Assume the war was justified - Page 2

tylerdurden · #11 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?

#12 11-12-2005, 05:06 PM

[ 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

Utah · #13 11-12-2005, 05:09 PM

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 · #14 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

Utah · #15 11-12-2005, 05:49 PM

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 · #16 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

Utah · #17 11-12-2005, 06:09 PM

[ 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 · #18 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.

#19 11-12-2005, 06:56 PM

[ 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 · #20 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.