Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
59.6K
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
3
3
0
Capt Walter Miller, let me start by saying that I'm usually the type the reads twice or three times more posts than I wright. Most of the time I'm straight to the point without writing a book response; however, I couldn't this time.
First let me start by saying that it is my "opinion" that you can't truly blame the actions of POTUS X for continued problems during the appointment of POTUS Y & Z. Some time you have to go back more than one term to "try and lay blame" ... not to mention saying that POTUS is solely responsible for acts of war. Might an Engagement happen at the drop of a hat ... Yes; but, it still requires the US Congress to "declare war".
Below is a lot of the problem from "my point of view" ... So who is truly responsible?
MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR ACTIVITY
33.Harry S Truman 1945-1953
1950s Nuclear Programs Begins
34. Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963
36. Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969
July 1, 1968 Iran Signs Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
37. Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974
Creation of Atomic Energy Body
38. Gerald Rudolph Ford 1974-1977
39. James Earl Cater Jr 1977-1981
Jan. 16, 1979 Shah Flees
Feb. 11, 1979 Khomeini Comes to Power (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
40. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
1983 Use of blister and muster gas (Iraq / Iran War)
1984 Nuclear Program Restarts
1985 Use of nerve gas Tabun (Iraq / Iran War)
Mar 16, 1988 Iraq drops bombs (Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun) on Kurdish city Halabja
Late 1980s Help From Pakistani Scientist on Nuclear Program
As late as 1988, US had aided Iraq against Iran
41. George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
June 4, 1989 New Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)
Jan. 4, 1991 Begin the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm
Feb 22 1991 Soviet-proposed cease-fire
Feb 24 1991 Operation Desert Sabre
February 28, US cease fire ending the Persian Gulf War. According to the peace terms that Hussein subsequently accepted, Iraq would get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons).
42. William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
Jan. 8, 1995 Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Contract
July 1996 Sanctions Against Iran and Libya
May 1999 Proposal for Nuclear-Free Mideast
43. George Walker Bush, 2001-2009
2002 Discovery of Secret Plants
2002, the United States now led by President George W. Bush, sponsored a new U.N. resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq; U.N. inspectors reentered Iraq that November. Bush (without further U.N. approval) issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, demanding that Saddam Hussein step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours, under threat of war. Hussein refused, and the second Persian Gulf War–more generally known as the Iraq War–began three days later.
2003 Nuclear Program Is Suspended (Iran)
Nov. 7, 2004 Violation and New Agreement
Mid-July, 2005 With Laptop Files, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims
Aug. 3, 2005 Ahmadinejad Elected President of Iran
January 2006 Natanz Production Is Restarted
Aug. 26, 2006 Iran Opens a Heavy-Water Reactor
2008 U.S. - Israel Cyberattacks Begin
July 19, 2008 Talks End in Deadlock
44. Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-
April 8, 2009 U.S. Joins Regular Iran Talks
September 2009 Warning on Nuclear ‘Deception’
January 2010 Leaked Gates Memo on U.S. Policy
February 2010 Work on Warhead
Summer 2010 Computer Worms Leak Online; 1,000 Centrifuges Destroyed
June 2010 U.N. Approves New Sanctions
July 15, 2010 Iranian Scientist Defects to U.S., Then Reconsiders
Nov. 29, 2010 Bombings Strike Scientists in Iran (unknown VBIED)
November 2011 West Expands Sanctions, and U.N. Offers Evidence on Nuclear Work
Dec. 4, 2011 A Blow to U.S., as Drone Crashes
Natanz Plant Recovers
Jan. 11, 2012 Bomb Kills Nuclear Scientist
March 2012 New Centrifuges at Natanz
May 24, 2012 Talks With West Falter
July 1, 2012 Embargo on Iranian Oil
August 2012 New Work at Nuclear Site
Sept. 27, 2012 Israel's 'Red Line'
October 2012 Iran's Currency Tumbles
Feb. 6, 2013 U.S. Bolsters Sanctions
Feb. 23, 2013 New Deposits of Uranium
Feb. 26, 2013 Defiant Mood at Talks
March 14, 2013 Iran Nuclear Weapon to Take Year or More, Obama Says
April 8, 2013 Navy Deploying Laser Weapon Prototype Near Iran
April 9, 2013 After Talks End, Iran Announces an Expansion of Nuclear Fuel Production
April 12, 2013 US Blacklists an Iranian and Businesses Over Violation of Sanctions
April 18, 2013 U.S. Arms Deal With Israel and 2 Arab Nations Is Near
April 23, 2013 Fearing Price Increases, Iranians Hoard Goods
May 9, 2013 U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Those Aiding Iran
May 22, 2013 Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid
June 2013 U.S. Adds to Its List of Sanctions Against Iran
June 15, 2013 Iran Elects New President
Aug. 28, 2013 Iran Slows Its Gathering of Enriched Uranium, Report Says
Sept. 19, 2013 Iran Said to Seek a Nuclear Accord to End Sanctions
Sept. 24, 2013 Rouhani, Blunt and Charming, Pitches a Moderate Iran in First U.N. Appearance
Sept. 27, 2013 First Direct US-Iran Talk Since 1979
Oct. 16, 2013 Iran Talks Called Substantive
Nov. 11, 2013 Iran Says It Agrees to ‘Road Map’ With U.N. on Nuclear Inspections
Nov. 14, 2013 Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks
Nov. 24, 2013 Deal With Iran Halts Nuclear Program
Jan. 12, 2014 Negotiators Put Final Touches on Iran Accord
May 24, 2014 Iran Is Providing Information on Its Detonators, Report Says
July 14, 2014 Iran Outlines Nuclear Deal; Accepts Limit
Aug. 27, 2014 Iran Altering Arak Reactor in Bid for Nuclear Deal
Nov. 3, 2014 Role for Russia Gives Iran Talks a Possible Boost
Nov. 20, 2014 Negotiators Scrambling as Deadline Looms in Nuclear Talks
Nov. 24, 2014 U.S. and Allies Extend Iran Nuclear Talks by 7 Months
April 2, 2015 Iran Agrees to Nuclear Limits, But Key Issues Are Unresolved
Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
By SHREEYA SINHA and SUSAN CAMPBELL BEACHY UPDATED April 2, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html?_r=1#/#time243_7170
Inernational Business Times By To Porter
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-escalates-use-chemical-weapons-against-kurds-syria-iraq-1511708
BBC NEWS Saddam's Iraq Key Events (Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm
First let me start by saying that it is my "opinion" that you can't truly blame the actions of POTUS X for continued problems during the appointment of POTUS Y & Z. Some time you have to go back more than one term to "try and lay blame" ... not to mention saying that POTUS is solely responsible for acts of war. Might an Engagement happen at the drop of a hat ... Yes; but, it still requires the US Congress to "declare war".
Below is a lot of the problem from "my point of view" ... So who is truly responsible?
MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR ACTIVITY
33.Harry S Truman 1945-1953
1950s Nuclear Programs Begins
34. Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963
36. Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969
July 1, 1968 Iran Signs Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
37. Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974
Creation of Atomic Energy Body
38. Gerald Rudolph Ford 1974-1977
39. James Earl Cater Jr 1977-1981
Jan. 16, 1979 Shah Flees
Feb. 11, 1979 Khomeini Comes to Power (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
40. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
1983 Use of blister and muster gas (Iraq / Iran War)
1984 Nuclear Program Restarts
1985 Use of nerve gas Tabun (Iraq / Iran War)
Mar 16, 1988 Iraq drops bombs (Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun) on Kurdish city Halabja
Late 1980s Help From Pakistani Scientist on Nuclear Program
As late as 1988, US had aided Iraq against Iran
41. George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
June 4, 1989 New Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)
Jan. 4, 1991 Begin the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm
Feb 22 1991 Soviet-proposed cease-fire
Feb 24 1991 Operation Desert Sabre
February 28, US cease fire ending the Persian Gulf War. According to the peace terms that Hussein subsequently accepted, Iraq would get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons).
42. William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
Jan. 8, 1995 Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Contract
July 1996 Sanctions Against Iran and Libya
May 1999 Proposal for Nuclear-Free Mideast
43. George Walker Bush, 2001-2009
2002 Discovery of Secret Plants
2002, the United States now led by President George W. Bush, sponsored a new U.N. resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq; U.N. inspectors reentered Iraq that November. Bush (without further U.N. approval) issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, demanding that Saddam Hussein step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours, under threat of war. Hussein refused, and the second Persian Gulf War–more generally known as the Iraq War–began three days later.
2003 Nuclear Program Is Suspended (Iran)
Nov. 7, 2004 Violation and New Agreement
Mid-July, 2005 With Laptop Files, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims
Aug. 3, 2005 Ahmadinejad Elected President of Iran
January 2006 Natanz Production Is Restarted
Aug. 26, 2006 Iran Opens a Heavy-Water Reactor
2008 U.S. - Israel Cyberattacks Begin
July 19, 2008 Talks End in Deadlock
44. Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-
April 8, 2009 U.S. Joins Regular Iran Talks
September 2009 Warning on Nuclear ‘Deception’
January 2010 Leaked Gates Memo on U.S. Policy
February 2010 Work on Warhead
Summer 2010 Computer Worms Leak Online; 1,000 Centrifuges Destroyed
June 2010 U.N. Approves New Sanctions
July 15, 2010 Iranian Scientist Defects to U.S., Then Reconsiders
Nov. 29, 2010 Bombings Strike Scientists in Iran (unknown VBIED)
November 2011 West Expands Sanctions, and U.N. Offers Evidence on Nuclear Work
Dec. 4, 2011 A Blow to U.S., as Drone Crashes
Natanz Plant Recovers
Jan. 11, 2012 Bomb Kills Nuclear Scientist
March 2012 New Centrifuges at Natanz
May 24, 2012 Talks With West Falter
July 1, 2012 Embargo on Iranian Oil
August 2012 New Work at Nuclear Site
Sept. 27, 2012 Israel's 'Red Line'
October 2012 Iran's Currency Tumbles
Feb. 6, 2013 U.S. Bolsters Sanctions
Feb. 23, 2013 New Deposits of Uranium
Feb. 26, 2013 Defiant Mood at Talks
March 14, 2013 Iran Nuclear Weapon to Take Year or More, Obama Says
April 8, 2013 Navy Deploying Laser Weapon Prototype Near Iran
April 9, 2013 After Talks End, Iran Announces an Expansion of Nuclear Fuel Production
April 12, 2013 US Blacklists an Iranian and Businesses Over Violation of Sanctions
April 18, 2013 U.S. Arms Deal With Israel and 2 Arab Nations Is Near
April 23, 2013 Fearing Price Increases, Iranians Hoard Goods
May 9, 2013 U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Those Aiding Iran
May 22, 2013 Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid
June 2013 U.S. Adds to Its List of Sanctions Against Iran
June 15, 2013 Iran Elects New President
Aug. 28, 2013 Iran Slows Its Gathering of Enriched Uranium, Report Says
Sept. 19, 2013 Iran Said to Seek a Nuclear Accord to End Sanctions
Sept. 24, 2013 Rouhani, Blunt and Charming, Pitches a Moderate Iran in First U.N. Appearance
Sept. 27, 2013 First Direct US-Iran Talk Since 1979
Oct. 16, 2013 Iran Talks Called Substantive
Nov. 11, 2013 Iran Says It Agrees to ‘Road Map’ With U.N. on Nuclear Inspections
Nov. 14, 2013 Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks
Nov. 24, 2013 Deal With Iran Halts Nuclear Program
Jan. 12, 2014 Negotiators Put Final Touches on Iran Accord
May 24, 2014 Iran Is Providing Information on Its Detonators, Report Says
July 14, 2014 Iran Outlines Nuclear Deal; Accepts Limit
Aug. 27, 2014 Iran Altering Arak Reactor in Bid for Nuclear Deal
Nov. 3, 2014 Role for Russia Gives Iran Talks a Possible Boost
Nov. 20, 2014 Negotiators Scrambling as Deadline Looms in Nuclear Talks
Nov. 24, 2014 U.S. and Allies Extend Iran Nuclear Talks by 7 Months
April 2, 2015 Iran Agrees to Nuclear Limits, But Key Issues Are Unresolved
Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
By SHREEYA SINHA and SUSAN CAMPBELL BEACHY UPDATED April 2, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html?_r=1#/#time243_7170
