Did anyone ever read James Webb's "The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty"?

[Toad]

I don't see a parallel between McNamara and Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld won his war in short order; the Iraqis were rolled up very quickly. Nice air-land battle plan that worked very well.

McNamara never figured out how to fight a war period. He proceded from one bungle to the next with his stupid ROE's and showing power through restraint. What nonsense.

Rumsfeld certainly screwed up by having a weak peace plan. McNamara never got that far, so no comparison there either.

The irony, however, is that in 2006 Webb has become that which he hated in 1995.

[Stringer]

The parellel is neither one had a workable strategy to acheive success for their situation.  Winning the war is one aspect, but not the only aspect to achieve the diplomatic aims that caused the decision to go to war in the first place.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Stringer
The parellel is neither one had a workable strategy to acheive success for their situation.  Winning the war is one aspect, but not the only aspect to achieve the diplomatic aims that caused the decision to go to war in the first place.

Stringer I wholey beleive the war is being lost on US soil....NOT in Iraq.  There is some truth to "embolding the enemy".  An insurgancy that has support and a cause is one that won't quit.  The American media and those who havn't allowed Iraq to have any successes are in a sense losing the war for the ones that are actually fighting it.

[lukster]

At least Jane Fonda had the decency to acknowledge that she and those like her were responsible for the 3 million murdered after we cut and ran fom Vietnam. That is what she was saying when asked about those 3 million and she replied that it was "our fault" right? Or perhaps she meant that it was "your fault"?

[Yeager]

I have nothing good to say about old boy george these days.  he has screwed this whole thing up rather badly.  the sooner his lame bellybutton is out of office the better.  The truly tragic and pathetic fact is he has managed to screw over 3000+ KIA and 20,000+ WIA proud warfighters with his idiotic management of this war.  Not to mention he has befuddled the american people into setting up a government completely taken over by socialist democrats.  We are so screwed now.  Probably should surrender while we are ahead.

[Maverick]

Not to take a side here I am curious.

How would you have handled the situation, assuming the conflict has started? What strategy would you think would be successful?

[Yeager]

I think its been clear from the start.  Outright disbanding of the Iraqi military and its essential infrastructure was a immediate critical failure. I would NOT have done that.  I WOULD HAVE had enough troops to hold the capitol city rather than this odd greased lightening ultra fast military machine that rolled the Iraqis smartly then didn't have enough troops on the ground to secure the city.  I would have immediately installed a provincial government rather than have some geek in tennis shoes (brenner) acting like Macarthur but lacking every basic ingredient of a decent modern occupier.  Nope Bush and Rumsfeld screwed this deal over "big time" and it took em nearly 4 years and the loss of congress to figure it out, now that the crap has hit the fan, most fat fast food Americans would rather quit Iraq now and let someone else's kids deal with the mess ten years down the road.  Thats all.

[Eagler]

how are those dumbarsecrat 20/20 hindsight glasses working for you?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Stringer
The parellel is neither one had a workable strategy to acheive success for their situation.  Winning the war is one aspect, but not the only aspect to achieve the diplomatic aims that caused the decision to go to war in the first place.

How do you know a strategy is unworkable until it has been tried?

Rumsfeld's war strategy was untried; many people, me included, thought the in-theater forces were insufficient for the job. His strategy there proved correct and almost incredibly so.

He had a similar strategy for the peace; most thought it included insufficient forces once again. Then again, there was a presumption the Iraqis would have a little more tolerance for their fellow Iraqis of different Muslim sects. That presumption proved unfounded.

What Rumsfeld was missing was the ability to adjust his post-war strategy. He just didn't seem to be able to admit it wasn't working.

If you insist upon a parallel, perhaps it is there. McNamara never had a strategy that worked in practice. His war-fighting plan was a failure and he never was able to admit it didn't work.

So you can parallel McNamara's unwillingness to adjust his war plan with Rumsfeld's unwillingness to adjust his peace plan.

I'm not buying into the "unworkable from before the start" allegation however.

There's an old saying String: the battle plan is usually the first casualty. I don't know how one knows a plan is irrevocably unworkable until you give it a try. OTOH, the willingness to re-evaluate and re-plan is essential. Rumsfeld failed to do that after winning the war. McNamara failed to do it throughout the war.

