Do you understand better now why so many of us opposed the "rush to war"?
Rush to war???!!! Bush sought, and obtained from Congress, an authorization to use force in October(?), 2002. The war did not begin until March.
What I better understand is that military folks have never really been good at civil affairs. I had my own personal experiences in this while providing liaison during my stint in the military. Often times the military folks have all the subtlety of a 2x4.. They get geared up for all-out combat, win, and suddenly find themselves performing police duty...
And this hasn't been the first time.. WWI.. WWII... reshaping the economies of Korea and Vietnam.. etc.. In all of those wars, soldiers have been required to stand down from combat operations and perform security and policing functions.
But what I really find upsetting is literally the "begging step-child", do it on a shoestring, nature of the post-war effort. When we have to hunt down Baathist money in order to pay these folks a measly $20/month stipend, that indicates lack of prior planning.
And it's going to prove embarrassing to Bush, which means Rummy should be getting ready for some well-deserved criticism.
We never ruled out military action, but we wanted a more comprehensive approach and a better post-war plan.
B*LLSH*T!! The plan worked FINE, given the limitations caused by Turkey's extortion, and we performed a major logistical and strategic feat. While I contest some of the force structure (we needed more Cavalry and MP support to conduct security and screening operations on the supply lines), overall, the plan worked very well.. ESPECIALLY IN THE CITIES which even I thought we would bypass.
No.. my problem is that we didn't come in there with the necessary resources to reinvigorate Iraq's internal economy until oil revenues could kick in.
Hawk |
