I supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and have continued to do so for the last three years. But we have arrived at the point where we have to ask has he been a good war-time president. In my opinion, I have to answer that question in the negative. What brought me to that conclusion is the recent farce of an offensive operation called "Operation Law and Order." Weeks prior to the operation designed to sweep through Baghdad in a security crackdown, the details of the operation was given to the press. Well guess what? The insurgents and militants, not being stupid, either left the area or blended in with the general populace. The militant cleric, Al Sadar, apparently left the country. As a result, as the American-Iraqi forces moved through the targeted Baghdad neighrhoods they found virtually no resistance and few weapon caches. Did they really expect to find anything? It is hard for me to understand why Bush does not seem to grasp the importance of keeping details of offensive operations secret. Secondly, we keep going over the same ground twice. We clear an area, then leave, allowing the insurgents back in. Then we end up going back through it again. This violates a fundamental principle of warfare: you don't pay for the same real estate twice. The reason we do this is because we do not have suffiicient troops in Iraq to hold an area once we take it. Thirdly, major offensive operations tend to be of a limited nature. We hit one area, then cease offensive operations until another operation is executed in another part of the country weeks later. We should have offensive operations ongoing in several points in Iraq all at the same time, and when one operation ends, another should take its place immediately. We are simply not aggressive enough to get the job done. Offensive operations need to be ongoing thoughout Iraq on a continuous basis. Fourthly, President Bush did not have a plan B or C to deal with an insurgency. He had this pollyanna view that everything would go just as he had planned. The unpredictable character of war never seemed to have occurred to him. As a result, when the insurgency began its operations, he had no backup plan to deal with it. The problem of Iraq was not the invasion. Everything went well until after the fall of Saadam. But once the insurgency started, the situation began to deteriorate and the rate of deterioration has increased exponetially ever since, to the point where not only are American troops having to fight the insurgency, but now they are having to deal with religious rivalries that threaten a full-scale civil war. The Iraqis themselves, of course, have to take a large share of the blame for this. But I have come to the conclusion that so does President Bush who failed to have the foresight needed by an effective war-time president. I would be interested in hearing your points-of-view on this matter.
I pretty much agree with your post and I have supported and still support the war in Iraq and want to WIN but we seem to not know how to WIN in Iraq. The strategy has been horrible since Bush declared the war was over. We should've sealed the borders so that Iranians and Syrians couldn't fund Iraq with man power and weapons. I don't think its so much the president running the war as the generals. They seem to be failing and we know who gets the blame for that. Hindsight is 20/20 and if I had to do things over again I would support an invasion of Iraq if ordered but I wouldn't want it to happen. 1)Let the UN fail by not being able to enforce resolutions 2)Pakistan was and is a bigger problem for terrorists than Iraq was. 3)Terrorists are all over the world including Iraq before we entered. 4)WMD's are in many "bad" countries or chemicals for them including N Korea. My problem with this president is that he didn't keep his word. 1)He didn't take care of the new 9/11 victims like he said he would, rescuers. 2)He didn't defend the country like he said he would after 9/11 by protecting the borders. All of the strategy implemented is half ass at best with borders open. I think W hasn't been a very good president but it hasn't been all his fault either, the Republican Congress didn't help him when you consider the moderates that derailed social security reform. Then you have the Generals calling the shots? they have failed!
Then why in Heaven's name do you continue to support a failed effort run by incompetent leaders trying to win an unwinnable situation. The war was over in 21 days and we WON it. The subsequent occupation is foolish, wasteful, and political. There is no military solution. All we can do is stay or leave. We WIN by leaving. The generals had a long-standing plan for war with Iraq. It involved 500,000 troops and would have done exactly what you suggest. Rumsfeld sacked the generals who proposed this professional military plan and had them replace it with a political plan that involved 120,00 troops and the Iraqis greeting us as liberators and we'd be gone in under a year. The generals are up in arms against this administration's misuse of the miltary.
I have never supported this war from day one and I have pointed out each of your well-thought out issues and many more (search for red55 and Iraq for more posts than you want to read on the subject). Bush is a disasterous wartime president. Probably the worst in US history. Most thinking people have come around to this understanding by now. Even Sourdoughman will be buying me a steak in 2008!
Don't wait around for me. I will never disrespect an honest President who's doing his best at a tough job made harder by the constant sniping from his political opposition.
If Bush is allowing the generals to run the war, then that is another indication he is a poor war-time president. He is the commander-in-chief; not the generals. Personally, I will give Bush more credit than that. His problem is not that he can't make a decision. The evidence is much to the contrary. His problem has been he has been making the wrong decisions. I don't believe the generals are the ones making the big decisions. It is Bush.
There was no way we could have walked away from Iraq after the fall of Saadam. We had a responsiblity to assist the Iraqis rebuild and establish a viable, stable government including elections and the drafting of a constitution. To walk away from that responsiblity was just not a viable politcal reality. Even Bush's congressional detractors would probably agree with that.
Respectfully disagree, we lose by leaving we don't win! Terrorists or Iran and Syria will take over Iraq and then we will have a true war for oil sooner or later we will pay the price for this. WE can't afford to lose so I have no choice. WE were losing in WWII also before things turned around. I do wish we would've never entered Iraq in the first place! I simply don't know what to say other than this was a big mistake!
