Bush's War -Frontline
 

A good show. Each segment lasts about 10 min so you can watch the whole thing at your lesiure. The show was aired over 2 days on PBS.

There are some critics who think things have been left out and I agree with some of what they say:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bushs_war/

The best part to me is that it shows the competition within the administration and efforts by many people to do the right thing. There are heros and there are villians. If you are a conspiracy theorist it will feed your needs and fuel your fire. On the other hand, if you can look at the deeper messages you can see that very few people should get most of the blame and Bush is only one of them and in my opinion one of the weakest players. See for yourself:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...war_2008-03-26

Jr is a mental midget debil as was previously posted by those who know and aren't unamerican anti innovation MBA's. AH! 7 minutes! Smoking gun! Axis of Evil! Big Dic Extremist! AH!

tw? is that you? What have you done with lookout123??? where is he? why have you taken his soul and moved into his body? Whhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.....

:lol:
:lol2:
:cheerldr:
:vader1:
:frog:

fyi *two cents*
 

You can watch that show and others online @

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

ohh , lol * reaches for glasses * :P thanks!:blush:

I think its great that Frontline has collected these hours of documentation/interview and have it accessible.

Damning primarily of the Cheney and Rumsfeld machine. Of course a strong President should have the reigns...and should not be surrounded by one [wrong and strong] voice.

I was very interested in how Blair got tangled, and the French games at the UN were interesting, too, to see more about how Powell was played during the run up.

Agreed, it will be a great resource for future scholars and writers.
I feel the same way about Michael Yon's reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, being a true picture of what's actually happening, in country.

An interesting observation from Ernie at EHOWA.com.

The part that took from 1941-1945 (US perspective) was done at "Mission Accomplished": March 19 2008 - May 1 2008 = gov fully toppled. It's the Marshall Plan bit after which is taking too long.

Edit please, I'm sure you're not contending that this war took only forty days.

Second point. Are you contending that we're not in the "war" "bit" now? That we're in the nation building bit? If yes, then wtf is up with all the, fuck, there's no other word I know for it, maybe you know one, what's up with all the warfighting happening during the nation building part?

Come to think of it... I don't understand your point whatsoever...

Once you are ready to chat about it without all the condescension, let me know.

Ok. I'm ready.

We're still in a war. Two wars, actually. The hypocrisy and ineptitude of this administration is without equal. I've read about the Marshall Plan. We're not doing that now, in my non-condescending opinion. If you think we are, please elaborate.

It's a war. A *STUPID* war, but it's still happening.

As for my first point, please fix your dates or explain them.

We were at war when the objective was to remove by force the Iraqi government. During that time we were "at war" with Iraq. The war was short and went well and we removed the government. At that point we are not "at war" with anybody. We *occupy* Iraq. We are trying to help it become successful and peaceful by maintaining security while it tries to figure it out.

Here is what a real war looks like, this one undeclared:

http://cellar.org/2008/1iraqVietnamGraph.gif

Here is a comparison between the entire 5 years of operation in Iraq, and specific WW2 *battles* the US was involved in which constitute a few days' worth in a real, declared, total war:

http://cellar.org/2008/iraq+war+us+battles.jpg

We think it's warfighting now, because they say it is. But actually, we are too young and immature to comprehend war. We ain't seen nothing. When the people go off to fight expecting to die, and believing that's a good thing, then we'll know war.

You can't compare wars just on US deaths. How about the structure of Iraq now compared to the structure of Vietnam in the same time period?

Hello. One of the top men saw 13? soccer games going on. How can ya ignore that kinda of progress?

Now people in the Green Zone are suggested to duck and cover.

Now? Weren't they always at risk from rockets, car bombs and kidnappings?

The statistics fail to consider that a same injury rarely causes a death today. Even in Nam where death rates from wounds were lower; today, same injuries are 8 times less likely to create death. Today, soldiers also have body armor that routinely stops bullets. Soldiers in Iraq were often stuck by bullets without injury. Soldiers in WWII and Vietnam had no such protection.

