Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lookout123
MWUHAHAHAHA. yes tw. that was my plan. confuse the issue to hide the truth - because lord knows, that no cellar thread ever shifts focus but for the evil machinations of a conservative.
FWIW i brought up Boyd and the like because of this statement -
"Rumsfeld overrode his generalss recommendations for overwhelming numbers."
"So you agree that Rumsfeld is a bad leader? "
|
Oppurtunities to avoid the original question - to diffuse the issue into things totally irrelevant. The question is "Why did we go into Iraq?" More specifically, the question is
Quote:
|
So, why isn't anyone beyond 'crazy liberals' standing up and saying, "What the fuck happened here?"
|
Why is bandwidth wasted on what Boyd tried to accomplish or what Rumsfeld did with troop numbers. Demonstrated again by lookout123 is why reasons for a screwed up "Mission Accomplished" war are not being discussed.
The discussion spins into one about troop numbers rather than into the strategic objective of that military action. Looking at the "Mission Accomplished" war microscopically rather than in its proper (and flawed) objectives therefore avoids an embarrassing answer. Most specifically, "planning for the peace" is intentionally ignored here AND was intentionally ignored back in 2002. 'Strategic objective' (lack of one) is the answer.
To measure Rumsfeld's competence: why did he subvert any planning for the peace? There was planning for the peace. The people who were doing that planning were simply transferred - then dismissed. Logic just like in Vietnam: if we blow things up, then we will win. Tactical objectives are sufficient to win a war. The means justifies the ends (along with 'light at the end of the tunnel'). Reasoning that caused a stunning US defeat in Vietnam. Appreciate the concepts of tactical and strategic. The US military won virtually every battle - militarily. But was soundly defeated - strategically.
There was no planning for the peace in 1991 AND in 2002 by the same neocons. They even stifled such plans. Demonstrated are political types that wasted such good military work. A warning even within a recently leaked UK memo. George Jr administration had no plans for the peace because the strategic objective was flawed. He did not even have a 'smoking gun' to justify the unilateral invasion. So he lied.
Lookout123 again avoids the purpose of a "Mission Accomplished" war - headsplice's original question. Lookout123 posts repeatedly ignoring the primary (and embarrassing) topic - the strategic objective. Even Rumsfeld’s competence should have been answered by discussing Rumsfeld’s 'planning for the peace' – the strategic objective. Instead it was answered with nonsense about size of a military force and Boyd’s accomplishments. How to avoid answering the damning question: the strategic objective - planning for peace. Discuss troop numbers so this question (and Rumsfeld's competence) need not be answered: