I see, like the plan that we'd be out in 6 months and that the full reconstruction would be paid for by Iraq's oil resources. I like that plan...

Your thesis is contradicted by three words: "worsening sectarian violence..."

THIS is what was planned:

"We are dealing with a country [Iraq] that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." -Paul Wolfowitz

"The cost of the war will be small. We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us."--Treasury Secretary John Snow

"I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." -Donald Rumsfeld

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot...It's fun to shoot some people" --Lt. Gen. James Mattis

"A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush"-- Richard Perle, Sept. 22 2003

"I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators." - Dick Cheney

Not exactly the best laid plans...

Mark Noonan- "In my view, most of them still stack arms and seek the best deal possible with Iraq's political system - and that will further isolate the outright terrorist groups and make it easier to kill or capture them."

I agree that this is quite likely. Good job Iraqis! Way to go USA jetfighters!

Congressive- Your thesis is contradicted by three words: "worsening sectarian violence..."

As compared to what? Sunni Muslim vs. Shia Muslim violence has been raging almost since the dawn of the Islamic religion.

LAtimes.com: "Shiites and Sunnis -- centuries of strife"

"But sectarian strife is nothing new in Islamic history, and battles between Shiites and Sunnis have erupted periodically since Hussein challenged the Umayyad claim to the caliphate and raised the banner of revolt in AD 680.

Congressive, look at the plight of Shiites within Saudia Arabia (same article)-

[..] In Saudi Arabia, the religious-ideological divide has played a decisive role in shaping relations between the Saud ruling family, backed by the state's clerical establishment, and the Shiite minority concentrated mainly in the Hasa region, site of the country's oil. The rulers' adoption of Wahhabi-Hanbali Islam as the state's religious ideology has meant an inferior status for Shiites, whom the Wahhabis view as infidels. Shiites regard themselves as second- and even third-class citizens within the kingdom."

I wonder how it feels to be congressive or winnowhead and have to root for the terrorists. Could you imagine hating your country more than al Qaeda? What sad and pathetic lives they must live.

I see, like the plan that we'd be out in 6 months and that the full reconstruction would be paid for by Iraq's oil resources. I like that plan.

Patience, winnow, we're still 5 months from the mid term elections. Expect a miracle in Iraq, oh 'bout October.

I see, like the plan that we'd be out in 6 months and that the full reconstruction would be paid for by Iraq's oil resources. I like that plan.

Patience, winnow, we're still 5 months from the mid term elections. Expect a miracle in Iraq, oh 'bout October.

"Not exactly the best laid plans..."

Once again Congenital Idiot seems not to understand simple english. Those werent plans , those were quotes...and were wrong and foolish to say. If you believe those were plans it explains the McDonalds job you have. Look up the definition of a plan you moron.

Exactly, ZootAllure, because there were no real plans for the post-invasion period. Neither Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld had any intention of nation-building-they didn't believe in it. That's why they made those foolish statements in the first place. The generals have told us how military standard procedure was thrown out the window so Rumsfeld could conduct the war on the cheap. They were naive, and very, very wrong. They dismissed the Iraqi army and the police force and failed to secure weapons caches that would be later used for IED's by the insurgency. Iraq has been in chaos ever since.

"One of the key reasons given for Operation Iraqi Freedom was to eliminate Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate the WMD programs."

I said to many friends from the outset that there were many good reasons to do this and the WMD focus was a poor choice for the lynchpin reason. I understand the emotional appeal but I felt his continued violations of the cease fire agreement, firing on planes in the no-fire zone, non-cooperation with weapons inspectors and humanitarian reasons were just as important. In this (just guessing)50 year struggle I also felt that to have Iran surronded and a force next to SA, Syria...etc was also advantagous. The only hope for the middle east is some form of a reformation and a democratic(maybe not perfect but miles better than has existed)government in the middle of this might provide the catalyst. In a world paradigm that has changed radically(small world, big weapons in small packages) We dont have the luxury to wait 100 years for it to happen. We needed to force the issue as Islam isnt capable of the self introspection such a movement needs.

Our only other choices are to get used to living with radical islam or wipe it out. I find both of those choices poor ones. I dont feel that we can establish a live and let live relationship with isalm in its present form moderate or otherwise.

