Assume the war was justified

[jt1]

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]

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]

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]

[ 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.

[jt1]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

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.