Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
59.7K
848
457
51
33
18
Senior officials of the Bush Administration were at best criminally incompetent in their actions after the attacks on the World Trade Center.
"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task - defeating Saddam's weakened conventional forces - and the least amount on the most demanding - rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation's long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against."
(Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504)
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/
Jim Webb, in September, 2002, wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post vehemently arguing against the invasion of Iraq. It is striking just how right Webb was about virtually everything he said, and it is worth quoting at length to underscore what "serious, responsible national security" viewpoints actually look like:
"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . ."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-webb-marty-peretz-and-our-serious.html
Jim Webb should be our next president.
To stay on point, anyone who makes even a cursory examination of the record will find that Bush 43 was the worst president in our history.
Walt
"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task - defeating Saddam's weakened conventional forces - and the least amount on the most demanding - rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation's long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against."
(Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504)
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/
Jim Webb, in September, 2002, wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post vehemently arguing against the invasion of Iraq. It is striking just how right Webb was about virtually everything he said, and it is worth quoting at length to underscore what "serious, responsible national security" viewpoints actually look like:
"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . ."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-webb-marty-peretz-and-our-serious.html
Jim Webb should be our next president.
To stay on point, anyone who makes even a cursory examination of the record will find that Bush 43 was the worst president in our history.
Walt
Military science
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
Iraq
George W. Bush
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 103
0
0
0
Depends on what you consider legitimate interests of America!
We have many factions in America, the 1%, the 99%, the military industrial complex, the small business, the big business, the grunts class.
I am sure I dont want my daughter or son to go die in Iraq. I would think other men also feel the same way. The world was faily stable, and the destruction of Iraq seemed like the destablelizing factor. The amount of money US spend on fighting other people, state, ideology, is rediculous, and only increased with more terrorism against other group. If you try spending any money to harm your neighbor next door, the police will likely put you in jail. Yet this action is acceptable at the national and international level?
If Iraq was going to drop the US dollars, and harm the US dollars value. It would have been a natural thing anyway. We could recover or not, but it wont be anything like WW3.
I am all about making more money for us, but We cant go killing people every time they threaten the dollar's value.
We have many factions in America, the 1%, the 99%, the military industrial complex, the small business, the big business, the grunts class.
I am sure I dont want my daughter or son to go die in Iraq. I would think other men also feel the same way. The world was faily stable, and the destruction of Iraq seemed like the destablelizing factor. The amount of money US spend on fighting other people, state, ideology, is rediculous, and only increased with more terrorism against other group. If you try spending any money to harm your neighbor next door, the police will likely put you in jail. Yet this action is acceptable at the national and international level?
If Iraq was going to drop the US dollars, and harm the US dollars value. It would have been a natural thing anyway. We could recover or not, but it wont be anything like WW3.
I am all about making more money for us, but We cant go killing people every time they threaten the dollar's value.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Are you talking about the First President Bush ? He should have been a General Patton and gone all the way to Turkey, turned left and went into Syria. Maybe 911 would not have happened, it did and we have to deal with the problems now. Let the real Generals fight the War on Terrior not the current Political Generals who just want to make the President happy regardless of there training and War experience.
(0)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
To "accomplish" all of that an Army of over 2 millions of Infantry troops alone, would've been an Absolute Necessity. Are you day dreaming there was or there is such an Army in the US?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The Kurds would have help and what does the DOD spend 500 billion dollars a year on ?. Maybe less technology and less O-10s and bring back the draft and we could have a 2million person Army. We have a pool of over 300miliion US citizens, lets start making them earn there kept as US Citizens.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
At least Bush didn't draw a red line on the sand and makes the laughingstock of the entire world.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
WTF does that mean?
The Bush Administration signed the surrender docs, I mean the SOFA. Leaving our guys in Iraq after the expiration of the old SOFA would have made them liable to Iraqi law.
Further, the presence of US troops in Iraq --didn't- work. It was worse than useless to have our combat units there.
