"Courage as President Bush has shown is a very rare bird, and it may be a generation before we see its like again in the White House."

You are right, Mark. It's been a generation since Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon inspired us with their "complete the mission" courage about Vietnam.

Ask the Vietnamese refugees and boat people that survived fleeing the Communist North Vietnamese if we should have "completed the mission" of Johnson and Nixon.

Imagine what Europe and Asia would be like if Roosevelt and Truman had not inspired a "complete the mission" attitude in the 1940s.

Would we still have troops stationed in South Korea had Truman "completed the mission" in Korea?

Its fine and good to complete the mission. The problem with Vietnam was the generals never got the full amount of troops they needed and their were not enough troops to secure the country's borders. Finally, we betrayed the South Vietnamese when we cut funding.

In order to maximize our chances of bringing this mission to a succeful completeion, we need more troops. The president should have requested them.

Many people wrongly assume that being Prime-Minister or President is the whole thing being a popularity contest...which is not. Just playing Captain Obvious here for a minute.

We should also be proud that we have a president who fart jokes, according to US News and World Report:

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

And another thing:

"Such courage as President Bush has shown..."

Which takes more courage? For Bush to stand up and repeat (many times) focus-tested platitudes like "complete the mission," or to admit to the country and the world that the signature decision of his presidency (invading Iraq and getting rope-a-doped there) was the greatest strategic blunder in American history?

While I do applaud the President's steadfastness, the failure to quickly identify, admit, and rectify strategic flaws cost us American lives. His assurance that he is always right is part of the problem.

Larry,

As I said in the post, you don't get it and it will be some years - if ever - before you do...but, man, it is great to have President that I don't have to worry about...I know that whatever he does, he'll be doing it from the conviction that it is the right thing. That is a comfort - much better than the half-measures of Clinton who only did what the polls said he should.

Georgia,

I think you are mistaking "strategic" for "tactical" - the errors in Iraq, such as they were, are tactical, and thus not under the control of the President save as his general responsibility as commander in chief. The President isn't going to dwell on such things because he's wise enough not to second-guess his field commanders, especially as he knows how supple the US military force is, and thus any tactical error is swiftly corrected.

The reason the President won't "admit" he was wrong in Iraq is because he hasn't been - you don't admit error when you didn't make one. There is a vast gulf between "mistake" and "incomplete facts". The sooner the critics learn the difference, the quicker they'll get over their absurd Bush-hatred.

Mark-

I was referring to initial troop levels and the extent that the troops were equipped at the time of invasion.

The President had direct say in how many troops were used initially, and Colin Powell even told him to use more than he did... but he listened to Rummy and our troops paid the price for it.

Georgia

I think you are spot on regarding the troop numbers and how they were equipped, at the time of the invasion. Making an initial mistake on this is understandable, however, failing to make the appropiate course corrections and commit more troops when it seems this should have been done sometime around June of 2003 is a bit more difficult to understand.

Due to the failure to commit the additional resources early on, an already difficult situation is more difficult than it needed to be. I think changes at the highest levels of the Administration are probably in order.

I think we can still commit the resources to give us a better chance at achieving the goal of an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq. If we don't, then we must hope the Iraqis we are training will be up to the task of defending the country and they will be allied with us.

Any additional commitments to Iraq should be done consistent with US national security. The greatest threats to the US come from Russia, China, and Iran. In focusing more on Iraq, we should not lose focus on much bigger national security threats.

General Franks, CENTCOM at the time of the Iraqi invasion, has stated repeatedly that he got all the troops he asked for, and was offered more if he wanted them.

He didn't want them. In General Franks' opinion, it would have taken too many extra months to assemble a 300,000-400,000 man force, and he did not feel he could lose that much time. Therefore, as commander of the invasion, he made a command decision to go with what he had.

Further details are available in his autobiography, 'American Soldier'.

But the whole 'Bush/Rumsfeld denied troops the Army wanted' is flat-out bullcrap. Any retired general who says otherwise is contradicting the actual CO of the Iraqi invasion... who, in a rational world, would be acknowledged as the guy in the best position to know.

