Posted on 06/21/2007 5:51:47 AM PDT by meandog
These stories are starting to be pushed forward by the Democrats and the MSM, because they suspect that the surge might work, and they want a way to blame the administration for why it took so long.
Rumsfeld was amazing successful in the execution of the war phase of Afgahnistan and Iraq. The restoration phase has had mistakes, but no one has a crystal ball.
And so it begins, the left will begin to rewrite history in a concerted effort to tag Rummy and any other Republican with a Vietnam like political millstone. HOGWASH!
What culpability do Democrats have for actively working for defeat so they can gain politically?? What about Harry Reid’s comments. What about Nancy Pelosi’s freelance negotiations with our enemies.
Sorry, meandog, you and those who believe this disinformation do not cut it.
He was not a bad SECDEF. Because he wasn't perfect, some people want to throw stones at him. Well that is horsecrap in my opinion.
According to the 4 star that planned and led this operation, Jack Keane is full of it. General Franks clearly anticipated some sort of post regime change action; this was "Phase 4" in his operation. If you are going to lay blame anywhere, the civillian authorities appointed to "reconstruct" Iraq in late Spring/Summer 2003. For instance, Paul Brenner's decision to disband the Iraqi Army simply added 200,000 young unemployed men to the potential pool of recruits for the millitias and terrorists. Similar bungling by civillian authority outside of DoD control did nothing more than pour gas on the fire.
To say that the military did not anticipate insurgency/terrorism after the taking control of Iraq is simply a lie.
thanks for the references here...new info to me.
Haley Barbour is right. Patience is just not part of the American DNA. It's an old pattern, dating back as far as the War for Independence. Had Washington not pulled off a surprise victory at Trenton, thwarting British attempts to control the Middle Atlantic states, and the invasion from Canada not been stopped at Saratoga, the cause of independence would likely have been abandoned by most Americans, the Continental Army would have collapsed, and leaders like Washington and Franklin would have had to flee the country or they would have been hanged for treason to the crown. For better or worse, Americans are not the Irish or the Poles.
Given this history and the more recent experience with prolonged, limited war in Vietnam, President Bush and his advisers, Rumsfeld included, were ill advised to try essentially the same tactics in Iraq. Representative government, free elections, and civil liberties may be desirable goals, but what is now Iraq had been governed by foreign empires from Biblical times until 1920. There is simply no tradition on which to build free institutions, unlike Germany, Japan, or even South Vietnam. Also, the desire to keep an artificial nation like Iraq, which was carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by the British after World War I, intact was unrealistic.
The Army and Marines are at essentially the same numerical strength they were since the mid-1990s after Clinton and Bush, Sr., era cutbacks in spite of what is now a four year occupation. The restrained rules of engagement, such as not destroying enemy strongholds with massive air and artillery firepower and letting the guerrillas retreat into mosques without leveling them, were a big mistake.
MacArthur had it right. There is no substitute for victory.
1. Why was the Iraqi army and paramilitary forces completely dismantled?
I ask this question because I overheard a very senior military official muse it often; (we didn't completely dismantle the German army or police force after WWII) the logical conclusion would have been to have those Iraqis who wanted to remain swear an oath to their country instead of to Saddam.
2. Why weren't more forces employed to protect against looting and WMD movement?
3. Why weren't there civil affairs personnel immediately in place (as they were in Germany, Japan post WWII surrender) to help manage the infrastructure of Iraq?
These are questions I've always asked.
That Frontline episode was interesting. The point was made that Rumsfeld was actually in agreement with the democrats on exit strategy, etc., but that the dems didn’t realize it. As soon as Rumsfeld was let go, the Dems had lost their biggest ally in the admin, and the “surge” began.
Certainly, Rumsfeld plan failed. Their can be no question about that. The only question is, where were all these critics who say we needed more troops, etc., when the decisions were being made? Monday morning QB’ing is an apt description.
Lemme guess... a Buchanan Brigadier?
Thanks for giving us the NPR-CNN-BBC-MSNBC-UN side of things.
Because people like the media and you twist the facts and deceive the public.
Happens in communist Russia too.
Thank you. It is definitely missing the ‘barf alert.’ I miss Rumsfeld. Nice to see testosterone in leadership.
How many cabinet-level officials have ever served all eight years of a two-term presidency in the same job?
Absolutely dead on, despite what PBS Frontline may spew!
Oh cut me a break. This is a hit piece along the lines of “Bush Lide and Millions Died” and is nothing but a plug for a PBS BS docudrama.
Barbara Lerner’s article is super — such clarity. Thanks for posting it. Makes it all make sense.
Because the Democrats are out to take down the Bush administration brick by brick, no matter who has to die, and because of you "protest voters" they won the majority in both the house and senate. Don't insult our intelligence with a herb-induced fantasy of utter brillaince and clear thinking.
The restoration phase has had mistakes....Chief among them were colin Powell and Paul Bremer.
Good points.
We saved the oil wells, secured the national treasury (to the extent Saddam and his loozer relatives and henchmen hadnt already looted it)- and did an amazing job in terms of minimizing human losses for us and the Iraqis in such a massive operation-
and yet
liberals and the NYT immediately got out the sharp knives because “Rummie” (and the US military) failed to stop Ali Baba’s thieves from looting the Iraqi national museum.
Remember?
Yup. I also remember that the museum was never even looted -- the caretakers had removed and hidden the pieces to prevent damage or theft.
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.