Walt
The Bush Administration signed the surrender docs, I mean the SOFA. Leaving our guys in Iraq after the expiration of the old SOFA would have made them liable to Iraqi law.
Further, the presence of US troops in Iraq --didn't- work. It was worse than useless to have our combat units there.
Walt
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Actually, Bush 43 did another thing that was very, very bad. The US Military which looked so competent on Desert Storm (maybe because I was there), was made to look buffoonishly incompetent and murderously ineffective in Iraq. Those attributes apply to the whole Bush 43 Administration.
When the US Army especially, has good civilian leadership, it has looked at least competent. This most notably in the Civil War under the very canny President Lincoln and in WWII under the equally canny President Roosevelt. At other times without good civilian leadership, notably in Korea and Viet Nam – and of course in Iraq, not so much.
It’s not for nothing that perhaps the best known American soldier is George A. Custer.
The war we screwed up so badly in Mess-opotamia, to use John Stewart’s word, was a limited war. We could and did walk away from it without worrying our pretty little heads about it too much.
But it was a horrible application of national power and a total and absolute failure.
Walt
When the US Army especially, has good civilian leadership, it has looked at least competent. This most notably in the Civil War under the very canny President Lincoln and in WWII under the equally canny President Roosevelt. At other times without good civilian leadership, notably in Korea and Viet Nam – and of course in Iraq, not so much.
It’s not for nothing that perhaps the best known American soldier is George A. Custer.
The war we screwed up so badly in Mess-opotamia, to use John Stewart’s word, was a limited war. We could and did walk away from it without worrying our pretty little heads about it too much.
But it was a horrible application of national power and a total and absolute failure.
Walt
(3)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz - We have SOFA's with every country where we have military bases.
I do congratulate you for such a clear statement.
Walt
I do congratulate you for such a clear statement.
Walt
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
Capt Walter Miller
Capt Walter Miller - JIM WEBB (2004): And in my view, these people don't understand the realities
post-9/11. Post-9/11, this [invasion of Iraq] was a bad idea. Pre-9/11, I still would
have opposed it, but at least it was an arguable idea.
MATTHEWS: Because why is it more of a bad idea now since 9/11?
WEBB: Because international terrorism really moved in a dramatic way
from a regional problem to a global problem. We saw that we had to
step to the forefront. We had all the nations of the world with us
after 9/11. And we systematically alienated a huge percentage of the
world at a time we needed their cooperation. We tied down our military
in static positions when we had developed, for 10 or 15 years, we had
worked on a maneuverable military. And now we dumped them into static
positions. So it is a bad idea in terms of international politics, a
bad idea in terms of grand strategy, and a bad idea in how to use the
military."
WEBB: You know, the sad thing is, there is not a thing that has
occurred in Iraq that was not only predictable but predicted. And
predicted with good military advice to this administration."
post-9/11. Post-9/11, this [invasion of Iraq] was a bad idea. Pre-9/11, I still would
have opposed it, but at least it was an arguable idea.
MATTHEWS: Because why is it more of a bad idea now since 9/11?
WEBB: Because international terrorism really moved in a dramatic way
from a regional problem to a global problem. We saw that we had to
step to the forefront. We had all the nations of the world with us
after 9/11. And we systematically alienated a huge percentage of the
world at a time we needed their cooperation. We tied down our military
in static positions when we had developed, for 10 or 15 years, we had
worked on a maneuverable military. And now we dumped them into static
positions. So it is a bad idea in terms of international politics, a
bad idea in terms of grand strategy, and a bad idea in how to use the
military."
WEBB: You know, the sad thing is, there is not a thing that has
occurred in Iraq that was not only predictable but predicted. And
predicted with good military advice to this administration."
