Assume the war was justified

[Utah]

"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]

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=185

[Utah]

What is your point - that some journalist from the Atlantic wrote an article saying the planning sucked so it must be true?

[ACPlayer]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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.

[jt1]

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]

"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.

[$DEADSEXE$]

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]

[ 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?