View Full Version : Assume the war was justified
Assuming the war was justified based on the intelligence and that no democrat would have gone to Iraq, is Bush a good president?
1) Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
Please begin your assertions with the assumption that the War was justified. If you can't do that then don't bother replying.
PoBoy321
11-12-2005, 03:24 PM
OK, assuming that the war was just (which is a pretty big leap for me) I would say that it was still a huge mistake for several reasons. First, although he was a horrible despot, Saddam was one of the only stable secular governments in the Middle East and although his methods were cruel, he did a good job of keeping his people in check. Secondly, I think that it should have been obvious to Bush that he needed to prepare for an insurgency (or at the very least, an exit strategy) since the French and British had to deal with similar situations in their attempts to colonize the Middle East.
lehighguy
11-12-2005, 03:29 PM
Any plan, if implemented poorly, is inherintly a bad plan.
To a certain extent, if implementation problems can predicted beforehand and there are no good remedies available, then it affects the justness of the decision.
If there were 500,000 troops on the ground, triple the reconstruction spending, and 50 times as many translators would the whole thing have worked, maybe. We'll never know.
elwoodblues
11-12-2005, 03:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the war was justified based on the intelligence and that no democrat would have gone to Iraq
[/ QUOTE ]
The first assumption is arguable, though acceptable for the point of discussion, the second assumption is just silly.
[ QUOTE ]
1) Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, because failure to make appropriate plans make the threat of serious problems even greater than not acting in the first instance.
[ QUOTE ]
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would suspect most presidents would have made the same mistake - overestimating what our military can do, and underestimating the opposition.
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the war was justified based on the intelligence and that no democrat would have gone to Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first assumption is arguable, though acceptable for the point of discussion, the second assumption is just silly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I grade a President on a curve. I grade Bush on how I think Gore, Bradley, Clinton, McCain, Reagon, Bush I, and Carter would have done in similar circumstances. Assuming that Clinton, Gore, Bradley and Carter would never have gone into Iraq (a reasonable assumption) and that going into Iraq was necessary based on the intelligence we had, Is Bush a good president?
You can also change the words justified to necessary in the original post as I may do if the edit feature allows me.
elwoodblues
11-12-2005, 03:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that Clinton, Gore, Bradley and Carter would never have gone into Iraq (a reasonable assumption)
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's a reasonable assumption given your primary assumption (that the war was just.) The extent to which they would have "gone in" would probably be different.
Bush is a horrible president regardless of what happens in Iraq. He appointed one of his old college buddies to FEMA which resulted in the deaths of hundreds during hurricane Katrina. He tried to appoint his good friend and certified moran Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Current members of his staff have participated in the outing of a cover CIA agent. Bush signed the biggest pharma-pork plan (prescription drugs for seniors) in history. This may end up being the most expensive welfare plan America has ever seen.
And what really sucks about Bush is his insistence on killing more American soldiers by not getting our troops out of Iraq. Bush needs to drink a tall glass of reality and accept that the Iraqi War is unwinnable and get us the hell out of there. That idiot is wasting hundreds of billions in Iraq while Osama still runs free.
MelchyBeau
11-12-2005, 04:28 PM
Assume you need major surgury and the doctor diagnoses you correct. However during the operation he [censored] up badly and causes you to lose your leg. Is he a good doctor?
Melch
elwoodblues
11-12-2005, 04:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Assume you need major surgury and the doctor diagnoses you correct. However during the operation he [censored] up badly and causes you to lose your leg. Is he a good doctor?
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget, you also have to assume that even though everyone agrees with the diagnosis, no doctor from the competing hospital will perform the surgery.
andyfox
11-12-2005, 04:35 PM
1) Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
No. Planning was done by numerous government and non-governmental agencies. It was willfully ignored by the Bush administration. Rumsfeld refused to let DOD personnel attend CIA meetings which predicted: the problems that would be inherent in disbanding the army, the looting that would occur, the insurgency that might occur, the problems with infrastructure, etc. Then, when the looting happened, Rumsfeld, when asked for comment, said, "Stuff happens." The president told us the war on terror would be a long-term project. Yet his administration ignored the long-term in Iraq, to the detriment of both the Iraqi people and our soldiers.