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
It seems that many here have very short memories. Many others are simply ignorant of the history because it is so poorly taught. So let's set the record straight. We invaded Afghanistan because it was a nation without government or law (not in any form that the civilized world could recognize). Thus bandits/criminals/pirates/terrorists (call them what you will) were using it to gather, organize, and train for attacks on the civilized world. We remained ignorant of what was happening because most Americans failed to see how it involved them, that is, until the attack that brought down the WTC and killed thousands of civilians going peacefully about their business. We could prosecute those who piloted the suicide planes, but we could go after their bases and attempt to prevent further attacks. We have been largely successful in that effort.
We attempted to build a new "democratic" nation in Afghanistan so that they could clean up their own territory and thus prevent future attacks. Nation building is a fool's errand at best, especially when you are attempting to build a "democracy". (We don't have one. Why would we think it would work any better there?) Thus, that was a mistake.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That was a lawful resumption of hostilities commenced by the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait. They had violated the provisions of the cease fire and thus called the wrath of nations upon themselves. That was not a mistake.
Inasmuch as few understand the legal niceties of international law, the Bush Administration got sidetracked with the WMD thing. That was a mistake. Yes, there were WMDs. Yes, they could have been delivered into the hands of terrorists. But, WMDs were not the casus belli.
Again, we attempted nation building. Again, a mistake.
Are mistakes illegal? Hell no. They're just mistakes.
There were other mistakes. But these are simply matters of opinion, my opinion. I would have preferred if Bush had reconstituted Civil Defense providing training and support for American citizens to take care of themselves in disasters, terrorist attacks or natural calamities. I would have preferred to see communities organizing and training militia to respond to terrorist attacks. When the terrorist arrives on American soil, the military and intelligence communities have failed. The police are not trained or equipped to respond. It's time for We the People to defend ourselves. (Of course, this opinion flies in the face of the leftists in this country who want to disarm us and pave the way for the terrorists and other criminals).
Lastly, the vitriol being thrown at Bush and Obama is wasted effort. Neither is criminal just because we differ ideologically. Get over it. We don't have time for it.
We attempted to build a new "democratic" nation in Afghanistan so that they could clean up their own territory and thus prevent future attacks. Nation building is a fool's errand at best, especially when you are attempting to build a "democracy". (We don't have one. Why would we think it would work any better there?) Thus, that was a mistake.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That was a lawful resumption of hostilities commenced by the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait. They had violated the provisions of the cease fire and thus called the wrath of nations upon themselves. That was not a mistake.
Inasmuch as few understand the legal niceties of international law, the Bush Administration got sidetracked with the WMD thing. That was a mistake. Yes, there were WMDs. Yes, they could have been delivered into the hands of terrorists. But, WMDs were not the casus belli.
Again, we attempted nation building. Again, a mistake.
Are mistakes illegal? Hell no. They're just mistakes.
There were other mistakes. But these are simply matters of opinion, my opinion. I would have preferred if Bush had reconstituted Civil Defense providing training and support for American citizens to take care of themselves in disasters, terrorist attacks or natural calamities. I would have preferred to see communities organizing and training militia to respond to terrorist attacks. When the terrorist arrives on American soil, the military and intelligence communities have failed. The police are not trained or equipped to respond. It's time for We the People to defend ourselves. (Of course, this opinion flies in the face of the leftists in this country who want to disarm us and pave the way for the terrorists and other criminals).
Lastly, the vitriol being thrown at Bush and Obama is wasted effort. Neither is criminal just because we differ ideologically. Get over it. We don't have time for it.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Bush and Cheney have openly admitted being parties to torture. And yet the laws are not allowed to operate against them.
