I can't think of a war that turned out as planned.

 

 

Maybe the 1991 Gulf War? Maybe the Spanish-American? That's about it.

 

Like you HHSDad, I can't think of too many that ever went the way it was planned.

More soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan would only have meant a target-rich environment for insurgents and terrorists. Soldiers are meant to fight, not police. Overwhelming force only works in battle.

More soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan would only have meant a target-rich environment for insurgents and terrorists. Soldiers are meant to fight, not police. Overwhelming force only works in battle.

 

 

On the bolded part, we are in complete agreement. On the rest, we are not. Unfortunately, we have been policing Iraq since the last Iraqi army units melted into the civilian population in early 2003. The U.S. Central Command realized stabilizing a country the size of Iraq in a post-invasion period would require several hundred thousand troops. General Zinni's plan, based on the Desert Crossing war game, called for 400,000 troops (mainly to flood the towns and villages and provide security in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam's control structure). According to the book COBRA II, General Tommy Franks' initial plan called for 385,000 troops. He later acquiesed under pressure from Donald Rumsfeld to drastically cut troop levels in the plan. Franks retired on July 7, 2003, shortly after the major combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom had concluded and well before the bloodiest days of the insurgency/occupation. It's well known that we don't have enough military on the ground in Iraq to secure and hold all population centers. As soon as we pull out of a town, the insurgents roll right in. You can't win hearts and minds if you can't protect the population from the bad guys and you can't beat an insurgency unless you can simultaneously take away their safe havens.

I can't think of a war that turned out as planned.

That's a legitimate point, but it doesn't help to base your war plan on a fantasy of being greeted as liberators when war games and intellignece indicate that there will be mass chaos and tribalism.

What? No response from the "Bush is Brilliant" crowd?

 

:: (crickets) :: :: (crickets) ::

What? No response from the "Bush is Brilliant" crowd?

 

:: (crickets) :: :: (crickets) ::

Sorry, most conservatives work some long hours. I will respond when I am ready to respond. At first glance, the website that you linked to is a left wing site financed in part by George Soros that includes links to Salon.com, the online "magazine" that was created to smear Bill Clinton's opponents.

 

To actually respond to the declassified documents, rather than the Democratic talking points that the National Security Archive spoonfed the AP, it will take a little time. I have noticed that none of the pre-war scenarios match the conditions that preceded the invasion.

 

Is George Soros not associated with any of the left wing political websites? The guy's money seems to be everywhere.:lol:

What? No response from the "Bush is Brilliant" crowd?

 

:: (crickets) :: :: (crickets) ::

:confused: I think you have gotten plenty of responses.

Sorry, most conservatives work some long hours. I will respond when I am ready to respond. At first glance, the website that you linked to is a left wing site financed in part by George Soros that includes links to Salon.com, the online "magazine" that was created to smear Bill Clinton's opponents.

 

To actually respond to the declassified documents, rather than the Democratic talking points that the National Security Archive spoonfed the AP, it will take a little time. I have noticed that none of the pre-war scenarios match the conditions that preceded the invasion.

 

Is George Soros not associated with any of the left wing political websites? The guy's money seems to be everywhere.:lol:

 

LOL! How true...just got home from work myself, and have to be at the polling place @6 and work by 7 in the a.m.

Sorry, most conservatives work some long hours.

As do most liberals. I'd be happy to compare work histories and schedules with you. Gratuitous shots don't add to the discussion and tend to send the discussion off topic.

That's a legitimate point, but it doesn't help to base your war plan on a fantasy of being greeted as liberators when war games and intellignece indicate that there will be mass chaos and tribalism.

This did happen. And the fringe terrorists took over.

Sorry, most conservatives work some long hours. I will respond when I am ready to respond. At first glance, the website that you linked to is a left wing site financed in part by George Soros that includes links to Salon.com, the online "magazine" that was created to smear Bill Clinton's opponents.

 

To actually respond to the declassified documents, rather than the Democratic talking points that the National Security Archive spoonfed the AP, it will take a little time. I have noticed that none of the pre-war scenarios match the conditions that preceded the invasion.

 

Is George Soros not associated with any of the left wing political websites? The guy's money seems to be everywhere.:lol:

 

 

I would like for you to respond to the declassified documents and explain to me why the salient lessons weren't applied in the planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This discussion has nothing to do with George Soros. I'm not really sure why you mentioned him unless it was an attempt to call the credibility of the report into question (this ploy, which relies on a logical fallacy, is on the first page of the Rush Limbaugh playbook).

I would like for you to respond to the declassified documents and explain to me why the salient lessons weren't applied in the planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This discussion has nothing to do with George Soros. I'm not really sure why you mentioned him unless it was an attempt to call the credibility of the report into question (this ploy, which relies on a logical fallacy, is on the first page of the Rush Limbaugh playbook).

I mentioned George Soros because he is one of the left wingers who fund the National Security Archive, which is a non-profit organization that is anything but non-partisan. You may realize that, but I had to do some digging to find that fact. Soros has pumped millions of dollars into the Democratic war chest, and if they gain power, I am sure that the billionaire currency speculator expects some kind of return on his investment. So, I disagree with your assessment. This discussion has everything to do with George Soros.

 

Likewise, Admiral Zinni has an ax to grind with this administration and many of the quotes attributed to him on the website were made while he hawked his book criticizing the administration's handling of the war. And like I said, none of the scenarios used match the actual circumstances that confronted the troops preceding and during the actual invasion.

 

And yes, I did mention George Soros' name to raise a credibility issue because when I saw the website my first instinct was to suspect that Soros' money was behind it and he did not disappoint me. One also has to question the timing of the publication of the bullet points in the AP story and how many other Iraq invasion scenarios have been ignored because they did not tell the story Soros and his friends wanted told.