Georgia -- as I mentioned before, General Franks had a different opinion. So it wasn't just 'listening to Rummy', it was listening to, among other people, his senior field commander.

The commanding general who actually led the initial invasion had the final say in how many troops he got. Such are the public statements of both President Bush and General Franks. If you want to accuse either or both of them of lying, you will need to show a much bigger hole card than 'because I say so'.

Mr Noonan as a non-American I am a bit confused to be sure. Are you saying that even if the president is wrong in his decisions as he is the decider, the fact that he sticks to his decisions, right or wrong, earns your admiration. Let me pose a question then, sir, would there be any action, forgetting the response to hurricane katrina, Iraq, the Anthrax attacks, or Osama bin Laden, even over looking all of these perceived failures is there anything President Bush could do that you would see as being an error in policy or a flat out blunder?

Did Noonan just blame the American soldiers for the failures in Iraq? Or is he going to parse words and said he meant only a small sub-set of officers are causing all the difficulties in Iraq. Regarding Mr. Bush "...he's wise enough not to second-guess his field commanders". What, as they are making these tactical errors? Noonan is right. This wouldn't be his "general responsibility as commander in chief". This would be his SPECIFIC responsibility as Commander In Chief. There is no greater responsibility of the President than to lead the country into and back out of war. This President has repeated how important the war in Iraq is to our future security. Apparently, just not important enough for him to do his job. "Incomplete facts". That's funny. One should say that a President who was receiving "incomplete facts" in war time has made a serious TATICAL error in his duty as Commander In Chief.

Cavlor,

You're confusing two things, as it typical of critics of President Bush.

Do things go wrong? Well, yeah - nothing ever works perfectly, and when you've got another party determined to upset your plans, it gets even more tricky and more things are likely to go wrong. What you want me - or President Bush - to say is that something that didn't work as hope (or even just didn't work as fast as hoped) is an abject failure...and not just an abject failure, but a failure brought on by either gross incompetance or deliberate malfeasance. Sorry, there has been none of that in the Bush Administration EXCEPT as regards Campaign Finance Reform....that has been an utter disaster, though at least President Bush can say he didn't press the issue (it really being McCain's signature issue).

You and I can argue endlessly - should we have held off on liberating Iraq, should we have done it sooner, should we not have done it at all? Should we have put in more troops, less troops? Should we have dropped an airborne division on Baghdad before the first bomb was dropped? Should we have gone the UN route?

For me to say that President Bush made a mistake it would have to be of the nature of a wrong direction altogether. Now, I know that some of our critics say that liberating Iraq was altogether a wrong thing to do - I dispute that notion, holding that it was even more vital than overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan. If President Bush had left Saddam in power, that is what I would call a mistake - just as his father and President Clinton both made the mistake of leaving Saddam in power when they had the chance to get rid of him.

Once the decision is made to pursue the correct policy, then all one can do is draw up the best plans possible with the resources available (and those resources include the generals who plan and carry out - and they may be mistaken, and it would be the rarest of things for a President to over-rule his generals on such matters). You then commit to action, and you are then forced to react to and/or anticipate events, not all of which will go as planned.

mr. noonan,

what is really implied and understood to be the fact by the american public when you say the following:

such steadfast courage in the face of adversity

unwillingness to admit defeat and colossal grand-scale blunders in the face of a majority of the american public rejecting your rosy-colored, messianic interpretation of the conflagration erupting in the middle-east.

let's hope history never ever repeats this dark chapter in american history.

you almost have to feel bad for bush. even his conservative supporters admit he's nothing more than an idiot.

Chuckg

Thanks for the information regarding Iraq troop strength. Much of what we now know or should know is known in hindsight. In retrospect we probably used to few troops and it seems not enough of an effort was made to address the issue. That said, even if we had used the overwhelming force that General Colin Powell and otherw wanted, we do not "know" that this would have worked. I think it would have but to assume we know is a variation of the same type of hubris the administration is accused of having.

Frankly the results of the Iraq war are not what they should be. We can still commit extra troos to try and get the security situation under control but time grows short. An excellent post on this can be found at www.rightwingnuthouse.com entitled "Iraq:Quit or Commit." We should commit to trying to get this done, in a manner that is consistent with American national security.