Inernational Business Times By To Porter
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-escalates-use-chemical-weapons-against-kurds-syria-iraq-1511708
BBC NEWS Saddam's Iraq Key Events (Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm
(3)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
There was actually a book circulated in Great Britain in 1941 called "The Guilty Men" that examined how Great Britain allowed its defenses to atropy.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
LCpl Nicholas Christiansen
Way to hijack the thread and turn this into yet another obama bashing opportunity. Not that I'm against obama bashing. Some of it has its merit. It's just played out though. He's on his way out of office soon man.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
Newly Released Clinton Email Proves Bush & Blair Plotted Iraq War A Year Before Launching It
The Republicans' fake email "scandal" just blew up in their faces.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Join Veterans For Peace or Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Fellowship of Reconcilliation or Pax Christi USA.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"An analysis from the intelligence community, provided to lawmakers just prior to the AUMF vote, warned of imminent danger from Iraq -- specifically, that Saddam's regime had stockpiled nukes and cultivated deep ties to the terror organization responsible for 9/11.
"The resulting classified National Intelligence Estimate, prepared in just three weeks time, was a rushed and sloppy product forwarded to members of Congress mere days before votes would be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iraq," states a 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Iraq War's intelligence failures. "As the Committee's report highlights, the October 2002 Estimate was hastily cobbled together using stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments."
Produced under then-Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Intelligence Committee report goes on to detail how unrelentingly warlike statements from senior Bush officials helped slant the analysis.
"It is no coincidence that the analytical errors in the Estimate all broke in one direction," the report says. "The Estimate and related analytical papers assessing Iraqi links to terrorism were produced by the Intelligence Community in a highly-pressurized climate wherein senior Administration officials were making the case for military action against Iraq through public and often definitive pronouncements."
It wasn't a matter of bad intelligence from the field, lawmakers concluded. It was a matter of viable intelligence being spun for political purposes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-isis-war_55f1c249e4b03784e2785ee0
Walt
"The resulting classified National Intelligence Estimate, prepared in just three weeks time, was a rushed and sloppy product forwarded to members of Congress mere days before votes would be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iraq," states a 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Iraq War's intelligence failures. "As the Committee's report highlights, the October 2002 Estimate was hastily cobbled together using stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments."
Produced under then-Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Intelligence Committee report goes on to detail how unrelentingly warlike statements from senior Bush officials helped slant the analysis.
"It is no coincidence that the analytical errors in the Estimate all broke in one direction," the report says. "The Estimate and related analytical papers assessing Iraqi links to terrorism were produced by the Intelligence Community in a highly-pressurized climate wherein senior Administration officials were making the case for military action against Iraq through public and often definitive pronouncements."
