Interesting comparisons, I’ll have to think about that.

Bostonian,

If you call ‘em like you see ‘em and you think I said anything like the pathetic conclusion you came to… I recommend Lasik Surgery or perhaps a seeing-eye dog.

Given what our goal is in Iraq, I have yet to hear anyone even ATTEMPT to explain how overwhelming force would accomplish it. You’re welcome to try.

Your argument with Rumsfeld somehow seems to leave out the 25 million Iraqi people, like they don’t have a dog in this fight or are incapable of helping us, like the whole thing is entirely up to the coalition forces. Hence my conclusions.

I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

Sorry to take so long to respond–been very busy.

“According to named sources (not anonymous ones) in the run up to the invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan (Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid).”

If Gen. Scheid said that, then I suspect he was being less than candid–not unlike the recently leaked excerpts from the NIE. *Publically*, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the whole administration said from the very beginning that we would be in Iraq for years. Despite revisionist history from some people, they were consistent about that from the get go. That said, there are different priorities placed on different aspects at different times. Rumsfeld has said all along that they were not prepared for the complete collapse of Iraq in 3 week. *No one* predicted that. Given that the troops in the fields, from Command down to the privates, continue to rate Rumsfeld as one of the best SecDefs ever, I see the gnats buzzing around Rumsfeld’s conduct to be nothing more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

“.. However, because concern, in this day and age (both in Dem and Rep circles), seems more about protecting the party, rather than the nation, we may find ourselves with people that have not proven to make sound decisions and have not been held accountable for the poor decisions that they made.”

From where I sit, I see a lot of people that insist that no one’s perfect, but then their examples of mistakes are not the ones I would pick. For example, in the 2004 campaign, when Bush was being hounded unmercifully for being “arrogant” because he wouldn’t admit ever Dem talking point against him, I thought he should have admitted to the mistake of still thinking that politics still stopped at the water’s edge. The MSM and Dems would have howled about their patriotism being questioned, but truth hurts that way. I see plenty of example of Republicans admitting mistakes in their intramural squabbles, but you can’t do that when the other side only wants to play “gotcha”.

“If the Dems acted like sane Americans, and tried to support the president more often than trip him… then perhaps he would feel free enough to fire Rumsfeld without worrying about it being considered a sign of weakness.”

It’s not so much a question of weakness but of good faith on the other side. For example, were I in Bush’s shows, I’d be far less likely to suspect “gotcha games” if the other side would occasionally suggest what they think should be done.

“PS – I bet I’ve studied more millitary history than many people. Consider that I’m proficient in weapons that range from BC to current and have studied SunTzu, Machevelli, Col. Tom Hammes and others. I’ve also avidly studied major battles from about 600 CE up through WW II.

However, I am always looking for more, if you have any suggestions.”

Any of the Greek wars make good examples of what civilan control of the military can be like. Victor Davis Hanson is very readable, and seems to be the definitive source at the moment.

The interplay between Patton/Bradley and Montgomery–with Eisenhower, Churchill, and Roosevelt–is also relevant. Those are just the first ones that spring to mind. The contrast of Grant/Sherman with the conduct of McClellan, Meade, and their other eastern counterparts is very interesting in this regard, as well.

I think most modern military historians believe that Patton did a lot better job than Montgomery at killing Germans, preserving his men, and ending the war. That said, only the most rabid Pattonophiles would claim that Montgomery didn’t have some good points on his side. (Not least of which, he knew the British couldn’t take much more.)

Now, to be up front, I think Patton was leashed to much, and Montgomery prolonged the war (more than once, with Falaise pocket being the first notable example). Still, in a million years, I would never accuse Montgomery of the equivalent of “Rumsfeld had no plan for the occupation”. It’s ludicrous on its face. The DoD is not a monolithic institution. It’s *known* for its cautious generals. You can’t make that accusation without also assuming that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the civilans, *and* the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their staff, *and* Tommy Franks and his staff, *and* all generals involved in the high level planning of the actual occupation–all either were equally guilty of the same neglect, or were intimidated by Rumsfeld into silence. SecDefs do not have that kind of power.

The crucial quote:

“Wildlife advocates also oppose the unusual measure of killing the animals and said it won’t solve the problem.
“The squirrels will be back,” South Bay wildlife rehabilitator Norma Campbell said. “For every one you take out, two more will come in. It could be a never-ending project that isn’t going to accomplish anything.”

Well, there you go. Out of Iraq now, if not sooner. How will the republican think tank handle this new frontal barrage? The squirrels are out in force!

Invading Kuwait and involvement in a prolonged war with Iran seem destabilizing to me.

