Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (154599)	12/21/2004 1:00:03 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Just said you might be more comfortable believing it. I wasnt being critical. Some of my best girlfriends in the sixties were pacifists.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (154599)	12/21/2004 1:05:33 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The question is why you alternate from one day criticizing such incompetence to the next day excusing it as "not all wars are perfect?" I excuse nothing. I just offered a way to measure. I think rummy got real sloppy in ops and almost callous in the way he responds to criticism and errors. But shit happens in war. If you dont like my answer then in 60s terminology Lump it. Please take your blood pressure meds. (g)

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (154599)	12/21/2004 2:26:16 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One thing that definitely wasn't Rumsfeld's fault was Turkey screwing us on the northern invasion. A lot of bad guys probably got away because of it. * * *

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (154599)	12/22/2004 12:40:54 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

The issue isn't whether those who conduct wars should be perfect The issue is whether this administration, conducting the war in Iraq, has met even minimum standards of competency, not perfection. The following article was written a few months ago, but addresses the issue of the Bush admin's competency pretty well, IMO. Having the most powerful military in the world by FAR (not to mention the most powerful communications technology and complete domination of the air) certainly compensates for a lot of mistakes, but the truth is--these guys may lose this war despite these incredible advantages. And all because they are, well, ... incompetent at most everything other than hitting the "patriotic" buttons of a lot of Americans. Post-war Planning Non-Existent by Warren Strobel and John Walcott WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq , American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq . Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason. The slide said: "To Be Provided." A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions. In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting terrorists who slip easily across Iraq 's long borders, diehards from the old regime and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and America 's sometimes heavy boots. "We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy. The military's plan to defeat Saddam's army worked brilliantly and American troops have distinguished themselves on the battlefield. However, the review found that the president and many of his advisers ignored repeated warnings that rebuilding Iraq would be harder than ousting Saddam and tossed out years of planning about how to rebuild Iraq , in part because they thought pro-American Iraqi exiles and Iraqi "patriots" would quickly pick up the pieces. The CIA predicted up until the war's opening days that the Iraqi army would turn against Saddam, which never happened. This report is based on official documents and on interviews with more than three dozen current and former civilian and military officials who participated directly in planning for the war and its aftermath. Most still support the decision to go to war but say many of the subsequent problems could have been avoided. Every effort was made to get those who were interviewed to speak for the record, but many officials requested anonymity because they didn't want to criticize the administration publicly or because they feared retaliation. One official who was deeply involved in the pre-war planning effort - and was critical of it - initially agreed but then declined to cooperate after expressing concern that the Justice Department might pursue a reporter's telephone records in an effort to hunt down critics of the administration's policies. Some senior officials spoke up about their concerns for the first time. President Bush and top officials in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office never responded to repeated requests for interviews. They've publicly defended their plans for the invasion and its aftermath, and now some top officials are blaming the CIA for failing to predict the messy aftermath of Saddam's fall. .... Much more at bernie.house.gov