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
Understandable in the sense that we know why he did it: to admit there might be an insurgency would be to admit that the war wouldn't be a "cakewalk." Rumsfeld has admitted he doesn't like to plan for problems beause that creates an air of negativity going into projects.
Inexcusable, though, in that this is serious business done in a cavalier way. It was not inevitable. It would take a military expert/historian more knowledgable than I to evaluate the situation in comparison with others. But the story isn't over yet.
tylerdurden
11-12-2005, 04:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the war was justified based on the intelligence
[/ QUOTE ]
For the purposes of this question, what conditions would justify the war?
[ QUOTE ]
1) Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. As Sun Tzu said:
“Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.” (1.24)
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” (2.6)
“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” (2.18)
If Iraq was indeed a serious threat, and war was absolutely necessary, then we should have spent more time developing a plan for a swift and decisive victory.
[ QUOTE ]
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there have been bigger errors in military history, but failure to plan for an insurgency is unacceptable. Any president delusional enough to think that citizens would welcome a conquering army is not fit for office.
The Art of War (http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm)
Who says the insurgency wasnt well planned for? What is your basis for this?
There has yet to be a major disaster as a result of the insurgency, there is no civil war, the country is sovereign, has a constitution, and the loss of U.S. servicemen is unbelievably low by historical standards.
MelchyBeau
11-12-2005, 05:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Who says the insurgency wasnt well planned for? What is your basis for this?
[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't we supposed to be greated with roses and such? I thought that is what Wolfowitz said
They might have been arrogant and assumed it would be easier. But that is a completely different thing. From an outcome standpoint I dont see how this cant be seen as a success.
I think if you told people before the war that 2,000 soldiers would die in 2 years and that a constitution would be ratified, a sovereign government would be in place, Saddam would be captured and that their would be no civil war you would have had overwelming support for the war. Heck, I dont think that support would have even changed if people knew there was no WMDs.
Sadly, perspective just gets lost over time.
MelchyBeau
11-12-2005, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think if you told people before the war that 2,000 soldiers would die in 2 years and that a constitution would be ratified, a sovereign government would be in place, Saddam would be captured and that their would be no civil war you would have had overwelming support for the war. Heck, I dont think that support would have even changed if people knew there was no WMDs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does it change if you add torture, the fact that we will be there for a very long time, the amount of insurgency that will happen, the 'interesting' ways the Pentagon is using to get enough troops to this list?
or should we only tell the people about the possible benifits and not the downsides to things?
Melch
[ QUOTE ]
Does it change if you add torture, the fact that we will be there for a very long time, the amount of insurgency that will happen
[/ QUOTE ]
We are ALWAYS there for a long time. Hell, we are still in places from WW2. I dont hear anyone calling WW2 a massive failure.
I dont have a problem using torture as means to an end. I dont like when it is used for "sport" but I am fine with it as a means to find and kill the enemy. I have never understood why it is okay to drop a 500 bomb on someones ass but it is somehow way out of bounds to make them stand naked or to smack them around.
[ QUOTE ]
"the 'interesting' ways the Pentagon is using to get enough troops to this list?"
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know what you mean.
[ QUOTE ]
or should we only tell the people about the possible benifits and not the downsides to things?
[/ QUOTE ]
Everything should be discussed. I am a strong proponent of accurate information - good or bad. I dislike the idea of those thinking of the war as some sort of sports game. I believe that we should show exactly what war is like and we should not be shielded from the brutality and the killing involved.
I am simply for the facts.
Peter666
11-12-2005, 06:53 PM
I think a reason they thought the war in Iraq would go smoother than it did is because of what happened in Afghanistan.
Military personnel were seriously worried about what would happen due to the Russian experience there in the 80's. As it turned out, it did not turn into a full fledged guerilla war. The fighting continues, but on a very small scale. This may have caused too much optimism for Iraq.
That being said, the insurgency in Iraq is being blown out of proportion. It is only 2000 dead Americans. Compared to the numbers of Iraqi's they are killing, it's a wash. I don't see this thing going on forever. The British successfuly put down an insurgency in Borneo, but it took them 12 years. The problem is, what are the consequences of having an American presence in the Middle East for a long time? Will other countries (eg Iran) try to join in the fruckus?