One other thing I have wondered. Perhaps the people Sadam had running his programs were, showing Sadam a few examples of WMD, generating the paperwork and the talk and taking the money for themselves. I believe one of the sons was running the programs and could easily believe he was scamming his dad and sending the money offshore. This would explain why we thought it was real but in reality only the appearence was not the actual and why Sadam thought he had them when he didnt...at least not in near the quantity he assumed. I also think that theres a good chance what was there was moved to the Bekah valley in Syria Just a thought.

Disregard previous post....wrong thread...posting probs.

Zooallure

Thanks for expressing the same thoughts except more articulately than I could.:) Thre is one thing you did not mention. Saddam's regime had active ties to Islamic Extremists terrorists.

In any event, back to the topic of the thread. I hope this plan includes a larger committment of troops and equipment. I think more troops would be helpful to try and get the secutity situation under control. So much of our Iraq policy seems to be based on hope. We hope that democracy will take root in Iraq. We hope that the democratic Iraq will ally with us in the GWOT. We hope that the seed of democracy established in Iraq will spread to the rest of the middle east. I'm not very comfortable with policies that are based on hope.

I posted a variation of this post earlier but it has not shown up. In the event of doble posting, I apologize.

Freedom, I hate explaining jokes. You either get it or you don't.

You seem to think I said "sectarian violence." The THREE words included from the article were "worsening sectarian violence" and in fact the trend described as "worsening" alone contradicts Mark's thesis.

CJ seems to think expressing outrage towards a corporo-fascist administration who doesn't care what polls (i.e. majority constituents) say, while spending billions and destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis is rooting for the terrorists.

When the captain of your Titanic heads full speed into a field of icebergs, you are either with the captain or you are with the icebergs, right? I hope you brought your own lifeboat, Molly.

Posted by: ZootAllure at July 8, 2006 11:13 AM

Good post anyway, ZootAllure. For the record, I was in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, when we left Saddam and his Ba'athist regime in charge. We should have finished the job. As a result, Saddam slaughtered a quarter million Shiites who had the courage to rise up and oppose Saddam. That great tragedy could have been avoided.

Congressive

Your quotes regarding what various administration officials made are spot on. The bottom line is they underestimated the difficulty of the military operation and made some very foolish statements. They seem to have ignored what some of the military commanders said but there seem to be others who supportered them. Bottom line the post invasion period has not gone as well as it could have or should have. This appears to be because of a combination of honest mistakes and hubris on the part of this administration and they have been slow to adjust. Someone should be held accountable. You are spot on to point out these errors. I wish the Democrats would do more of this rather than labeling the administration as "fascists" and other statements like this.

Unfortunately where credibiltiy is damaged is when you used the term "corporo-fascist." The dictionary definition of a fascist governemnt is one that is known for dictatorial control. The United States is a constitutional republic. The president is checked by the legislative and the judicial branch, as well as by a free and independent press. I don't think most Democrats believe the Bush administration is "fascist", however, the Democrats refusal to distance themselves from such quotes is unhelpful to constructive debate. The most recent polls I know of concerning Iraq suggest that the American people believe going into Iraq was a mistake but that it would be wrong to withdraw prematurely. Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq or how we should fight the war in Iraq or the broader GWOT are legitmate debates.

Actually there seem to be legitimate grounds to impeach this president. His efforts at border security are a dismal failure and his out of control spending is atrocious. There seem to have been errors in how the GWOT have been conducted, especially in Iraq. This is all good reasons for a change in leadership. There is no need to pile on with the false statement of labeling the administration as "corporo-fascist." These statements only serve to undermine a very legitmate position.

Btw, most of the innocent Iraq civilians being killed are being done by the terrorists and the former regime elements and not by the Americans or its coalition allies.

"Btw, most of the innocent Iraq civilians being killed are being done by the terrorists and the former regime elements and not by the Americans or its coalition allies." Posted by: B.Poster

Correct. This point should be repeated again and again until it sinks in.

Well, not living in LibLand, MY President told the country, several times, that this would be a long hard struggle. I heard one speech in which he said this could last decades, or even generations.

Now, possibly to those with the brains of fruit flies, "generations" COULD take place in six months.

Didn't Rumsfeld refer to the actual taking of Iraq, and not the amount of time we would actually be there? Because I have NEVER heard ANYONE from or connected to this Administration claim we would be in and out of Iraq in ANY specific time frame. Not then, not now.