It wasn't a matter of bad intelligence from the field, lawmakers concluded. It was a matter of viable intelligence being spun for political purposes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-isis-war_55f1c249e4b03784e2785ee0
Walt
Claims Of Faulty Intel On ISIS Bring Back Bad Memories Of Iraq
WASHINGTON -- News that senior U.S. intelligence officials may havedoctored analysison the Islamic State weighs heavily on Washington. It suggests that President Barack Obama's intelligence apparatus
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"It wasn't a matter of bad intelligence from the field, lawmakers concluded. It was a matter of viable intelligence being spun for political purposes."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Yes
In my opinion, a true Commander in Chief wouldn't agree to any war unless they were ready to gear up and fight too.
In my opinion, a true Commander in Chief wouldn't agree to any war unless they were ready to gear up and fight too.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Bush being a deserter is sorta negative capital on that. He had a 6 year obligation but did not participate for the last 18 months of his commitment, making him, strictly speaking, a deserter.
http://awolbush.com/
Walt
http://awolbush.com/
Walt
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I saved this from back in the day.
MSNBC Hardball, 1026/04:
MATTHEWS: If you look down the road, do you see more of a manpower,
rather a person power challenge facing us as we have all these
different needs in the world with regard to South Korea, of course,
defending against the potential nuclear development in the North? We
have got the Iranian situation. We have got the Middle East. All these
possibilities. Do we have a big enough Army?
WEBB: I would start from the other end of that. I would say yes, you
may end up seeing problems, particularly in the Guard and reserve,
where this is a second career.
But the starting point is the move into Iraq, separate all the
political considerations aside, was a strategic blunder. And for us to
have such a high percentage of our military tied down in essentially
occupying and attempting to reconstruct a society of a nation is a
very bad idea. And it absorbs people. And it not only absorb people
when you think about enlistments and this sort of thing, it absorbs
people from other areas around the world, so that we can奏 pay proper
attention to security concerns elsewhere.
MATTHEWS: Why do our leaders, starting with the president down, why
did they not expect nationalistic resistance to an occupation in Iraq,
when our whole history of the world tells us, expect people to resist
occupation?
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.
MATTHEWS: Did ideology overwhelm military history here? Is that why we
went in with such confidence?
WEBB: My view of it, when Vice President Cheney repeatedly says that
the people who have questioned the war against Iraq don奏 understand
the post-9/11 world, my view is the complete reverse. The people who
did this, this was on their to-do list when they got into the
administration, and they did not...
MATTHEWS: Cheney?
WEBB: Cheney and the whole group that really put this together. They
wanted this as a part of what was going to happen in the Bush
administration. One way or the other, they were waiting for...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: That壮 why they joined, you could argue.
WEBB: And in my view, these people don奏 understand the realities
post-9/11. Post-9/11, this was a bad idea. Pre-9/11, I still would
have opposed it, but at least it was an arguable idea.
MATTHEWS: Because謡hy 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.
MATTHEWS: Did we dare the Arab world to take us on in Iraq? The young
men of the Arab world? Did we say, go ahead, make our day, go ahead,
step up to the plate, you got it?
WEBB: Clearly, it was the inevitable consequences of anyone who
thought this through.
MATTHEWS: Like bring it on. That壮 what the president said. And they
did.
WEBB: And well, I think that by putting our people in Iraq, we
certainly made them targets in a way that they wouldn奏 have been if
we were fighting the war against international terrorism from a
position to maneuver.
MATTHEWS: OK. Good luck with the book. "Born Fighting." If you were
teaching at the academies, any one of the academies, would you be
saying, don奏 to go war in Iraq? That was the lesson here?
WEBB: As a policy matter or as a personal matter?
MATTHEWS: As a military history matter, it was a mistake, it was a
blunder?
WEBB: I would say, I would say in terms of national policy, it was a
bad strategic blunder. In terms of talking to an individual, you have
to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
MATTHEWS: I僧 talking about course 101 in Annapolis, when you喪e
teaching a course in military history, would you say one of the
lessons of the war with Iraq that began in 2002, or whatever, was
don奏 do it?