Does this make Bush a good or bad President? I don't think it does either of those. Starting the war in Iraq was wrong, but now that you are in there, you got to fix it the best way possible. Getting out now will not do that.
[ QUOTE ]
We are ALWAYS there for a long time. Hell, we are still in places from WW2. I dont hear anyone calling WW2 a massive failure.
[/ QUOTE ]
People don't refer to WWII as a failure because it wasn't. WWII was an astounding success. Great leaders accomplished great things and made the world a safer place.
People refer to Iraq as a failure because it is. We've merely pushed out one group of terrorists and replaced them with another group of terrorists. Iraq is not WWII and the comparison is ridiculous.
Felix_Nietsche
11-12-2005, 07:17 PM
is Bush a good president?
************************************************** **
Presidents should be judged on their foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy.
*Foreign policy: Good Hand selection and a mixed bag on the post flop play.
*Fiscal policy: Great tax cuts to stimulate the economy but TERRIBLE run away spending.
*Social policy: Still undetermined. If his supreme court picks turn out to be solid originalists then then he get high marks.
1) Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
************************************************** ****
The failure to instill martial law was a terrible mistake. Slowly the new Iraqi govt has been providing better security. If you have noticed, the insurgents have not had the ability to sabotage the oil facilities like they use to. Progress is being made.
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
************************************************** ********
A mistake. Clinton/Gore would have **** it up even worse. Bush43 was trying to be too PC in post war Iraq. Martial law should have immediately been implemented and then they should have move faster on installing an Iraqi govt. Appointing General Garner was a world class **** up.
"Great leaders accomplished great things and made the world a safer place"
Really - Which side, Axis or Allies, massacred more innocent people? How many innocent civilians did the U.S. INTENTIONALLY kill? Please round off to the nearest hundred thousand.
Why did the U.S. make fire bombs geared to optimally burn Japanese civilians? Did you know that the U.S. used torture extensively in WW2 (and I dont mean just making a prisoner stand naked for a few hours)?
Why has there been so many wars since WW2 if the world was made a safer place?
andyfox
11-12-2005, 08:41 PM
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=185
What is your point - that some journalist from the Atlantic wrote an article saying the planning sucked so it must be true?
ACPlayer
11-12-2005, 09:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does his decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
[/ QUOTE ]
Impossible for me to answer without discussing whether the war is justified. There was no serious threat, I knew it, and any one with half a brain should have known it.
[ QUOTE ]
How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
[/ QUOTE ]
This was without a doubt an extremely dumb political mistake and not a military mistake per se. Even the mid east analysts at State warned about winning the political war, even the Powell doctrine clearly stated that an exit plan was needed. Most person not already commited to the idea of invading Iraq expressed qualms about it.
The further political mistake (fueled by military exigencies to some extent) was rushing into the war rather than working the global community more to make sure that it was a multilateral effort.
The Why, How, and When all show extremely poor judgement, planning and execution.
ACPlayer
11-12-2005, 09:22 PM
If you also told the people that as a result Iraq wouldbe a lightening rod for anti-american sentiment, it would be 10 years before we got out, the price of oil would be $60 plus, a secular government would be replaced by a theocratic govt more aligned with Iran than the the States, and Al Qaeda would have a new ground in which to run amuck. Add to that if we were told that the evidence for the war was being heavily spun perhaps the perspective would have been more realistic and the support non-existent.
Sadly rose coloured glasses are easy to buy if you only want to see half the picture.
masse75
11-12-2005, 09:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
[/ QUOTE ]
Addressing point 2 only--when Colin Powell, former chief of JCS, give Bush the "Pottery Barn Doctrine" (You break it, you buy it), and he doesn't heed the warning...it's gotta go down as a blunder. Especially as "foreign policy" oriented as this administration claims to be.
There were a several good points in this thread and one that questioned the premise of my post. Let me reply to all the points.
[ QUOTE ]
To a certain extent, if implementation problems can predicted beforehand and there are no good remedies available, then it affects the justness of the decision.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good philosophical argument. To be more precise, I think that you meant that a life and death decision that fails to account for diverse yet predictable outcomes is an inherently unjust decision. If this was your point, then I think it's brilliant. I would never have thought of it on my own. But I didn't mean for the thread to be a debate about the moral righteousness of the war. I wanted to assume that the war was absolutely necessary and go from there.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you need major surgury and the doctor diagnoses you correct. However during the operation he [censored] up badly and causes you to lose your leg. Is he a good doctor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget, you also have to assume that even though everyone agrees with the diagnosis, no doctor from the competing hospital will perform the surgery.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great point. To someone who believes that the war was absolutely necessary, Bush is at least a better than average president, because, most past Presidents and presidential candidates would not have ordered this very necessary action.
[ QUOTE ]
Who says the insurgency wasnt well planned for? What is your basis for this?
There has yet to be a major disaster as a result of the insurgency, there is no civil war, the country is sovereign, has a constitution, and the loss of U.S. servicemen is unbelievably low by historical standards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for questioning the premise. All premises should be questioned. There are only two pieces of evidence that I can cite that lead me to believe that Bush did not plan for the insurgency. 1)He famously declared an end to major hostilities about a month after the invasion. If he believed that there would be no more major hostilities then he must not have forseen an insurgency. 2)During the preseidentail campaign, a report from a branch of the CIA that is responsible for predicting and theorizing about will happen if different foreign policies are implemented predicted a wide and vast insurgency as well as sectarian conflict. Yet Bush claimed to never have seen this report. I always wondered why he didn't ask to see what the CIA thought about the upcoming occupation. He must have thought that there expertise was unnecessary. I have seen other implied evidences on this forum., as well.
I may be wrong, but I think that it's commonly understood that most Congressional Republicans and neo-cons outside of the administration believe that Bush didn't adequately plan for the occupation.
Given what I just mentioned, do you still believe that he planned for the insurgency and if so why (counter my claims)? If you changed your mind then based on what else you said, I assume that you believe that despite Bush's lack of planning, he is doing remarkable effective job countering the unexpected insurgency.
[ QUOTE ]
The failure to instill martial law was a terrible mistake. Slowly the new Iraqi govt has been providing better security. If you have noticed, the insurgents have not had the ability to sabotage the oil facilities like they use to. Progress is being made.
[/ QUOTE ]
You agree with Utah, the guy who made the last quote. I respect your opinion, though, I'm not sure if you're qualified to say that the insurgency is being blown out of proportion. But your point that it is being dealt with effectively has sense to it.
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton/Gore would have **** it up even worse.
[/ QUOTE ]
They'd never have gone. By the premise of my post that would be a very bad thing. Though, I personally think that the 200+ billion would have been better spent improving the economic infrascture of the few developing democracies in that region.
[ QUOTE ]
If you also told the people that as a result Iraq wouldbe a lightening rod for anti-american sentiment, it would be 10 years before we got out, the price of oil would be $60 plus, a secular government would be replaced by a theocratic govt more aligned with Iran than the the States, and Al Qaeda would have a new ground in which to run amuck. Add to that if we were told that the evidence for the war was being heavily spun perhaps the perspective would have been more realistic and the support non-existent.
Sadly rose coloured glasses are easy to buy if you only want to see half the picture.
[/ QUOTE ]
These are valid arguments for someone who wants to argue against the justification for war as well as the competentcy of this administration. However, it's not the place for this thread. I think my next post, as soon as this one runs it course, will be an argument against the war, just so I can better understand the proponents for it.
PS: Sorry for being pedantic. I can't help it sometimes.
tolbiny
11-12-2005, 11:42 PM
"Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made"
I don't think so. This is based upon my impression that one of the reasons that the first gulf war didn't end up with the ousting of Saddam was the fear of an insurgency and a lack of an exit plan.
$DEADSEXE$
11-13-2005, 12:45 AM
The insurgency has been worse than anyone imagined because without the U.S. military in Iraq the entire supposed "Iraq government" would collapse and the Sunni's would be fighting to take back military and overall control of Iraq.
The insurgency is fueled by the Sunni resentment of both the current Iraq government and the U.S. presence.
The problem with Iraq is that there are too many factions who have seperate interests and are not willing to concede or use diplomacy without being forced to....the force that is applying the pressure is the U.S. Gov./Military.