I mentioned George Soros because he is one of the left wingers who fund the National Security Archive, which is a non-profit organization that is anything but non-partisan. You may realize that, but I had to do some digging to find that fact. Soros has pumped millions of dollars into the Democratic war chest, and if they gain power, I am sure that the billionaire currency speculator expects some kind of return on his investment. So, I disagree with your assessment. This discussion has everything to do with George Soros.

 

Soros didn't write the war game report. The report is what it is--an official government document based on a Centcom-sponsored military simulation. I fail to see what Soros has to do with the discussion at hand, which is why the Iraq invasion planning missed the mark so badly when nearly all of the difficulties experienced in the aftermath were so clearly foretold.

 

Likewise, Admiral Zinni has an ax to grind with this administration and many of the quotes attributed to him on the website were made while he hawked his book criticizing the administration's handling of the war. And like I said, none of the scenarios used match the actual circumstances that confronted the troops preceding and during the actual invasion.

 

What if Zinni's "ax to grind" with the administration is his view that the Iraq war was ill-conceived and incompetently planned? Is it thus not valid to consider his insider's view? A lot of people are grinding on that ax these days, from both parties. I suppose anyone not regurgitating the Bush administration mantra on Iraq could be accused of having an "ax to grind". And why is the significance of his opinion tarnished because he wrote a book? Maybe, just maybe, Zinni is an honorable soldier who feels it is his duty to document his objections to a farse foisted on the American military by men who never served in combat. What about Colin Powell? Does he also have an "ax to grind" because he has publicly stated that he regrets being part of the administration apparatus to sell a war on false pretenses?

Soros didn't write the war game report. The report is what it is--an official government document based on a Centcom-sponsored military simulation. I fail to see what Soros has to do with the discussion at hand, which is why the Iraq invasion planning missed the mark so badly when nearly all of the difficulties experienced in the aftermath were so clearly foretold.

Actually, the "report" is a series of documents, links to which are contained on the web page to which you linked. The group that put together the web site and commentary therein have nothing to do with the government, and nothing to do with the the National Archives, which is a repository of classified documents (see Sandy Berger for more details). The name "National Security Archive" was undoubtedly chosen in hopes of confusing casual readers who could easily mistake a slick website for the similarly named National Archive.

 

Furthermore, Soros' funding of this group raises questions on what documents the group decided not to include in its "study."

 

Like it or not, crawling into bed with billionaire financial speculator George Soros, who has been convicted in the past of insider trading, and accepting his millions to fund groups like Move On and Media Matters, raises questions about the accuracy of any study created with his money. Soros is the ultimate special interest, but liberals seem eager to turn a blind eye as they pocket his dough and do his bidding.

What if Zinni's "ax to grind" with the administration is his view that the Iraq war was ill-conceived and incompetently planned? Is it thus not valid to consider his insider's view? A lot of people are grinding on that ax these days, from both parties. I suppose anyone not regurgitating the Bush administration mantra on Iraq could be accused of having an "ax to grind". And why is the significance of his opinion tarnished because he wrote a book? Maybe, just maybe, Zinni is an honorable soldier who feels it is his duty to document his objections to a farse foisted on the American military by men who never served in combat.

If Zinney wrote the book simply to document his objections, then maybe he donated the proceeds to some worthy charity. If so, then I would agree with your theory of Admiral Zinni's motivation. Generals and admirals are no different than anybody else who works in a large organization. They don't always agree with the way the organization is headed. Some get ticked off when their ideas are passed over in favor of those of a rival. If their story is marketable, some write books and hit the talk show circuit. If Zinni is not a man with an ax to grind with this administration, then he certainly looks the part.

What about Colin Powell? Does he also have an "ax to grind" because he has publicly stated that he regrets being part of the administration apparatus to sell a war on false pretenses?

You are not accurately representing Colin Powell's view of the events that led up to the war. Yes, he has regrets, but no he has never said that the administration deliberately misled the public to sell a war. Powell has been quoted out of context by liberals, and if you want to quote him out of context here, then I will provide his response.

If Zinney wrote the book simply to document his objections, then maybe he donated the proceeds to some worthy charity. If so, then I would agree with your theory of Admiral Zinni's motivation. Generals and admirals are no different than anybody else who works in a large organization. They don't always agree with the way the organization is headed. Some get ticked off when their ideas are passed over in favor of those of a rival. If their story is marketable, some write books and hit the talk show circuit. If Zinni is not a man with an ax to grind with this administration, then he certainly looks the part.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, anyone who publicly breaks with the administration after they leave has an ax to grind? That makes a lot of people formerly associated with the Bush administration or military carrying axes around, I guess. You're offering no proof that Zinni is sensationalizing or distorting his experience, only innuendo that he must have an agenda. Does he have to have an agenda, or might he just believe, based on his 39 year military career, that the Iraq war was ill-conceived and poorly planned?

 

And Zinni served in the Marine Corps, so he attained the rank of four star General, not Admiral.

 

You are not accurately representing Colin Powell's view of the events that led up to the war. Yes, he has regrets, but no he has never said that the administration deliberately misled the public to sell a war. Powell has been quoted out of context by liberals, and if you want to quote him out of context here, then I will provide his response.

 

OK. So Colin Powell must not have an ax to grind, because he merely regrets being the salesman of false intel for the Iraq war to the U.N. Let me see if I understand this:

 

public criticism of the Bush White House = ax to grind

 

no public criticism = no ax to grind

 

I'm still waiting for a substantive response to the declassified report that explains how, with competent prewar planning, we managed to blunder our way into so many problems that were clearly predicted four years before the invasion.