WEBB: I would say it was a bad idea. A bad strategic blunder.
MATTHEWS: OK. That壮 fair enough. I don奏 want you to make other
people壮 points. I mean, you喪e a great man, with a great history. You
worked for Reagan. You think this war was a bad idea. James Webb. Your
book is called "Born Fighting."
MSNBC Hardball, 1026/04:
MATTHEWS: If you look down the road, do you see more of a manpower,
rather a person power challenge facing us as we have all these
different needs in the world with regard to South Korea, of course,
defending against the potential nuclear development in the North? We
have got the Iranian situation. We have got the Middle East. All these
possibilities. Do we have a big enough Army?
WEBB: I would start from the other end of that. I would say yes, you
may end up seeing problems, particularly in the Guard and reserve,
where this is a second career.
But the starting point is the move into Iraq, separate all the
political considerations aside, was a strategic blunder. And for us to
have such a high percentage of our military tied down in essentially
occupying and attempting to reconstruct a society of a nation is a
very bad idea. And it absorbs people. And it not only absorb people
when you think about enlistments and this sort of thing, it absorbs
people from other areas around the world, so that we can奏 pay proper
attention to security concerns elsewhere.
MATTHEWS: Why do our leaders, starting with the president down, why
did they not expect nationalistic resistance to an occupation in Iraq,
when our whole history of the world tells us, expect people to resist
occupation?
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.
MATTHEWS: Did ideology overwhelm military history here? Is that why we
went in with such confidence?
WEBB: My view of it, when Vice President Cheney repeatedly says that
the people who have questioned the war against Iraq don奏 understand
the post-9/11 world, my view is the complete reverse. The people who
did this, this was on their to-do list when they got into the
administration, and they did not...
MATTHEWS: Cheney?
WEBB: Cheney and the whole group that really put this together. They
wanted this as a part of what was going to happen in the Bush
administration. One way or the other, they were waiting for...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: That壮 why they joined, you could argue.
WEBB: And in my view, these people don奏 understand the realities
post-9/11. Post-9/11, this was a bad idea. Pre-9/11, I still would
have opposed it, but at least it was an arguable idea.
MATTHEWS: Because謡hy 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.
MATTHEWS: Did we dare the Arab world to take us on in Iraq? The young
men of the Arab world? Did we say, go ahead, make our day, go ahead,
step up to the plate, you got it?
WEBB: Clearly, it was the inevitable consequences of anyone who
thought this through.
MATTHEWS: Like bring it on. That壮 what the president said. And they
did.
WEBB: And well, I think that by putting our people in Iraq, we
certainly made them targets in a way that they wouldn奏 have been if
we were fighting the war against international terrorism from a
position to maneuver.
MATTHEWS: OK. Good luck with the book. "Born Fighting." If you were
teaching at the academies, any one of the academies, would you be
saying, don奏 to go war in Iraq? That was the lesson here?
WEBB: As a policy matter or as a personal matter?
MATTHEWS: As a military history matter, it was a mistake, it was a
blunder?
WEBB: I would say, I would say in terms of national policy, it was a
bad strategic blunder. In terms of talking to an individual, you have
to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
MATTHEWS: I僧 talking about course 101 in Annapolis, when you喪e
teaching a course in military history, would you say one of the
lessons of the war with Iraq that began in 2002, or whatever, was
don奏 do it?
WEBB: I would say it was a bad idea. A bad strategic blunder.
MATTHEWS: OK. That壮 fair enough. I don奏 want you to make other
people壮 points. I mean, you喪e a great man, with a great history. You
worked for Reagan. You think this war was a bad idea. James Webb. Your
book is called "Born Fighting."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"The Navy has no place for good losers! The Navy needs tough sons of bitches who can go out there and win!" (1926) - Admiral Jonas Ingram
- Quoted in "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein
- Quoted in "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google