If you neorads want to make actual arguments based on actual facts, you have to know what a fact is and then use it accurately and in context.

And as Zoot pointed out, quotes are not plans. Iraq DOES have the resources to finance its own reconstruction, though it will take a while for its resources to be fully available. Or do you think that the terrorists are bombing oil fields and supply lines just because they make a big boom? It is to halt the economy and keep the country from being able to rebuild itself, dummy.

We WERE greeted as liberators. Ranty may not want you to know that, but ask the soldiers who were there. Who are there.

And so on. You just can't stand it that Iraq is making progress, that we are making progress, that we are foiling attack plans in spite of you and your medial allies trying to tip off the terrorists at every turn, that the economy is up,----all the good news just grinds away at you.

And kritter, "THE generals..." have not told us ANYTHING. SOME generals have gone whining and whingeing to the Left, complaining that they didn't get the respect they thought they should have, that they weren't listened to, blah blah blah blah blah.

Some generals presented some plans. Some other generals presented some other plans. This is the way it is done. Lots of general, lots of ideas, lots of plans. Some good, some bad, some dumb. Ditto for the plans they presented. Clark, for example---Clark got fired while he was at an embassy function and hauled home in disgrace, by Clinton. So his "plans" might not have been received with unanimous respect. Just because you're a general doesn't mean you are a good general.

The military had been becoming even more and more divided over hte past decade or so as some saw the need to modernize and adapt to the new type of warfare, which was being referred to as "assymetrical". Some wanted to stick with the old ways, the ones they were comfortable with. There are as many different reasons for as many different ideas of warfare as there are generals.

The SecDef had the job of first deciding which generals he thought were the most competent and likely to have the best ideas, and then to sort through those ideas and plans and work out what he, and the generals he respected the most, thought would work best. Guess what? They may not have been 100% correct!! News flash!!! Some human beings may have made some mistakes!!!

But to claim that the decisions made were absolutely wrong, (much less made for the wrong reasons) and that the decisions promoted by others (many of them after the fact, with the assistance of hindsight) would have been 100% right, is simply ludicrous. Get off it. Your silly complaints about EVERYTHING not being PERFECT are very tiring.

You are ignorant of war, you are ignorant of history, you are ignorant of economics, you are ignorant of what is even going on in your own country. Which would not be so annoying if you were not so strident about proclaiming your ignorance at every opportunity, and reveling in it.

Kritter says:

"because there were no real plans for the post-invasion period"

Are you really so ignorant and naive to believe that. Dont get me wrong the plans they had were obviously imperfect. No operational plans of this size survive in anything but an outline very long. My critisism is not of the disbanding its that they took to long to start building back, allowed folks like Sadr to exist for any length of time(should have killed him quick..no apologies) Yes I believe there should have been more boots on the ground and we should have been more agressive in our efforts. As far as securing weapon caches I'm sure there was an effort...enough, dont know I wasnt there and neither were you. I do know that in an area as large as Iraq the possibility of missing them is good and that is just the reality of that sh** sandwich.

I'll wager you've never planned and executed a large corporate project. I have and as well as you plan 15 min into it your dealing with contingencies. I cant even imagine trying to plan a war with the chaos that war inevatably creates.

When you make statements like "no real plans" it is readily apparent you lack the experience and knowledge to make any pertinent comment to the real problems that have always occurred in every war.

My comment to congenital idiot was to point once again the complete stupidity of his statements.

"Iraq has been in chaos ever since."

You do realize that there were snipers and sabotage for 5 years following germanys defeat and we blew up the whole damn country. Just what the hell did you expect when facing an enemy that observes NONE of the rules of war.

Zoot,

Actually the insurgency in post WWII Germany ended in 3 years.

The plan for winning the peace was nothing short of fantasy. Everything that was said publically was based on information that the population as a whole would open their arms to us, and fight the "dead-enders", not fall back into sectarian hatred and begin a smoldering civil war.

Having plans change is one thing, but to totally ignore the realities of cultural minutia is absolutely stupid. There were loud voices on both sides telling us that this would happen, but ofcourse they were written off.

As soon as some left wing fanatic uses the word "fascist" they've admitted to losing the arguement. Not worth reading past that.