Perhaps in the future we will take our time and make sure we have everything in order before going in. We also need to be quicker to adjust when things don't go as well as they should. Also, leaders might want to be more careful with some of the rhetoric they use.

Btw, I think the intial war plan called for a division to approach from Turkey. Had we have been able to use this division the results may have been different.

Thank you for your swift reply Mr. Noonan. Honestly, I am more of a critic of the situation than a critic of any leader whehter it be Bush, Blair, or Prodi. Having given a bit of study to this and written extensively about it in my paper and on my blog could you tell me if you have read Charles Tripp's "A History of Iraq"?

And that aside could you tell me what event would signal Iraq is devolving into a high grade civil war and it would be time to get American and other coalition forces out for their safety?

Orange

What you say could turn out to be the case. If we fail in Iraq or if it distracts us from dealing with other threats such as Russia, China, or Iran then it could be a colossal failure, however, the final results are not in yet. We should hold off on making judgements until the final results are known. In order to ensure ourselves the best chance to succeed, we need to commit more resources to this. If it fails it is not a failure of Bush or his supporters, it would be a failure of the entire the entire country. The terrorists would rightly conclude this to be a great victory for their cause.

The three biggest errors made were some of our intellegence turned out to be incorrect. We did not commit enough troops, which still has not been corrected.

Finally, the Bush administration has not done a very good job explaining the stakes. The administration has allowed its critics to define the situation while offering very little in its defense. Just because a poll says something does not make it right. Their is clearly much to criticize with this administration. Failing to properly explain the stakes has been one of the biggest mistakes they have made.

Orange

The final results on Iraq are not in yet. We should hold off on declaring it a colosal failure until the final results are known. If it fails, then it will be a colosal failure, however, this has not happened yet. We should focus on making the necessary adjustments to give us the best chance we have to succeed. If the mission fails, it will not just be a failure for Bush or his supporters but it will be a failure for the entire country. Our terrorists enemies will rightly interpret it as a huge victory for them.

We should begin by commiting more resources to Iraq. This should be done in a manner that is consistent with American national security. The top threats to American national security are Russia, China, and Iran. While we are increasing our commitment to Iraq, we should keep close wathch on those three countries.

I'm not exactly pleased with this president myself. There is much to criticize. That said, it is really not surprising that his poll numbers are low. He has done a poor job of explaining the stakes in Iraq and the broader GWOT and he has allowed his critics to define the debate while offering very little defense. In other words, just becuase the majority holds to an opinion does not make it right. It simply means that some people, in an age of sound bites, are not given enough facts to make an informed decision. If Americans had all of the facts, there is a good chance they would impeach this president for not be aggressive enough in Iraq, the broader GWOT, or on border security.

you almost have to feel bad for bush. even his conservative supporters admit he's nothing more than an idiot.

You almost have to feel bad for agentorangeunalert--making crap up so he can feel better.

I've yet to see any conservative admit anything about anyone being an idiot, save for a few million left-wing kooks. But that's a no-brainer, just like you left-wing kooks...

The first thing to get out in the open is that there is no possible outcome in Iraq that would please the BDS crowd. (Calvor, that means Bush Derangement Syndrome.)

When one peers through a tightly focused lens which is never directed at anything but the most negative possible target at any given time, one is going to have a very narrow view of what is going on. This tight focus on carefully selected subjects is the only way the Left can portray Iraq as a massive failure, and the acceptance of such selective and edited material is the only way that BDSers like larry and the frawg can continue to spout their anti-Bushisms ad nauseum.

Note the new condemnation---that the man has a rowdy sense of humor. Get real, kiddies. While you may be the very models of prissiness and prudery (though your voyeuristic glee in Clinton's sexual escapades struck us as downright creepy) you have to admit that a vast number of men in the world share what is ALLEGED to be Bush's sense of humor. Ever watch Comedy Channel? See an Eddie Murphy standup routine? See a Vegas show? Watch TV? Go to movies? What about Austin Powers? Did you get your panties in a twist about the humor in those movies?