There is a reason the majority of the population says that while they are unhappy with the U.S. presence in Iraq, they overwhelmingly DO NOT want them to leave anytime soon. As long as the U.S. is present in Iraq the insurgency will be about as strong as it is now....when we leave...a civil war/or coup is a likely possibilty.
Bush isn't interested in doing everything possible to win the war..he just wants to get by till he can hand it off to the Iraq gov. and wipe his hands clean. If he was told that he needed to flood Iraq with all remaining troops for the next year but then we could pull out completly...he wouldn't do it.
In part because politically he would get killed, but also because the 2006 elections will be coming up and he is not willing to do anything that could chance/aid a Democratic power change within the Senate/House. Thus, his pulling Miers and nominating Alito.
Even if it is the best thing for the country.
There will be a huge push by House/Senate Republicans for Bush to make a significant troop withdrawl( 50 to 90 thousand) from Iraq prior to next year's elections. Bush will most likely concede and make a withdrawl.
It will not be because the troops are no longer needed but simply a political move to keep control of the House/Senate.
Cheney and Co.(note this does not include GWB) have been pushing for an invasion and toppling of Saddam since the mid 90's. The majority of the reasons were and still are economic...there are however several hardcore neo-cons who actually believe the whole "spread democracy thru the middle east by starting in Iraq". The majority do not...it is simply a noble idea that in theory could work but in reality is almost certain to fail.
Beavis68
11-13-2005, 01:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
OK, assuming that the war was just (which is a pretty big leap for me) I would say that it was still a huge mistake for several reasons. First, although he was a horrible despot, Saddam was one of the only stable secular governments in the Middle East and although his methods were cruel, he did a good job of keeping his people in check. Secondly, I think that it should have been obvious to Bush that he needed to prepare for an insurgency (or at the very least, an exit strategy) since the French and British had to deal with similar situations in their attempts to colonize the Middle East.
[/ QUOTE ]
what level of dante's hell will you end up in?
Beavis68
11-13-2005, 01:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The insurgency has been worse than anyone imagined because without the U.S. military in Iraq the entire supposed "Iraq government" would collapse and the Sunni's would be fighting to take back military and overall control of Iraq.
The insurgency is fueled by the Sunni resentment of both the current Iraq government and the U.S. presence.
The problem with Iraq is that there are too many factions who have seperate interests and are not willing to concede or use diplomacy without being forced to....the force that is applying the pressure is the U.S. Gov./Military.
There is a reason the majority of the population says that while they are unhappy with the U.S. presence in Iraq, they overwhelmingly DO NOT want them to leave anytime soon. As long as the U.S. is present in Iraq the insurgency will be about as strong as it is now....when we leave...a civil war/or coup is a likely possibilty.
Bush isn't interested in doing everything possible to win the war..he just wants to get by till he can hand it off to the Iraq gov. and wipe his hands clean. If he was told that he needed to flood Iraq with all remaining troops for the next year but then we could pull out completly...he wouldn't do it.
In part because politically he would get killed, but also because the 2006 elections will be coming up and he is not willing to do anything that could chance/aid a Democratic power change within the Senate/House. Thus, his pulling Miers and nominating Alito.
Even if it is the best thing for the country.
There will be a huge push by House/Senate Republicans for Bush to make a significant troop withdrawl( 50 to 90 thousand) from Iraq prior to next year's elections. Bush will most likely concede and make a withdrawl.
It will not be because the troops are no longer needed but simply a political move to keep control of the House/Senate.
Cheney and Co.(note this does not include GWB) have been pushing for an invasion and toppling of Saddam since the mid 90's. The majority of the reasons were and still are economic...there are however several hardcore neo-cons who actually believe the whole "spread democracy thru the middle east by starting in Iraq". The majority do not...it is simply a noble idea that in theory could work but in reality is almost certain to fail.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually the "insurgency" is largely shiite influenced by Iran.
andyfox
11-13-2005, 01:49 AM
Read the article. Fallows names names, dates, studies, hard information. Plus what he says makes sense: Rumsfeld has admitted he doesn't like planning for unexpected contingencies. He admitted he wouldn't allow DOD personnel to attend planning meetings.
