http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2042969.ece Iraq: One by one, they tell the truth As Tony Blair flies out to meet George Bush, the latest admission of failure in Iraq has made the two leaders appear even more isolated Published: 06 December 2006 Colin Powell After telling the UN assembly in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the former Secretary of State admitted in May 2004 the claims were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading". Colonel Tim Collins The Army colonel made a famous rousing speech to troops on the eve of battle. But in September 2005, he declared: "History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qa'ida ever." Paul Bremer The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006: "It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be... we really didn't see the insurgency coming." Zalmay Khalilzad Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play". Jack Straw The former foreign secretary, one of the cheerleaders for the war, said in September: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration." Gen Sir Richard Dannatt The British General admitted in an interview in October: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates [them]." Richard Perle Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," he added. Ken Adelman Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly." Donald Rumsfeld A memo from the hardline former defence secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment... what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough..." Robert Gates Yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld's proposed successor was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration". Tony Blair ... George Bush ...
Interesting method of taking selective quotes and cobbling together a perceived unified front against the War. That Colin Powell misrepresentation is particularly disingenuous considering the known fact that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program. Oops, convenient to leave that out... What is your solution to Iraq, Batman? We've heard you complain, and trumpet bad news regarding our troops for years. How about some constructive criticism, instead of your typical idle complaining and ill-wishing? Complaining is not a strategy. So please summons all of your military knowledge and deliver to us what you think the right course of action is in Iraq. Otherwise, complain to yourself.
Dood, you do the same thing. Keep it on subject and don't go there. It makes you seem less credible. The first part of your post was fine.
The only truly selective thing about the article is how many prominent people were left out that once supported the war and now realize it's a debacle, that there are no good or even okay answers to it and that we have to leave as soon as possible in whatever way will cause the least damage. You were wrong, Jorge. You and Bush. You were wrong on every conceivable front. And that article cites a remarkably long list of leaders in this effort that now acknowledge it. As for what I would do were I "the decider," leaving out the fact that I never would have gotten us into this mess as evidenced by my many warnings on this forum (each of which has proven true and I challenge you to find even one, even one tiny one that hasn't), I would go Murtha's route of phased redeployment -- one that he suggested about one year and hundreds of needless US military deaths ago and one that is now being virtually embraced by the likes of James Baker, Donald Rumsfeld and virtually everyone that matters who isn't named Bush, Cheney, Blair or McCain. And we all know what you would do: Stay the course, since it's worked out so well so far. And you say you "support the troops." What a laugh. People like you and Bush are an even greater enemy to them and put them in even greater danger than the ones that are shooting at them.
In simple terms, that would be the extent of my military strategy, yes. As various people, including those in charge at the Pentagon have said, this thing is not winnable militarily and a political solution must be found. To that end, I would suggest that Bush give up his stupid and stubborn strategy of refusing to talk to anyone who might be regarded as an enemy and engage all involved parties other than Al Qaeda in talks. That means Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders (and not just the ones we wish were leaders) as well as Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, yes, I would begin to transfer security and military responsibilities to Iraqis as soon as possible. Most experts believe this could begin to happen in about 6 months. A phased redeployment would, at least, mean that Americans would stop dying needlessly in the middle of a country ravaged by civil war in which there is no good, reasonably accomplishable thing left there for them to accomplish. While I'm here, riddle me this Jorge (though I know for an absolute fact you'll go poof as usual): I provided a lengthy list of prominent architects of and partners in Bush's war strategy who have changed their tune such that they are now closer to my view of the Iraq war than yours and Bush's. As you know, many, many big names could be added to that list (for example, virtually every Democrat who voted to authorize force as well as several prominent Republicans who did the same). Can you name even one who has similarly reversed from an anti-Iraq war position to a pro-Iraq war one? Can you name one, even a not so famous one, anywhere in America? Can you even name one on this freaking BBS? No. Didn't think so. Run away now, Jorgie. Go poof like you like to do.
Sounds like the best option. There is no workable strategy left for our position in Iraq. Protect all those that helped us out... even if we have to bring them here... and leave is the best of a bunch of sucky options. It'd also be nice if we tried to maybe fix the budding catastrophe in Afghanistan. But it is all a moot point. Bush is staying in Iraq and will continue to ignore Afghanistan while TJ will support what Bush does even if they both have to spend all day clicking their heels together and hoping for a miracle that comes only in movies. I know this strategy will fail because I've been clicking my heels hoping the world would magically return to October of 2000. So far, it hasn't happened.
the plan recommended by the ISG is in now way similar to that recommended by Murtha. I'm not saying i agree w/ either- the ISG report is a mixture of unrealistic bromides and some plausible policy options, but it bears zero resemblance to murtha's retreat to okinawa suggestion.
Why, Batman Chamberlain, here's General Abizaid, just the other day: [rquoter]"We all want to leave when we can, but the most important thing must be the stability of the region. We must stabilize Iraq. It's vitally important to us," he said. Abizaid also admitted that the challenges in the Middle East extend far beyond Iraq's borders, and it will require a concerted effort by several countries - including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - to meet them. "We must defeat the extremism of bin Laden and his associated movement. It's murderous. It's ruthless. It's very capable. It's got strength as a network unlike any nonstate actor has ever seen before. We've got to defeat it," he said. "Think of it as an opportunity to confront fascism in 1920 if only we'd had the guts to do it then," he continued. "I believe that if we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology today, we will move toward World War III tomorrow."[/rquoter] I reckon he counts as one of "those in charge."