(And BTW, who is this alleged "insider", anyway? You seem awfully eager to believe anything that you can spin as negative, but step back and ask yourself what kind of real "insider" is going to spread petty gossip like the Prez being uncomfortable around women, and/or breaking wind as a joke? You refuse to believe the words of men who are actualy serving in Iraq and telling you what they experience, yet you grab onto some anonymous so-called "insider's" malicious gossip as absolute truth. OJJS.)

No, you just think you found something else to slam Bush about. And all you do is repeatedly prove to us that you KNOW you don't have anything of substance. What you do have is farts, ears, "king" comments, and a bunch of sad silly whimpering about things that are instantly rebutted by FACT the moment you toss them out in vain hopes they will be taken seriously.

Another thing you tell us by your vapid posts is that you are drones. Clearly none of you has ever started a business, for example, or even been in upper management, or you would have a grasp on concepts like not micro-managing, or the immaturity of groveling to be liked rather than acting to be effective. The people who gripe about "deciders" are the ones who have never had that responsibility.

And you tell us that you are grossly overestimating your importance. At least you seem to think that if YOU don't know that something happened, then by definition it simply didn't happen. Well, news flash, egotists---you are not the center of the universe, and a great deal happens which you do not know and never will. So your constant whining about what has or has not been discussed, decided, or determined is all just hot air---becaue you just don't know. You are so far out of the loop you barely know there IS a loop, yet you insist on making declarations of what has and has not been decided or done.

Little teeny minnows in a great big pond......

Great post Mark!

As Morris once said; "Thank God George Bush is Bold!!

Thank God for President George W. Bush!!

The finest president in U.S. History!!

Jeremiah

Because I said so

Gosh Chuck... I have more sites where that came from.

Cavlor,

There is no conceivable set of circumstances which would make it right for America to leave Iraq with anything other than a functioning, democratic government - it will be time to leave when the freely elected government if Iraq advises us that they can handle internal and external security without major American forces in country. Once in, we're in for good and only victory can be the result. One of my main complaints against the left is not so much the continuing argument over whether we should have gone in - that being rather academic at this point - but their refusal to see that a premature American withdrawal would be a disaster for the entire world. Come what may, we MUST win in Iraq.

I haven't read that book, though I am broadly familiar with Iraq from ancient times to modern - indeed, it is this knowledge of Iraq's history which led me, right on 9/11, to determine that liberating Iraq would be a vital campaign in the larger War on Terrorism. Essentially, we can't win this war unless Iraq becomes a democratic government fighting against the terrorist threat.

As for whether or not Iraq would slip in to civil war - I don't think it actually possible, as the forces arrayed against the Iraqi government aren't strong enough to secure a broad territorial base from which to attempt the conquest of the rest of Iraq. They have been able to play the ambush and vanish game of irregular warfare, but they are incapable of handing even the Iraqi police in a stand up fight, let alone the Iraqi or American army. My worry isn't so much civil war, but that the Shia will lose patience and start killing Sunni in large numbers as revenge for the Shia killed by the terrorists. It seems, though, that the Coalition and Iraqi forces have a handle on this, and the early operations of bringing security to all of Baghdad are going well.

Georgia -- you have more sites that do absolutely nothing to prove the claim that Bush denied troop requests for the invasion?

Yes, Colin Powell wanted more troops. General Shinseki wanted more troops. Officers on General Franks' own staff wanted more troops. But, here's the kicker. General Franks didn't want them... and he got to make the decision. Not President Bush. Not Secretary Rumsfeld. Him. Sure, both of them had the authority to override his decision... but that authority, they did not use. They both told General Franks that if he wanted more, they'd approve his requests for more. General Franks didn't want any more.

The sole thing your article proves is that which has already been conceded -- that some people, both at the time and after the fact, didn't agree with the decision to go in with the troop strength we had. Big freakin' whoop. This, we already knew.

Your article does absolutely nothing to prove the claim that Bush/Rumsfeld forced CENTCOM to fight with less forces than he wanted.