My point is that planning was done and willfully ignored by the administration. The article talks about government and non-governmental agencies that studied what would happen in an occupation--they studied what would happen if the army was disbanded; they predicted the looting problem and suggested what could be done about it; they planned for an insurgency; they thought about potential infrastructure problems when the Hussein government collapsed. No administration official has denied any of the information in the article. The Bush administration ignored all the information available to it.
Regards,
Andy
elwoodblues
11-13-2005, 12:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you need major surgury and the doctor diagnoses you correct. However during the operation he [censored] up badly and causes you to lose your leg. Is he a good doctor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget, you also have to assume that even though everyone agrees with the diagnosis, no doctor from the competing hospital will perform the surgery. [ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] Great point. To someone who believes that the war was absolutely necessary, Bush is at least a better than average president, because, most past Presidents and presidential candidates would not have ordered this very necessary action.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny that you responded the my post where I was poking fun of the premise that nobody else would have done anything to support your view. Good way to start the day.
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny that you responded the my post where I was poking fun of the premise that nobody else would have done anything to support your view. Good way to start the day.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well written! I'm guessing you meant that your post was sarcastic. It's still a logical objective argument. You're getting hung up on the word 'justified.' I think you're implying that if the war was truly justified then Clinton, Gore, Carter, Kerry, Bradley would have probably ordered it. Given our political and cultural whereabouts at the time, you are probably right. But I took a neo-conservaive point of view to guide a discussion. And what is justified from the neo-con point of view isn't justified from a liberal point of view. I asked those that couldn't accept my premise not to respond.
I'm new to this forum and am already dissapointed. Is there an internet forum where most people are committed to logic, willing to change a point of view if it logically becomes untenable and even seeking to challenge their own points of view for the sake of their own growth?
CORed
11-13-2005, 04:23 PM
An insurgency was absolutely predictable. During the runup to the war, when I believed that Sadaam had nerve gas, if not nukes or bio-weapons, I thought the war was a bad idea for two reasons.
1. Invading would very likely cause Sadaam to use his WMD, either against our troops, or against Israel.
2. I expected that, while getting rid of Sadaam would probably be pretty easy, after we got rid of him, we would end up in exactly the kind of mess we are in now.
I also remember, early in the war, before Sadaam was gone,I remeber Pat Buchanan, whom I agree with on very little, saying that we should get out quickly once he was gone, or we would have a "big West Bank" on our hands. An insurgency was entirely predictable. Only the idiots in the Bush administration didn't see it coming. I fault them more for failing to plan for this very predictable event than I do for their lie or error about the presence of WMD in Iraq.
Cyrus
11-13-2005, 08:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the war was justified based on the intelligence and that no democrat would have gone to Iraq, is Bush a good president?
[/ QUOTE ] This was a nonsensical phrase! It literally does not make sense. Let's proceed with the plain assumption that the war was justified in that Iraq indeed presented a clear and present threat to the security of the United States. This will be (y)our hypothetical.
[ QUOTE ]
1) Does decision to overthrow a potentially very serious threat make up for his failure to plan for an insurgency?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, absolutely.
When you are faced with a clear and present threat to the security of the United States, you act decisively and you act quickly to annihilate that threat -- and you plan for the aftermath as best as you can. Even if the aftermath turns out to be messy, the action is still justified on account of the clear and present threat to the security of the United States that existed.
[ QUOTE ]
2) How understandable is Bush's failure to plan for the insurgency? Was it an honest mistake that many if not most Presidents would have made, was it inevitable, or is it one of the biggest errors in millitary history?
[/ QUOTE ]
If you accept that Saddam Husseinb's Iraq was indeed a clear and present threat to the security of the United States, the Bush can always claim that the post-occupation planning was secondary and, thus, any mistakes in it are understandable and should be forgiven.
If you do NOT accept that, then Dubya's failure to take into account the almost unanimous recommendations of the military (number of troops, necessity for police work, avoiding chaos by avoiding the bombing of the civilian infrastructure, retaining the help of ex-Baathists, etc etc) is of colossally criminal proportions. It would constitute, at other times, such a serious proof of [b]incompetence that impeachment would be on the agenda.
...For the record, I do not, for a moment, believe that Iraq constituted anything ressembling a clear and present threat to America.
The hypo is false. The policies based on that false hypo have been disastrous for all concerned.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.