Sorry I had to leave abruptly, yesterday.....
I think you are judging by unrealistic standards. Take the intelligence problems: the Congress gutted a lot of the human intelligence potential, and made it necessary to rely on satellite photos, signal intelligence, and informants that were "gimmes", like those supplied by Chalawbi. We were hardly in a position to verify directly or through multiple contacts what the facts were.
Thus, it was very likely that we would get the scenario that most conformed to the views and aims of dissident Iraqis, especially if the Saddam regime were being coy to intimidate neighbors, as appears to be the case (why else act as if they had a lot to hide?) Beyond that, we still know only that we have not found stockpiles: we do not know if they existed, and were removed, as some of those interrogated suggested, or if they had been destroyed, as others stated.
Finally, what we do know is that they were working on bigger, better missile systems, and that they were ready to resume production as soon as the heat was off. One of the nuclear scientists we have relied upon in deciding there was no active program nevertheless says that Saddam was ready to go at the earliest opportunity, and had the brain- trust and the design plans to do it.
I mention this only as an example of judging in context. More generally, I want to point out an analogy I have used before: if you were to try to determine a priori what a good batting average was, you might guess .800 or so. But in reality a good batting average is less than .300, and a spectacular batting average is about .350, because you compare actual performance, and it is that hard to get a hit in major league baseball. In the same way, I have so far seen no reason to imagine that, under similar circumstances, a different administration would have performed markedly better than the one we have. Based on my sense of what is normal behavior in responding to crisis, and the difficulties of adjusting to rapidly evolving circumstances, I consider the current administration to have performed pretty well, and would rather stick with a seasoned group than start a new "learning curve" for another administration.
When we entered into World War Two, the first part of the Africa campaign was a disaster. The troops were not seasoned, they were undisciplined, some of the officers needed replacement, and Rommel was at the top of his game. The tide turned, but only after demoralizing performances at the beginning:
The U.S. Army learned bitter lessons about the inadequacy of its training, equipment, and leadership in the North African campaign. Army Ground Forces acted quickly to ensure that American soldiers would receive more realistic combat training. Higher commanders realized that they could not interfere with their subordinates by dictating in detail the positions of their units. Troops had to be committed in division-size, combined arms teams, not in driblets. The problem posed by American tanks, outgunned by the more heavily armed and armored German panzers, took far longer to correct. But the artillery established itself as the Army's most proficient arm.
worldwariihistory.info
Read about the debacles, the disagreements, and the sheer power of chance in the conduct of World War II, or any other war, and you will see that the performance of this administration, and the variety of armchair quarterbacks with their own kibbiting, is not bad at all. The reason Bush doesn't apologize, besides morale, which is an important factor, is because he has nothing much to apologize for......... |