More useful statistic is to compare fatalities then to all casualties today. 4000 deaths in Iraq mean something like 40,000 Vietnam fatalities. Massive injuries today will result in long term disabilities - missing limbs, missing brains, etc. These injuries were once always fatal - a trivial cost. Today’s injuries result in long term expenses for America - something in the high $hundreds of billions. But then Reagan proves that deficits don't matter.

Vietnam killed maybe 50,000 Americans. Today that is a war that kills something less than 6,000 Americans. Those 6,000 deaths mean costs will be incurred for generation - not just a quick payment for a burial. 4000 deaths means battles have been as vicious as Nam.

"Mission Accomplished" was justified only by a political agenda. Threats did not exist. "Mission Accomplished" had no smoking gun, no strategic objective, and no exit stategy - all factors for defeat. No wonder George Jr could not find a sufficient competent general for "Mission Accomplished" - which the Frontline piece makes so obvious.

Later facts make it apparent that without "Mission Accomplished", Saddam could only last as long as his enemies remained divided and disorganized. Saddam had virtually no serious weapons production facilities after 1998; was a threat to no other nation. Operation Desert Fox was so successful that Saddam had virtually no serious weapons production facilities. Only wacko extremists deny this because Operation Desert Fox was Clinton's attack. Again, conclusions only based in political agendas; not in facts.

Why was "Mission Accomplished" so easily achieved? Why, for example, did Saddam not mount a defense in the Karbala gap? Because Saddam, strangely, never worried of the American invasion. Saddam worried about civil uprisings.

Saddam was indeed a strange man. Saddam invaded Kuwait believing that America did not oppose his endeavor. Saddam was confused when America attacked. But then how would he understand. Saddam lived in a world where no one would tell him otherwise. Saddam lived in a world where he believed, in time, he could restore his previous "American ally" position.

Saddam was not a threat to America ... except where political agendas even regarded Saddam a greater threat than bin Laden. No wonder America's number one enemy - bin Laden - still lives. No wonder America still makes no serious effort to get bin Laden. When extremist fear is preached, then a toothless Saddam is proclaimed a founding member of 'axis of evil' - one of the devil's own. Toothless Saddam was a threat to no one. Toothless Saddam's only defense was to lie - hype mythical weapons. Only a wacko extremist driven by his political agenda would promote fears of Saddam. That is what George Jr and Cheney are.

Questions by people from David Letterman to NBC's Brian Williams, and from Charlie Rose to Sen Specter indicate what "Mission Accomplished" has done to America. Question such as "will we ever recover from the damage to American prestige?" These are not questions being asked by political agendas. Informative is Brian William reply noting how Americans students (including his own daughter) at St Andrews would be heckled by Scotsman in the streets of Edinburgh.

America that once could have recruited troops from virtually any nation to attack Afghanistan now cannot even get NATO to send troops. But then American credibility is that low in the world and mythically high in the minds of extremists. "Mission Accomplished" has been a disaster worse than even I speculated in 2003. Everything that could have gone wrong has because, well, even casualty figures can only be made acceptable by forgetting facts.

Still to come is a recession created by those war costs. Those war casulty numbers imply a recession equivalent to one created by another wasted war in Nam. Another war due to another lying president. A recession that resulted after a war just as costly and after the "Fed pumped money into the economy" to avert a downturn.

The statistics don't consider anything - they're inanimate.

The statistics reflect a different situation on the ground. There are no "battles" in this "war". Nobody takes on the US forces directly; they know they will lose. So they snipe, they IED, they suicide bomb, they car bomb, they ambush. But nowhere are there battalions of armed forces taking on other battalions of armed forces.

Oh but you're wrong again. US wounded figures 4000 deaths to 30,000 wounded in Iraq. 60,000 dead/lost to 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. 7.5:1 wound:death ratio in Iraq; 5:1 wound:death ratio in Vietnam. Better, but not revolutionary, and not the cause of the "troubling" statistics.

Oh cool, we can avoid the recession created by the housing bubble. Still, it's always true there are numerous ways to lose, and it is somehow reassuring that we know we can expect tw to find and claim them.