[Yeager]

sure, poke fun at it but people on the ground were saying this as it was happening, NOT FOUR YEARS LATER.  If you recollect.

Face it Eagler, Bush has handled this war with such pathetic incompetence that he has practically guaranteed our failure there.  Blame him, not the democrats who now enjoy leadership in BOTH HOUSES.

If we do make it out of Iraq leaving a stable country in our wake, it will be in Spite of Bush.  Not because of him.  

That guy is a dolt of the highest order.  Sorry.

[Eagler]

if it isn't hindsight on your part, can you show me your posts from 2003 - 2004 which state your opinion then which backs up your thoughts today?

the POTUS takes the blame but I do not think he was on the ground in Iraq for the last 4 years. I am pretty sure he placed that responsibility on our military leaders, the ones that were replaced over the same period of time.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Eagler
if it isn't hindsight on your part, can you show me your posts from 2003 - 2004 which state your opinion then which backs up your thoughts today?

the POTUS takes the blame but I do not think he was on the ground in Iraq for the last 4 years. I am pretty sure he placed that responsibility on our military leaders, the ones that were replaced over the same period of time.

Hey Eagler, you make it through the storms OK? Looks like a bad scene down there. I disagree with about 90% of your views, but good luck this weekend.

[Eagler]

thx Red Tail, we are fine - the tornandoes hit east of us. we had a bad line of thunderstorms and high winds but the middle of the state got hammered

appreciate your concern

[Yeager]

What difference does it make what I posted on this bsb FOUR YEARS AGO?
I was just as aware of the criticisms then as you were, all that has changed is that my thinking has finally come full circle, or has at least, matured considerably since this debacle in Iraq started.

George Bush is the DECIDER remember?  He has had daily access to the most critical and sensitive information on planet earth since the day of his inauguration and to give him a pass here really goes beyond the pale.  He is the Commander In Chief and it is HIS responsibility.

Iraq DID NOT HAVE TO BE a debacle, George Bush, as CIC has made it one.

Glad your Alright Eagler.  My thoughts are directed at those that suffered terribly this morning.  Nature can be a real genuine *****.

[Maverick]

Just to continue the discussion. I realize you aren't happy with the way things have gone but I have some questions regarding your options.

You mention not disbanding the military. You are then comfortable having the enemy military in your midst with arms? Do you not see how this could be a bad thing?

How would you have had the troops "hold the capital city"? What would you do, have a soldier every 30', maybe 2 of them every 50'? Exactly how would you expect a military force trained to combat another military force structure itself to an army of occupation? What would the individual troopes have as their responsibility? Are they law enforcement, security guards or curfew enforcers who will respond to all percieved threats with deadly force?

What would be the goal of the troops holding the city?

I kind of thought the interim govt. operations they had with iraqis running local operation before the election was the situation you mentioned with the term "provincial govt. How would yours have been different? Would you have dropped all plans for an election of a govt.? If local iraqis were not going to be running any govt. operation, who would?

I'm asking as I hear and see a lot of verbiage like "failed policy" "failed plan" "lack of peace plan" and so on but not very much in the way of this is how it should have been done, with real thought of the mechanics of the process. Phrases like change of strategy are as meaningless as "I would have done it better" or "I have a plan" when there is no elucidation of what the alternatives you want to do are.

If there is a better idea, lets hear it. Don't keep it a secret.

Originally posted by Yeager
I think its been clear from the start.  Outright disbanding of the Iraqi military and its essential infrastructure was a immediate critical failure. I would NOT have done that.  I WOULD HAVE had enough troops to hold the capitol city rather than this odd greased lightening ultra fast military machine that rolled the Iraqis smartly then didn't have enough troops on the ground to secure the city.  I would have immediately installed a provincial government rather than have some geek in tennis shoes (brenner) acting like Macarthur but lacking every basic ingredient of a decent modern occupier.  Nope Bush and Rumsfeld screwed this deal over "big time" and it took em nearly 4 years and the loss of congress to figure it out, now that the crap has hit the fan, most fat fast food Americans would rather quit Iraq now and let someone else's kids deal with the mess ten years down the road.  Thats all.