I agree… and if we had invaded and toppled Saddam when those issue were relevent, then I would not have considered them a lesser threat.

However, when we invaded Iraq they were not using WMD’s on anyone, they were not invading nations, they were not burning oilfields.

Iran, however, was doing something potentially nasty with nuclear weapons, was (according to lots of intel) providing a point of departure for the 9/11 terrorists, was actively supporting Hezbollah (with Syria’s help), was actively supporting the Pali’s.

Syria was in control of Lebanon, supporting Hezbollah and the Pali’s.

Saudi Arabia was and still is happily exporting Whabbism.

Pakistan has Nukes and doesn’t actually seem to have been all that interested in catching that one guy… remember him?

Afganistan was kind of a mess then too (remember, someone had invaded them and hadn’t finished the job of cleaning out the bastards that had been ruling the place).

Iraq was a destablizing force in the ME… in the early 90’s. Syria, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Hezbollah and the Pali’ (and Afganistan) were all destablizing forces in 2003.

I fully supported the invasion of Afganistan. I still support the struggle there. When the Iraq invasion began to be a possibility, I had concerns about the feasibility of a ‘quick operation’, I had concerns about what would happen to the Afgan people and I had concerns about the proof we had of Saddam’s arsenel.

I’m not anti-war, sometimes war is necessary. I’m not even Anti-Iraq war, as I think Bush really believed that there were WMD’s and that he might have been a real threat. Hell, I’m not even anti-small force, I figure that if the millitary wants to try a small force solution, they should.

I am against, however, the lack of accountability for the plan not working. And I am concerned about what the next invasion will look like if no one’s held responsible for the errors in this one.

both ddclydew and markus forget that our goal in Iraq was and still is to create a democracy in that country.

Will you please stop putting words in my mouth? The point I made, and have tried to stick with is that Mr. Rumsfeld put together a plan which did not work (for whatever reason). Mr. Rumsfeld did not believe that we would be there for 4 years and did not create a contingency plan for “just in case”. This means that he made a bad decision, since we have been there for four years, we are occupying the country and we did need a “just in case” plan.

ddclydew and markus, if you don’t believe Arabs or Muslims are capable of democracy, period, then just say so.

I Call Bullshit! I never once said, nor intimated that Arabs were incapable of democracy. In fact, I find it rather offensive that you would lay such a racist remark at my feet. I have throughout this discussion tried to remain courteous, honest and focused on the point I made (that current partisan politics seem to be outweighing the need to hold people responsible for their decisions). I find your lack of coherent argument foolish and your base strawman accusation pathetic.

I am not holding a position of anti-war or anti-Bush. I am holding a position that sees accountability as a necessary part of our government and accountability is something currently missing.

It doesn’t matter what the intent of this invasion was, nor does it matter if we wanted to partner with the Iraqis… what does matter is that the plan did not meet the requirements of the reality.

You can make excuses, change the subject or raise all the bigoted strawman remarks you wish, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rumsfeld’s decision not to plan for an occupation contingency left us in a much less valuable situation for the first 1-2 years of this war. In many estimates, this is one of the key reasons the insurgency was able to gain the power it now has. You can hide if you like, but that doesn’t change the truth.

And, for the record, I am not an anti-war democrat. Never have been and never will be, deal with it.

Sheesh

Saddam’s Iraq made Love Canal look harmless. Why are environmental activists not lined up to shake George Bush’s hand with a hearty “Thank you!” for getting rid of him? Why aren’t the lovers of “authentic cultures” lined up to thank him for making it possible to save the “Marsh Arabs”? They guy put a volcano’s worth of CO2 and soot into the atmosphere and an Exxon Valdez worth of oil into the gulf – deliberately. Why hasn’t Greenpeace floated a boat festooned with ribbons, ballons, and thank-you banners up the Potomac?

This is not something you do without the cooperation of the inhabitants–the majority of the people in the country, not just a handful of rulers like in old realpolitic times.

I haven’t heard anyone yet explain to me how overwhelming force would help attain that goal. (Rather the opposite, I would think.)

And our enemy is at war with democracy itself (that is, rule by man, rather than the Koran). The enemy loses big time by the emergence of a democracy in terrority it considers its own. Given those facts, Iraq is now a central place in the war, which is a war of ideologies.

If you think the war was just about removing Saddam Hussein, no wonder you object to the way it has proceeded.

ddclydew and markus, if you don’t believe Arabs or Muslims are capable of democracy, period, then just say so.

I would just add, there are those to whom this is just a game. A game of intellectual musical chairs of sorts. There are now to many players, which makes it difficult to see the end game, but there will be a last chair and a last player…