Hello Carl. I guess we'll drag this on a little farther even though it is probably getting tiresome for both of us.
First, my initial post, admittedly, criticized you for skewering the Bush Administration over several years for it's abject failures of intellect and competence in the decision to go to war in Iraq and the conduct of the post invasion occupation while you seemingly could not, personally, bring yourself to call them to account by withholding your vote and, in fact, voted to keep them in office. (To make matters even more puzzling you had theories about why they'd figure things out for the second term and yet you continue to ridicule their competence and intellect based on the quality of their post-reelection decisions-accurate criticisms in my view.)
Your response was, in essence that, "[you] already went through [my] posts from before the war and [you interpreted them as revealing that I] did not expect us to be militarily defeated. [I was} arguing against an invasion on the basis of the morality of stealing their oil, not on the practicality. [I am] no smarter than Bush.
That was sort of a non-sequitor but I have to give you credit for the "You're no smarter than Bush" allegation. That one hit hard. I'm sure that in a debate, any kind of test of wits or intellect, and arm wrestling, I could win but I winced anyway. Such is the reputation of Bush.
But I can't give you any accolades for the blanket indictment that I did "not expect us to be defeated." Sure, I will admit that I was certain that the Iraqi (army?) would not defeat our missiles, tanks, choppers, artillery, bombers and well-trained, red blooded American men and women of the military. Don't ask me why, but I just had a feeling that it would be a blowout.
The more subtle question of whether we would ultimately be "defeated" was more difficult to answer during the time frame you selected. As you know, it is impossible to know whether you are "defeated" until you know what the object of the endeavor is. I was unsure initially whether we would declare victory, soon leave the mess to the Iraqis, and leave the threat of our further aggression as the elephant in the room in the event our companies were still frozen out of the Iraqi oil pie, or if the new government supported or failed to deal with terrorism. If we had done that Irqaq might be twisting in the wind but it's much less likely that WE'D be looking "defeat" so directly in the eyes.
On the other hand, I'd have had a definite opinion that we'd be defeated if I'd known that we were going to declare that AMERICA was going to redo Iraqi society and that it was a "generations long" endeavor as stated by Rice at the time, that we weren't leaving until Iraq was a functional, secular democracy that respected and protected the rights of women and minorities, that we would disband every institution with the possible exception of the oil ministry, that in the process of disbanding the army and the police forces we'd cut their pensions and send them home with their weapons, that we'd attempt to step in with our own ignorant ruling authority to micromanage the nation of Iraq, that we'd leave the people without police protection, without jobs, without water, sewer, electricity or security, that we'd react to acts of unrest by shutting down the press, by knocking down doors and hauling away citizens without warrants, trial or hearings, that we'd abuse them in our custody and keep their whereabouts hidden from their loved ones, that we'd step in the way of the clerics and stop them from restoring order, and that we'd attempt to keep order with our language and culture disabled soldiers, many of whom would be scared enough to shoot anything that might be a threat. I'd have had a definite opinion that we'd be "defeated" if I'd known that because, hey, I'm NOT as stupid as Bush.
You'll note that I strongly opposed the invasion and that in the days following the "victory" when there was so much "celebrating" in this country I was not celebrating and I was voicing concerns that we were on the edge of a disastrous, mistaken policy that would lead us to this point.
Now maybe you, Carl, somehow, knew that Bush and his cronies were going to drastically over reach and, for good measure, make the gang that couldn't shoot straight look like James Bond in comparison, but the rest of us thoughtful watchers had to wait a little longer. After all, there was plenty of prior warning that a civil war would ensue which would render Iraq and shake the Gulf region, but how did you "know" before the beginning of the occupation that Bush would put our troops, our nation's credibility and our treasure on the table in a sucker bet that America could remake Iraq through force of arms? Maybe defeat is what he craves. After all, what else could he have meant when he said "bring em on?"
So claim all the foresight you wish, all I claim is that as the "mission" took form I saw it as betting the farm on a sucker bet and that the Iraqis would ultimately hold the aces. In that sense I eventually became as smart as George H. W. Bush. Ed |