Again: there has never been in this country a war and a recession happening simultaneously, until now.

Welcome to Nam. Deja vue. Why did My Lai happen. Soldiers were so frustrated at their losses and no enemy to confront (fight). Iraq is no different. Deja vue Nam. Too late. We already did that. Now, four to ten years later, we begin to reap what we used money games to avoid. Same is discussed in Anyone scared about the economic crisis?. After years of pumping the economy with free money (low interest rates, tax cuts with massive spending increased, etc), we still have this history: as we pumped more easy money into the economy. With so much easy money, where is all this growth? Deja vue Nam is now called "Mission Accomplished".

Were you trying to find an engineering job in the early 1970s? The recession had already begun. It was not yet apparent on spread sheets.

Red line, if accurately portraying all the munitions striking Americans, looks much like or may be higher than the blue line. I was hoping I would not have to sound byte what is much better explained in a 500 word post - where reasons why are provided. UTs graph only demonstrates superior medical treatment, body armor, etc. "Mission Accomplished" continues to parallel Nam - especially the part where leaders lie. Especially the severe economic consequences. Especially the part where a president will do anything to not lose a war under his watch - America be damned.

What is different? During Nam, nobody was asking, "When do we go after bin Laden." IOW Nixon was not the prolific liar that George Jr is. And Nixon did not do what Agnew ordered. Nixon was smarter.

SSDD

http://planetwill.jt.org/media/characters/art/ted1.jpg

There is indeed a war going, Iraq is only a facet.

Speaking only of Iraq and Viet Nam, the conventional Army does their job very well. They always have. They do their job, and they do it well. The large conventional Army does not do counterinsurgency or unconventional warfare very well. It's not their job. Asking them to do it is like asking a gardener to build your house. He might try and you will have great gardens around your house. I submit your house will not be done as well. Only recently in Iraq have we begun to accept this as true. As far as I'm concerned this is a fact.

Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff really does not matter to me. We are there. Now, what do we do? Do we only do what is good for the U.S.? Is doing only what's good for the U.S., good for the U.S.?

Also, Iraq is not the only stage, the play is fairly large.

Good points Reg Joe - Too many assume that the only theater is the one in Iraq. That the only activity is what is happening there. Others make claims like "Deja vue this or that..." There are some similarities - they were both wars, in foreign countries ... Its a completely different world today. Things have changed so much that all these comparisons on any significant level are relatively worthless. Especially when they are proved false several posts later - with citations and facts. Then the story changes... seen it all too many times before - go find another place to grind your axe. That dog won't hunt anymore.

Not answering that question means we have no strategic objective and no exit strategy. Both necessary to continue war forever. Without hardly any military, America built the world's largest war machine, then fought, deployed, and won wars on virtually every continent. In far longer time, we are not even close to ending “Mission Accomplished”. To win, one must first admit the most basic facts including why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff. One must admit why this is called a “Mission Accomplished” war. Without those answers, one can never answer, "What do we do?"

We do only what is good for the US. But without those above answers, no one can even agree as to what is good for the US. Again more denial. Without answering the simplest questions, "why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff." How then do you expect to know what is good for the US? You don’t. Deja vue Nam.

We had no strategic objective. So we invented reasons to still be in Nam when even Nixon acknowledged we could not win. That even the Wise Men in 1968 said could not be won. That even Walter Cronkite, in a most rare editorial said was a lost effort. Even Le Duc Thou would share with Kissenger the most secret N Vietnamese analysis which turned out to be wrong only in time. N Vietnam expected to be at war for two years longer. Even though honest men said bluntly that Nam could not be won, instead, we sacrificed another 30,000 uselessly. Even today, UG still will not admit why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff.

How do we have a strategic objective and an exit strategy when 1) we cannot even admit who is the enemy, 2) not even admit to a civil war that we created, 3) refuse to admit what the various parties want (let alone who they are), 4) only see enemies hiding everywhere, 5) our leaders are so out of touch that virtually all every competent military commander ends up quitting and then publically criticizing America leadership, and 6) we are so much in denial as to even ignore 79 points from the Iraq Study Group. These denials are classic contempt for the American soldier.