Walt
Walt
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Asked if waterboarding should be used on a terror suspect, Bush's reply was, "Damn right"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Walter Miller - Never any question that Bush and Cheney were aware of water boarding but still no admission of torture. The article assumes torture but that is only the author's assumption. Again, no evidence, just opinion. The one fact that is demonstrable is that those who hate Bush and Cheney will assume the worst interpretation of every utterance and act. To be fair, the same is true of those who hate Obama (...Clinton, Carter, Reagan...) Once upon a time Americans respected their President. When the election was over and the smoke cleared, people generally got behind him. Sure, there were criticisms but they tended not to get so personal. No all criticism is harsh and very personal. I tend to believe that this reflects a growing abyss between those who want to live as free individuals and those who want a paternal government making all decisions and accepting all blame rather than true personal animosities towards the persons themselves. We are either going to have to reconcile this dichotomy or create a dual society wherein government provides for those who opt in and leaves the rest of us alone. Personally, that's all I want: To be left the hell alone. Sadly I don't see Republicans or Democrats favoring that stance, and thus don't harbor as much ill will towards either Bush or Obama. I look at each objectively and see failure through misfeasance rather than malfeasance. Methinks that you have an axe to grind with Bush and that may account for your insistence on the criminality of his acts. Am I being unfair in my assessment?
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"Never any question that Bush and Cheney were aware of water boarding but still no admission of torture."
What on Earth. That is pathetic.
Walt
What on Earth. That is pathetic.
Walt
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir, We occupied West Germany for how long? We occupied Korea since when? Is Bush to blame for El Nino, Beiber, and reality TV? Hussein is to blame for Iraq. Full stop.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
It takes two to tango. Thing is, and this was obvious -- Saddam tamped down all the unrest we see now. That should have made Iraq invasion proof -- and it was invasion proof to anyone pursuing legitimate US interests. But, if you are upset with low oil prices, as Gunny Lange prompts us, or if you are carrying out another nation's (Israel) strategic objectives, then hitting Iraq was the way to go.
Attacking Iraq was treasonous.
Walt
Attacking Iraq was treasonous.
Walt
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
First there must be acknowledgement that Iraq was not even on the radar in 1989. Hell, we just won the cold war. The first Persian Gulf showed how politics has crossed into a dangerous territory when having direct actions on military goals. But, did we know the fiasco was coming? We haven't done an occupation in 50 years. Surely we did not know how divided the factions in Iraq and surrounding areas were, but we also didn't understand that we were changing from what was traditional tank armor artillery combat to "exclusively" small unit and urbanized warfare. I suppose it's like putting blame for not seeing the blitzkrieg. But our lesson here is to evolve AND limit political involvement on day to day operations.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Whoever said Bush was the worse president obviously did not live during the Carter years! How well I remember wondering as a young Private if I was going to get paid at the end of the month!
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
SFC James Sczymanski - You don't seem to be able to apply filters to events.
"As many in the military publicly acknowledge here for the first time, the guerrilla insurgency that exploded several months after Saddam's fall was not foreordained. In fact, to a shocking degree, it was created by the folly of the war's architects. But the officers who did raise their voices against the miscalculations, shortsightedness, and general failure of the war effort were generally crushed, their careers often ended. A willful blindness gripped political and military leaders, and dissent was not tolerated." - Fiasco, by Tom Ricks
"As many in the military publicly acknowledge here for the first time, the guerrilla insurgency that exploded several months after Saddam's fall was not foreordained. In fact, to a shocking degree, it was created by the folly of the war's architects. But the officers who did raise their voices against the miscalculations, shortsightedness, and general failure of the war effort were generally crushed, their careers often ended. A willful blindness gripped political and military leaders, and dissent was not tolerated." - Fiasco, by Tom Ricks
(2)
(0)
CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner
More than one can discuss without the security clearances and need to know. Just recall Carter was president during the Iran Hostage Crisis.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't know how long this post has been up. I don't think President Bush an his administration anticipated all the problems we are having in the Middle East. And Obama just wanted out. But know Obama is facilitating Iran in getting nuclear weapons. It is not a matter of if but when.
Our only model was Europe after WWII.
Our only model was Europe after WWII.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Jim Webb, 12/06/04:
WEBB: "You know, the sad thing is, there壮 not a thing that has
occurred in Iraq that was not only predictable but predicted. And
predicted with good military advice to this administration."
WEBB: "You know, the sad thing is, there壮 not a thing that has
occurred in Iraq that was not only predictable but predicted. And
predicted with good military advice to this administration."
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google