The string on this issue (Bush/Rummy military expenditures affecting our capacity to wage effective war in Iraq) was getting long, so I brought it back into the day light. Besides, Titus wouldn't want my talking ill of Republicans to be buried on page 9.
Yes, the transition from an attack force to an occupying force was bungled - namely because there was no occupying force. Baddboy's observation that the lighter more lethal attack machine that cut a swath through Iraq should have been only the first of a two step plan, rather than the plan itself, is inarguable. I concede that the path our forces cut, once deserted, was again swallowed up by the enemy as we moved along because there were insufficient forces to hold the ground won. Rummy's fault, no question. Hopefully this lesson will not be lost on the next president when we expand into a greater near east theater of operation, as some believe we will.
The question before us is what to do now? We have identified the problem - an inadequate size force for the current job of occupation. But what political figure of presidential merit will be willing to advocate what will be viewed as a Vietnam style escalation in their first term? The choices are stark - 3 to 500,000 more troops or get out and watch the genocide unfold. No one, and I mean NO ONE is talking in terms of that sort of force escalation. And to be honest I find that a bit curious on the GOP side. And by curious I mean this - all of the top tier Republican presidential candidates supported the presidents "surge", right? Well then the question one has to immediately ask himself is if the Presidents assertion that a "surge" of 30 thousand or so troops is the correct strategy, then how could a surge of 300,000 not be an even MORE correct strategy? I mean if more is the better route to victory, than how could MUCH more not be an even quicker route?
The most specific the GOP top tier candidates will get as of now is "we should finish the job." And the Democrats? Forget about it - the choices range from pulling out immediately to pulling out last week. We can only hope that the Republicans cryptic "finish the job", as uttered by Giuliani, McCain & Romney is code for putting in adequate force levels.
And I know Titus in quoting Lieberman hoped to demonstrate that there is still some strain of sanity on the Dem side of this issue, but I'm sorry T ol' boy - Lieberman is an "Independent" now. He changed his party affiliation last election cycle when his own party abandoned him. As of this moment there is no Democrat leader or legitimate presidential contender that has a single serious thing to say on this issue. Their best bet is to nominate Gene Taylor for president and put a muzzle on Reid, Hillary, Pelosi and Edwards.
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You’ll “concede”? Concede that the planning was inadequate? Bungled? Give me a break…
Shall we review the litany of failures as I see them? This will (of course) forgo the arguments as to WHY we went, and only focus on the “what happened when we got there”…
1) Far too much consideration was made to keep collateral damage to a minimum during the initial stages of the war. I’m not suggesting that we should have carpet-bombed the country and fused Baghdad into a reflective field of glass and rubble from the air… only that the fact that electric power wasn’t even interrupted in cities like Basra and Mosul during the invasion, and the phones never went out in Baghdad. Had we overwhelmed the country with conventional troops preceded by artillery and aerial strikes targeting ALL centers of infrastructure, then I am convinced the insurgency would have had less of a foothold in the national psyche of Iraq. We have only to look to Afghanistan in ‘01, Panama in ‘89, Germany and Japan in ‘45 to see how effectively hampered insurgent resistance can be in a nation that has no infrastructure until the US says they do.
This failing had the additional bonus (in my opinion) of allowing the Iraqi high command, Saddam included, of hiding and surviving for FAR too long. Our intel simply wasn’t good enough (obviously) to locate and “hit” a target as small as a single room before that room could be evacuated… thus, we simply should have brought the building down. Harsh, I know… but that is the price paid for not complying with US-UN ultimatums in the face of overwhelming superior forces.
2) As stated, had the initial forces of 150,000 to 200,000 US troops been followed by (not replaced with) the 300,000 conventional infantry troops to occupy and pacify the area taken, how much easier would the effort have been in the years 03 to 05? Perhaps the death toll would still be in the 3700 area… I don’t know… but I am inclined to think it wouldn’t, and it would still have been worth the effort to know the job was that much closer to being done.
3) Every city of greater than 200,000 people in Iraq should have had a unit of US or British combat troops stationed at every intersection and on every street corner for the first 9-12 months of the occupation. Tough press, I know… but no better example of tangible might exists in my mind than knowing that 5 to 15 hard-corps combat troops are ready to keep the peace in the most direct means they know. Major cities like Baghdad should have been completely sealed off from free travel to any but DOCUMENTED personnel, and then given access through the smallest number of secure check-points or gates into and out of the city. No reason the Army and Marines couldn’t do what they did in Somalia and Bosnia (and LA and MS after the storm) by distributing food, water and medicine in the city for the first 9 months. That gives the locals a sense of appreciation and security in the US forces, while keeping the “outside” undesirables at bay for as long as possible.