Avoid asking, "why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff" is how to not have an exit strategy. But then George Jr did what he wanted: make sure "Mission Accomplished" was not lost on his watch. George Jr years ago stated "Mission Accomplished" to be ongoing in 2010. No problem. Not enough Americans have died yet. Due to denial, only a graveyard mentality can end “Mission Accomplished”. Only a fool would see victory in a diminished but still ongoing civil war. But then how many will not even admit “Mission Accomplished” is only a civil war. Just another reason why we must sacrifice more American. Deja vue Nam.

Which is exactly what Westmoreland said about Nam. Guess what. America was defeated in Nam for the exact same reasons that Sze Tzu defined 2500 years earlier. Amazing is how many cannot grasp a simple concept like strategic objective. How many only see victory in more deaths or less conflict. In Nam, victory was measured in body counts - again in direct contradiction to military principles understood 2500 years ago.

Do you know why Iraq broke down in civil war? Patton defined it accurately in 1945. We had six months to restore the nation, its government, water, electricity, sewers. if not, then Germany would be lost. Do you call Patton a liar or misguided? Or did you not even know or understand this concept? Germany was not lost because our leaders had basic intelligence. Why are flack jackets and helmet still required in the safest place in Iraq - the Green Zone - since we are winning? Iraq was lost into civil war because our leaders were brainwashed by their political agendas - could not grasp any reality that contradicted a political agenda. Our leader were so much fools as to get more concerned with imposing the MD driver's code into Iraqi law rather than restore electricity. At what point do old principles still not apply? Or is your real name Westmoreland?

America was defeated in Nam because a fool - Westmoreland - also used the exact same reasoning that classicman has just posted. You are supposed to have learned from history - not repeat it. Learning does not happen when one denies Deja vue.

Are you so foolish as to believe Iraq is being won? Do you remember 1969 Vietnam? Exact same reasoning proves we were winning the war; that the enemy could no longer fight. The military victory at Tet had all but ended the Vietnam war - according to 1969 Americans. In both cases - Nam and "Mission Accomplished", diminished violence is not a measure for victory. No strategic objective means no victory. That has never changed. Deja vue every war.

People like to draw similarities between all wars to support their notions of what is happening or to explain supporting political notions. Most of it is bullocks. Similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq are actually quite poor examples, sort of like Bible code. Look long and hard enough and you will be able to twist things around to make your point. As we all know many of the conflicts in Iraq could be compared to any theater in any war.

Again Oh again but again you're again wrong again. US wounded figures 4000 deaths to 30,000 wounded in Iraq. 60,000 dead/lost to 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. 7.5:1 wound:death ratio in Iraq; 5:1 wound:death ratio in Vietnam. Better, but not revolutionary, and not the cause of the "troubling" statistics.

30,000 wounded in Iraq. 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. It must be miracle body armor or something.

And do note that this graph was produced 8 months ago, before the "surge"; and that if it were continued, the red line would be two-thirds lower than it is now. Due to miracle body armor? Did the armor magically become even more magical 8 months ago? With more troops in country to be hit?

Produce many 500 word posts, produce many errors. Better to sound bite and simplify your error-filled paragraphs down to error-filled bullet points.

UT, you can't just put up US death stats to prove a point.

The cost of Vietnam War: $133 billion, around $531.5 billion with inflation.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...etnam_War_cost
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0829/p...ogn.html#chart


The financial cost of the war has been more than £4.5 billion ($9 billion) to the UK,[60] and over $845 billion to the U.S., with the total cost to the U.S. economy estimated at $3 to 5 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War


Even though many more US soldiers have died in the Vietnam War, this 'war' is costing us a lot more money.


What are the goals of the Iraqi War?
What are we hoping to accomplish for the US and Iraq?
What will happen if we 'lose'?
What will happen if we 'win'?

