Doesn't the "stretched thin" argument need to consider proportionality as an issue? Yes, we need more troops in Iraq, but can we afford to commit them? Indeed, can we not afford to commit them? Both good questions. Part of the issue is that we have a shrunken military. Have I missed the discussion of that as it relates to the criticism of not enough boots on the ground?
in fact, this is what i was trying to bring up. the thread wasn't a defense of the president, just questions that hadn't been satisfactorily answered (to me) by either side. then came URM...i expected that from nolen, but thought deckard had better reading comprehension.
If you can't afford to commit them then don't go to war. Or only go after you build a broad coalition that provides enough troops to do the job. Or you finish the job in Afghanistan, and then if it is necessary to invade another country the troops are available to do that. This President did none of that. Bush promised in the debates during 2000 that he would only commit U.S. troops in numbers sufficient to accomplish the mission and with a clear exit strategy in place before going in. The president did not live up to his promise, and human life, misery, our nation's loss of honor is a result.
There was a legitimate difference of opinion about the numbers of troops needed in Iraq. The accuracy of hindsight doesn't apply to the time of decision except to function as a point of criticism. You can always do more with more. The issue seems to be that the Administration felt that we couldn't afford or we didn't need that many troops in Iraq. The first is understandable, the latter could be blameworthy. The military commanders owe their all to the mission. The Administration has to take into account other potential needs of the nation in addition to the needs of the mission.
Exactly. There were some military folks who BEFORE the invasion said we'd need more troops, and some who said we wouldn't need more. The Bush administration listened to those that said we'd need less troops, and forced those that had other(it turns out correct) opinions out. But instead of saying to the people who were right, that they should have listened to them, those people were fired, publically trashed, retired etc. Meanwhile the folks who were wrong who wanted the job to be done with fewer troops have not been held accountable for their mistakes, or even an acknowledgement that mistakes were made. As for the nation not being able to send in that many troops because of other needs, there comes a time when you have to prioritize. The choices would be finish doing a good job in Afghanistan, then concentrate on Iraq, or use solid evidence to show a threat and get enough help from allies to form a coalition which would provide enough troop support. Again the administration did neither of these, and they won't admit the mistake here either.
Hindsight is small consolation for starting an illegal, unjust and unwinnable war that will slaughter generations of Americans and suck resources from what our military should be focusing on: defense.
if i may paraphrase Andrew Sullivan, by way of response, I'm sorry, Mr Fisher, but the liberation of millions from two of the most brutal police states in history is not now and never could be described as "a catastrophe." Even to utter that sentiment is to have lost even the faintest sense of moral bearings.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade Exactly. There were some military folks who BEFORE the invasion said we'd need more troops, and some who said we wouldn't need more. The Bush administration listened to those that said we'd need less troops, and forced those that had other(it turns out correct) opinions out. But instead of saying to the people who were right, that they should have listened to them, those people were fired, publically trashed, retired etc. Meanwhile the folks who were wrong who wanted the job to be done with fewer troops have not been held accountable for their mistakes, or even an acknowledgement that mistakes were made. <b>I know that there was some of this, but I'm not sure it's not being overly dramatized. The other point is that perhaps it is not feasible to trot in significantly more troops due to the Administrtion's national responsibilities. More troops is always better and more expensive. More troops may have just meant more casualties.</b> As for the nation not being able to send in that many troops because of other needs, there comes a time when you have to prioritize. The choices would be finish doing a good job in Afghanistan, then concentrate on Iraq, or use solid evidence to show a threat and get enough help from allies to form a coalition which would provide enough troop support. Again the administration did neither of these, and they won't admit the mistake here either. <b>The current arrangement may be our priority. Afghanistan was pretty tight for awhile and now seems to have broken loose to some extent. How easily do you predict something like that? Hey, I'm almost to the point that I hope Kerry wins and let him and the Democrats have the "pleasure" of solving this problem. It's easy to be a critic.</b>
By whose standards is the was illegal? The UN's? By whose standards is this war unjust? The Catholic Church? Kerry's not even picking up on that one is he? By whose judgement is the war in Iraq unwinnable? Generations of Americans implies 40+ years....
The last point first... It is definitely much easier being a critic than actually solving the problems. I agree. Now on to the criticisizing Even if prior to the invasion only 3 people said we would need more troops, it doesn't change the fact that the majority were wrong. It might make it more understandable, but it doesn't mean that not admitting a mistake and making steps to correct it would be the best course of action. More troops may have been more casualties in the short term, but it may have saved lives in the long run, because the job could have been done more effectively. And if the administration knows they should had more troops but had other responsibilities then they should have either built a broader coalition, or postponed/cancelled the invasion of Iraq. I think Afghanistan has become harder to control because we've diverted resources that should have gone into the rebuilding of Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Instead of one country up and running smoothely we have two countries with a large degree of lawlessness and terrorism. Even if Bush had the best intentions in the world and wasn't able to predict the outcomes of either Iraq or Afghanistan, then you would hope he could learn from the mistakes he made. Instead he won't even acknowledge that things aren't going peachy.
I'm sure someone has brought this up already but.. doesn't it take more troops to invade and occupy a country the size of Iraq than it would have in Gulf War I?
Do you have any doubt at all that Bush has anything but the best intentions? Your wording troubles me. I have no doubt that Kerry has the best intentions; I just don't happen to agree with much of his political philosophy. As we've discussed before, it is unrealistic to expect those kind of confessions. It would be political suicide-- especially in an election year. Even to enact the changes would be such a confession. If re-elected, I can see things changing then.
I don't doubt that Bush had the best intentions. I do doubt about some others in his administration. I don't think that it would be political suicide to admit mistakes, especially if you are holding people accountable. If he came out and said Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were dead wrong about post Saddam Iraq, and it's cost too many lives, I'm replacing them effective immediately, then it would appear like he was a leader who did what needed to be done. But this goes even beyond admitting or not admitting mistakes. Whenever anyone who disagrees with the president and let's it be known, the administration attacks that person. It happened to Paul O'Neil, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, etc.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade I don't doubt that Bush had the best intentions. I do doubt about some others in his administration. <b>I find that quite surprising, too. Why would they have anything but the best intentions? Are they spies? Or are you setting this up so that to disagree with your side is anti-American?</b> I don't think that it would be political suicide to admit mistakes, especially if you are holding people accountable. If he came out and said Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were dead wrong about post Saddam Iraq, and it's cost too many lives, I'm replacing them effective immediately, then it would appear like he was a leader who did what needed to be done. <b>If that were possible, I'm sure it might have been considered. I think you just wish he would have faithfully tripped into that land of disaster.</b> But this goes even beyond admitting or not admitting mistakes. Whenever anyone who disagrees with the president and let's it be known, the administration attacks that person. It happened to Paul O'Neil, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, etc. <b>Let it be know that the criticism of these men extended far wider than just the arms of the administration!</b>
Yeah, all the way to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Liely, and Faux News. The only people attacking these men were right wing mouthpieces, you and I both know that, just as we know that Bush could have ended that criticism had he wanted to. It was a slash and burn approach to criticism that is endemic to the Bush camp. It is SOP to sling mud at ANYONE who criticizes the administration, even longtime allies.
The information about the men to fuel the trashing of them came from the administration. As far as the intentions of Bush's administration, I only know that that some of them hoped for war. They were rooting against a diplomatic solution. And until I heard that I would have never made the claim. I would have said that any anti-war person was jumping too far to make the claim. But when the claim came from a war supporter who knows the parties involved said that he knew some of the members were hoping against diplomatic solutions and for war, then I began to suspect their motives.