Explain to me why the advice of the Secretary of State should have been given more weight than the advice of the commanding general who was actually in charge of the operation. (And note, even the Army Chief of Staff does not get to tell a theater commander how to execute a military operation(*)... for operational matters, CENTCOM's chain of command runs directly from him to the Secretary of Defense, and from there to the President, with no intervening links. The CoS can advise, but he does not decide.)

You talk about 'ignoring advice'. What you fail to acknowledge is that there was advice for more than one course of action. You act like only advice from those people you agree with is worth anything, and it should automatically have been agreed with, and it was automatically a failure not to have.

There is *always* conflicting advice in any large-scale decision. There are always multiple possible courses of action, and ultimately, it always comes down to one person having to decide. And in order to decide, he has to 'ignore the advice' of *somebody*, unless all the advice was unanimous, which, see above.

So, who made the decision?

General Tommy Franks.

Why didn't President Bush override him and make the decision himself?

Because the last time a President tried to dictate tactics and strategy to his generals, instead of simply setting the objective and then letting them execute it, was?

Vietnam.

Which, y'know, you said we should try to *avoid*. Civilian micro-managing really didn't work very well then.

In summary, President Bush let the senior field commander -- General Franks -- make the decision on how many and what kind of troops he would use to execute his attack. General Franks was not overruled by the President or the SecDef in making that decision, nor did he make any requests for additional forces that they denied him. Those are facts, and you have nothing to prove otherwise.

(*) If that seems counter-intuitive to you, remember that a theater command, like CENTCOM, has forces from all four service branches subordinate to it, and therefore making it subordinate to only one service chief of staff would be out of line, as it would effectively place the Army CoS in charge of Navy fleets, Air Force wings, and Marine divisions in addition to Army troops. Is why theater commands, like CENTCOM, are called 'joint' commands and operationally run straight to the SecDef.

We must fault the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be “some kind of day at the beach""

Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq’s military capability and intentions were accurate.

“It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation,”

The Bush administration has never presented Iraq, or the War on Terror in general, as being some kind of day at the beach. If Senator McCain claims otherwise, he is lying.

Hell, google up Bush's first major speech after 9/11, the September 20th, 2001 one. Even *that* far back, he's mentioning that it will take sacrifice and years of hard effort.

Chuck

Mission accomplished!!!
in its final throes!!
a few dead-enders

Just a few quotes from Sen. Mc Cain Kind of like "the light at the end of the tunnel" from another era.

Ohio-

"The Bush administration has never presented Iraq, or the War on Terror in general, as being some kind of day at the beach. If Senator McCain claims otherwise, he is lying."

You're placing two different things together again. The GWOT and the Iraq War. They said the GWOT would take a long time and they were never painting rosy pictures about that, that’s true. However they WERE painting rosy picturesque scenes about being "greeted as liberators" and the Iraq liberation "paying for itself in oil revenue". Donald Rumsfeld said that "It may last 6 days , 6 weeks,.......I doubt 6 months". So they went on and on with these overly optimistic predictions and never considered the alternatives. The very fact that Bush landed on that carrier and proclaimed the war over shows us all that they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. When Tim Russert asked Rumsfeld on the eve of the invasion "what if things don't go according to plan?" Rummy shrugged him off with that increasingly identifiable Conservative trait of patronizing condescension.

Ohio-

"The Bush administration has never presented Iraq, or the War on Terror in general, as being some kind of day at the beach. If Senator McCain claims otherwise, he is lying."

You're placing two different things together again. The GWOT and the Iraq War. They said the GWOT would take a long time and they were never painting rosy pictures about that, that’s true. However they WERE painting rosy picturesque scenes about being "greeted as liberators" and the Iraq liberation "paying for itself in oil revenue". Donald Rumsfeld said that "It may last 6 days , 6 weeks,.......I doubt 6 months". So they went on and on with these overly optimistic predictions and never considered the alternatives. The very fact that Bush landed on that carrier and proclaimed the war over shows us all that they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. When Tim Russert asked Rumsfeld on the eve of the invasion "what if things don't go according to plan?" Rummy shrugged him off with that increasingly identifiable Conservative trait of patronizing condescension.