Money vs. troops, I choose money anyday.

PH, you can't just put up dollars spent to prove a point.

You'll have to divvy between money spent on troops and ammo, and money spent on everything else, to answer the original question; which I remind everyone is: are we at war, or is it the occupation following the war?

If the point is that far fewer soldiers have been both killed and injured in Iraq compared to Vietnam, then yes, you sure as hell can. Maybe he's not proving your point for you, but too bad. Your habit of perpetually equivocating on everything and looking at an eternally-bigger picture doesn't mean you can ignore fundamental facts.

Irrelevant is how emotional you become. For every eight killed by their wounds in Vietnam, only 1 die from those wounds in "Mission Accomplished". For every wounded person shot in the abdomen in Nam, none are wounded in Iraq. Of course the casualty figures will be significantly lower in each war. That justifies the war? That proves something has been accomplished?

America has lost so much prestige - even so much treasure - even NATO countries will not longer help in a justiied war - Afghanistan.

Damage to America does not stop there. From Marketwatch.com on 28 Mar 2008: US can no longer be trusted? Why when so many Americans have been so much in denial about "Mission Accomplished" from the very beginning - UT.

Curious that Serbians used your exact same logic to justify what they did in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Being at war justifies both war and violence? Nonsense. But then one of us learned from Nam. Being at war does not justify all actions. Might makes right? Remaining in "Mission Accomplished" with no exit strategy only proves that some people refuse to learn from history.

Fewer deaths in each war make that war acceptable? Fewer deaths are prove of less violence and destruction? UT - you were wrong about weapons of mass destruction because you refused to separate your biases from facts. Now you justify violence because enemies are hiding everywhere? UT - you were so wrong as to even believe George Jr lies about Al Qaeda - "we must stop them in Iraq or they will attack us in America." That too was bull you believed. Even George Sr disagrees with you. When are you going to stop being wrong?

UT calling me wrong has no credibility. You have been wrong about "Mission Accomplished" repeatedly since 2002 because you repeatedly entertain biases (emotions) rather than grasp facts. You could not even define a strategic objective. Of course not. America has none in "Mission Accomplished". Might makes right? If we don't stop them there, then we will be fighting them in the streets of America? How ofter does the Domino Theory need be wrong before you will learn? Exact same mistake that hawks made 40 years ago to even justified My Lai. Now you called torture acceptable? How does that make your reasoning any different than Serbs?

UT demonstrates why George Jr is correct - why Americans will waste treasure in Iraq well after 2010. UT's reasoning means America will be there another 20 years. A workable solution exists - the Iraq Study Group. Instead, UT would rather murder more people as if violence instead solves things. UT, you have been wrong about "Mission Accomplished" repeatedly using a same mindset that justified Nam. In frustration, you would accuse me of being wrong when your own credibility is that poor? Learn why your Saddam WMD claims were obviously wrong and why facts that I posted then are now proven accurate today. UT, when do you learn why you were so wrong about Saddam's WMDs? Instead, you again entertain emotions (biases) rather than grasp facts. You so love war as a solution as to automatically know Saddam had WMDs. You still love and approve of "Mission Accomplished"? When do you learn why? When George Jr admitted Saddam's WMDs did not exist - why did you still remained in denial?

Why does the kettle call the silverware black?

Eh, fuck, my bad.

We are in a occupation under the cover of a war. We have no declared enemy, we have no direct objective besides stay in Iraq until we feel ready to leave, but the administration still calls it war.

Well that goes right back to the problem defined by regular.joe. We cannot even answer the simplest of questions, "Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff". We cannot even decide if we are fighting a war? How does one do what is necessary to win when we cannot even answer simple questions such as "is it a war?" To win a war, one must have 1) a smoking gun, 2) a strategic objective, and 3) an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective. These are more difficult questions. And yet we cannot even decided if we are in a war? We are fighting a secret international terrorism enemy (Spectre, Kaos?) when, in reality, it is nothing but a civil war?

