, leaving the North under Communist control, 50 years later having a rogue nation playing with Nukes.
-Vietnam. Letting the Tet Offensive shift the momentum in the war despite the Communists taking massive casualties. Allowing restricted bombing in the North.
-Communism. Not seeing it for what it was, an international conspiracy to oppress people. By allowing it to exist we sentenced ourselves to the cost of the cold war, 100,000 dead in two hot wars.
Those are all strategic mistakes we made in the last 60 years.
"Three years -- White House no longer sees quick end to difficult war"
Lying liberal POS fag.
Is EVERY member of the US media afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder? What is it about journalism that attracts such shallow people?
You're wrong.......we all know this is a civil war........
And don't try to convince us with that eyewitness stuff................:-)
Exactly. I don't ever remember President Bush saying this was going to be over quickly. If anything, he's always said the war on terror and in Iraq would be long-term, and that we would not leave Iraq until the mission was complete. He's been nothing but honest in his statements regarding his Administration's committment, and warned the people of this country that it wouldn't be easy and there would be setbacks along the way. I don't know who these media nuts have been listening to, but it sure isn't President Bush.
My head just exploded.
Go back to DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.