Yeah, Abizaid counts as one of those in charge. Congratulations. You found one war supporter that continues to support the war. I didn't say that every single person at the Pentagon or elsewhere had flipped on it -- only that an unbelievable number of them had. And I'll extend my challenge to Jorge to you as well: Name one person who's flipped in the other direction. You can't. The report resembles Murtha's position in meaningful ways -- it suggests that redeployment is an option that should be seriously considered and suggests that we are not winning and are not going to win (whatever the hell that even means) militarily. Of course, everybody who isn't Bush, Cheney, McCain, Abazaid, Jorge and a couple others, everybody who doesn't continue to insist against all evidence that this thing's going swell and we should keep doing what we've been doing, is Neville Chamberlain. What a p***y country we live in when the vast majority of them are cut and run Al Qaeda appeasers and surrender monkeys. You are living in a fantasy world.
whats your strategy Trader Jorge? Invade a sovereign nation on false pretenses? maybe just create a war for no reason and lead our own soldiers into battle for $$?? Look at the scoreboard jorge. the policies you blindly have promoted on this bbs are not working in iraq , leading up to Iraq ( all of it) and your stance and positions have proven time a again to be consistent failures. The sad part is you really believe your own ignorance. As Billy joel said you cannot argue with a crazy mind so I am really here to acknowledge to the rest that your thoughts are as fringe as the extremists. We all know this - I simply think it should be stated once in a while for good measure. You give the GOP a bad name and I have to *try* to remind myself that you are just a guy who has simply never been laid and that has nothing to do with the republican party. As a bbser off and on for many years its becoming painful to watch. Soon ( hopefully) you will go the way of Kfed and we can begin to feel sorry for you. That hasnt happened yet. They say the meek shall inherit the earth I suppose.
My solution right after taking over the country would've being opned up reconstruction to the Europeans, even those that didn't fight with us (France). Once their corporations starts to have a stake in it, their governments will not be able to stand in the sidelines. At the same time, it would shows that it's not an unilateral action (because lets face it, we're the ones that pushed this thing and controlled 99% of what's going during the invasion/occupation) and the U.S. wouldn't look like a country interested in nation building in the middle east. Not to mention, the U.S. would start to look good by doing so (we fought the war, yet we share the spoils). That to me was the biggest blunder this whole "war". Once the initial millitary effort was done and "mission accomplished", that when the hard part began. The situations in the first 3 months of occupation required a ton of political greasing to make sure things ran smoothly. Sadly, that's where the inexperience/lack of competence in international politics came in, and that's why we're still paying for it today. When we first took down Saddam, and things didn't degenerate this much, other people wanted a piece, and we should've given it to them.
We couldn't give them a piece, wizkid. Bush was too drunk on his own arrogant predictions of a groovy new democracy and wanted to punish those who hadn't been with him from the start so he could have all the 'glory' for himself. That worked out well. No answer from either Jorge or basso, by the way. Poof. As usual.
It seems to me, Batman, that your collection of quotes say nothing more than in sum that the situation in Iraq is tougher than expected. Most indicate nothing about phased withdrawal or any other such strategy. You seem to have "assigned" that kind of correspondence with your own viewpoint. Was that kind of capitulation buried in the fuller context of these remarks which you've cited?
i believe these are the actual quotes. they're pretty much don't need any explaning or correspondence. in your own understanding, do they all merely mean "the situation in Iraq is tougher than expected"? Colin Powell: "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading". Colonel Tim Collins: "History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qa'ida ever." Zalmay Khalilzad: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play". Jack Straw: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration." Richard Perle: "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," - and that's coming from a neocon Ken Adelman: "The national security team... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly." - another neocon Robert Gates was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration".
The Law of Unintended Consequences The Law of Unintended Consequences holds that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, including unforeseen effects. The idea dates to the Scottish Enlightenment, which influenced interdisciplinary leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and Matthew F. Maury who had the same tutor - Reverend James Maury. In the twentieth century, sociologist Robert K. Merton once again popularized the concept, sometimes referred to as the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. Merton (1936) spoke of the "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action", emphasizing that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action which involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives" (p.895). Causes Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases. Robert K. Merton listed five causes of unanticipated consequences: Ignorance - It is impossible to anticipate everything. Error - Incomplete analysis of the problem, or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation. Immediate interest which may override long-term interests Basic values - may require or prohibit certain actions, even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values). Self-defeating prophecy - Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated. (insert Rumsfeld quote here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence
Person A is married Person B walks into A's home and shoots his wife, killing her. B says that A's wife was a doppleganger alien who was going to kill A. A calls BS, but B is adamant about his claim. A does an investigation and proves that B was indeed lying. A complains that B killed his wife. B says, "Why is it all you do is complain and blame me without actually providing a solution to bring back your dead wife?" _____________________ Pro-war supporters: Do you want to sound like B, or do you want to take some responsibility for your costly mistake and try to help solve your problem instead of leaving it to someone else to clean up?