Therein lies the reason why so much treasure will be wasted on "Mission Accomplished". Hell. The president even called it "Mission Accomplished" and yet how many will not admit that? Public enemy number one is bin Laden. And yet so many will not even ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

How do we do anything but massacre American soldiers when we cannot even answer the simplest questions, "Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff ", and "Is it a war?"

BTW, Deja vue Nam. Same mistake was made back then. We could not even define who the enemy was. The combat unit radioed back to base, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Assuming that you are correct, that would tell us that Iraq is both less deadly AND less violent than Vietnam.

As I have posted, there were 305,000 wounded in Vietnam, and 30,000 wounded in Iraq. Wounding more deadly in Vietnam; wounding ten times as likely in Vietnam; death fifteen times as likely in Vietnam.

Miracle armor? Or is the situation on the ground much different? Apply Occam's Razor.

Precisely. I am correct by the facts... both the facts I present and the facts you present.

I don't know how to apply Occam's Razor to that situation. Troops routinely describe bullets being deflected by their armor. Bullets that were almost always fatal in Nam.

Meanwhile, friends served on the Cambodian border. Lieutenant confiscated their M-16s. They didn't need them. One used his M-16 to go home. No need for guns on the Cambodian border was proof we were winning? So what happened?

The other irony is booby traps. American soldiers in Nam were mostly wounded or killed by bobby traps. In Iraq, roadside bombs. Most caught in a roadside bomb survive with at worst minor injuries. Less death. But the mindset of the [Iraqi] people is just as obvious as in Nam.

American facilities in Nam often came under attack until Saigon was eventually made stable. Ironically, the safest place in Iraq - the Green Zone - again came under sustained shelling again this week. You don't go outside even in the Green Zone without protective clothing. We call this getting better? Deja vue Nam.

We measured victory in Nam by body counts and fatalities. Using those numbers, we were clearly winning the war. Using Iraq fatalities proves same? At what point do we learn the lessons of history? How does that statistic prove ‘light at the end of the tunnel’?

More total BS...

Well then it's Miracle Armor (TM)! It's awesome! Overlooked in the first post because... because I hadn't posted *injury* statistics yet! Now that I have, Miracle Armor (TM) saves the day! There's no injury with Miracle Armor (TM)!

It's Billy Mays for Miracle Armor (TM)!! Miracle Armor (TM) even works against shaped charges when a heavily armored vehicle floor can't stand the blow!! Use it to replace mere hard hats at construction sites!! IEDs don't stand a chance -- your troops live or Triple Your Money Back!!!!

when used as directed. offer void in failed states. here's how to order.

How does that statistic prove ‘light at the end of the tunnel’?

Because it's Miracle Armor (TM)! It proves *anything* by providing a sheen of protection by misdirection! The facts don't get in the way with Miracle Armor (TM)! Even the original question we were discussing has completely vanished - without a trace - thanks to Miiiiiiiiiiiiracle Armor (TM)!

And if you order now, you'll get hundreds of jullian fries...

Apples and Oranges
 

I'm trying to find a more definitive source, but here is one chart of troop levels in Vietnam.

In 1965, the first year of escalation, there were 184,000 US troops in Vietnam. In 1968, at the peak, there were 536,000 US troops in Vietnam. From 65-71, on average, there were 3 times as many troops in Vietnam as in Iraq over a 7 year period instead of a 5 year period. Combined with a survival rate double that of Vietnam thanks to improvements in medical tech, armor, and the fact that the insurgency does not have an air force, armor, or any major weapons other than mortars and IED's/mines, and that 4000 looks pretty bad. Especially considering that many of the losses were during an 'occupation' and not technically combat operations.

If we had actually deployed 536,000 troops to Iraq, or better yet, left Iraq alone and deployed them to Afghanistan, there would have either been significantly more killed or significantly less since we might have actually achieved our purpose.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Especially considering that many of the losses were during an 'occupation' and not technically combat operations.

I win this goddamn thread.

By the way, how do I get a set of thatMiracle Armor (TM)? Sounds great!

Same place you get all those kinds of things:

Buy a box of Cracker Jacks.