Look, I don’t have the numbers to back up much of what I have written here, and even less what I’d like to suggest further. Suffice to say that had this occupation been made with the expectation that we would be entrenched in Iraq for at least 8 years (as we were in Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII) and that the “nation-building” effort would be just as serious and just as determined, then the effort would have already begun producing the tangible results the Administration’s detractors are calling for. The blame is just as much in the Democrat’s laps as in the GOP and the Administrations. They were critical from the minute they smelled the possibility of failed intel and the chance to give G W a serious black eye.
This effort has made the US look like a bunch of shmucks in my opinion… from initial planning and reasoning for the invasion to the execution of same and occupation of the country. I can blame the “government” in general, but the ultimate responsibility is the Administrations alone. That is the onus of being in the “Big Seat”.
Oh, and I forgot to address the “T, ole boy” part…
Yes, I am aware that Lieberman is an Independent seat holder in the Senate… he didn’t want to listen to Hilary either, I guess… but his sentiments haven’t changed one iota since running on the IND ticket.
I still think there are “sane” Dems… Zel Miller, Scoop Jackson, perhaps even Bill Richardson (the ONLY one of that list still in politics, by the way), but I can’t help but think that the vast majority of voting Democrats are NOT carbon-copies of Pelosi and Clinton (either one).
The “Baby Boomers” that so loved Kennedy have no comparable candidate today. Even Teddy makes every issue a compare and contrast with the current Administration and G W Bush… not a topic for debate or discussion that the FDR-Truman era Democratic party carried the day with. Fire-side chats and whistle-stop campaign trains are obviously a thing of the past, it would seem. Hilary and Obama simply post to blog sites and reap the donations (and then have to give them back, I guess… hehe). There speeches are canned, dried out and nearly meaningless to the vast majority of Americans.
Imagine a real “third party” run by a legitimate moderate in ‘08... perhaps winning is impossible, but the kind of divided defeat that they suffered in ‘68 and ‘72, and the example that the Perot campaign brings from history would show us (if not them) that SUBSTANCE more than FLUFF will carry the moderate, undecided vote in this nation… not rhetoric and ranting.
No front-runner in the Democratic Party is handing out SUBSTANCE… but that doesn’t mean they can’t win with FLUFF. It’s unfortunate, but very true.
I will say this, though… they are still out there.
Bob Casey was a two-term Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a life-long Democrat and rabidly pro-life (undoubtedly a result of his pre-ecumenical religious education within the Catholic Church). He was shockingly popular in a state that had not seen much “blue” in it’s executive offices, and made major social and fiscal reforms that are still in place today. He was openly supportive of a strong, modern and well-paid military (he actually admitted to agreeing with Reagan at a press conference once… not something you’d hear a Dem say today). Casey only chose NOT to run against Clinton in the ‘96 primaries because of a rare liver condition he had and the need for a transplant. How different would the world have been had he been healthy enough to win?
No, the tried and true “blue collar” Democrats are still there… strong morals, strong defense, strong social conscience (and admittedly, strong on spending, too). Had Miller not made unfortunate choices during the ‘60s in his words about integration, he too could have had a career in modern Democratic politics… but, alas, if he fights too hard (as I think he certainly did by giving the opening address at the RNC), that is the mud thrown into his face.
They’re there… they just won’t run.
Titus ... hold on to your hat (presumably a gift from Trevor ..ha)
Let me say that virtually everything you wrote (except the "schmucks" comment) is something I whole heartedly agree with. Collateral damage, troop levels, our overall presence and even that there are few sane Democrats in the rank and file and in the wings. You may be even further dismayed to learn that these sentimentss of yours are ones achoed almost verbatim by one Micheal Savage as of late. Ploitics do indeed make strange bedfellows.
I didn't intend to come off as if my "concession" was one needed in order to validate the recognition of mistakes made by the adminstration's war planning .. it was simply my subject line.
I will add though that those sane Democrats you mentioned have no chance currently within the party for which you are registered. And it's not because the entire party is made up these mindless hard core leftists - it isn't. Rather it is because nearly all of the party's controlling agents, from office holders to private groups, are hard core leftists. The Pelosi's, Reid's, Move ons, etc have a stranglehold on the leadership and direction of that party (as I amsure you would acknowledge) and that grip shows no sign of weakening. It is only because of the shortcomings the GOP(namely a move away from traditional conservatism) that this extremist led group of Democrats has a shot at winning the presidency. I fear that it will be some years before this current crop of Democrat leadership gives way to the blue-dog dems like Taylor. And just so you know, I have the same low expectations when it comes to whether we will see another Republican as conservative and inspitring as Reagan was come forward to lead this party and the nation any time soon.
FR
History tells us that the Republicans did this one time in recent memory: Barry Goldwater. He was not a moderate and made no attempt to appeal to the moderate vote. LBJ did, and history shows us the results.
Why these candidates continue to pander to the fringes of their party never ceases to amaze me.
Post a Comment