A soldier's viewpoint

[glatt]

At a speech in W.Va. yesterday, former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Bremer, said essentially the same thing that John Kerry is saying. He said that the Iraq war was handled wrong by not sending enough troops in, and after we "won", we should have guarded more than just the oil refineries. Bremer said that by allowing the widespread looting and other lawlessness in the early stages of the occupation, we allowed the climate of lawlessness that exists today.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

also

In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind

Bremer remains a staunch Bush supporter, but I think it's pretty telling when Bush's people break ranks like this and make comments about the administration's failure to plan for the next step after winning the war in Iraq. You've been hearing from the Democrats that Bush invaded Iraq with no exit strategy or plan for winning the peace. Now you are hearing it from some Republicans too.

[lookout123]

i don't dispute that there were better ways to fight the war. i am a believer in maneuver warfare combined with overwhelming force, not in place of overwhelming force.

my dispute in this thread has been tw's assertion that Franks was outraged at the idea of going to Iraq. Franks supported the idea and the plans that we used were of his own design. my personal belief is that Franks as well as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith are addicted to the school of thought that technology is the key to all. I believe that was the mistake that was made in the invasion. Appropriate use of boots on the ground would have changed the course of events that lead us to where we are.

there was no need to send 500,000 troops in similar fashion to Desert Shield/Storm, but i believe the number should have been in the mid-200's.

but that is a debate on how a war is fought. tw asserts that Franks and the military leadership were enraged at the idea of going into Iraq. unfortunately, he doesn't provide any proof of this outside of a short quote from Woodward's book.

[lookout123]

Please feel free to prove that Franks was not angry.

hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.

i wonder if that would work in court?

Prosecutor: John Johnson diddles little boys!
Defendent: I do not.
Prosecutor: Prove it! I rest my case your honor.

how about this - if you allege something, provide some support. i think that is fair.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bremer said that by allowing the widespread looting and other lawlessness in the early stages of the occupation, we allowed the climate of lawlessness that exists today.

That makes sense. The people in Iraq lived in a repressed state for a very long time. The powers that were, would torture and kill people they even thought might step out of line. It became the national sport.
If you pen up an animal for a long time and then throw open the gate, chances are they won’t bolt. Cautious, timid, afraid to make a sudden move.
The Iraqis have discovered they can raise hell, almost with impunity so it would take a major slap down to control them now. I think our window of opportunity has been blown to shreds.
Because they don’t understand that we’re technologically superior, they’re kicking our ass.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lookout123

hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.

The expression "mini-explosion" in Woodward's book does not prove that Frank's was incredulous? He was ordered to plan an attack on Iraq when he had not yet even invaded Afghanistan - this sentence in direct contradiction what Lookout123 posted previously. Of course Frank's was angry. Anyone in his position would have been, considering that the Afghan war was only just starting and was far from success. bin Laden was not captured or killed. Lookout123 says a "mini-explosion" could not happen because, "I've seen no evidence that this is true". That is his proof? Lookout123 has been accused previously of having opinions without sufficient information. Just because Lookout123 did not hear of this means it did not happen? That proves Gen Franks did not have a mini-explosion?

That "Franks was not angry" position is to avoid the more serious questions. Reasoning by Lookout123 is same as those who preceded him to support Nixon. He is our president; therefore he must be right to invade Cambodia. He must be right to even censor the news and letter going to the troops. Lookout123 endorses people who have no problem with boldface lying. Today's new lie - it was just an honest mistake about those aluminum tubes; but those lies are justified; the ends always justified the means. What happened to the word - credibility.

Saddam was a threat to no one. Iran's adjacent neighbors said same even before 11 September. George Jr supporters even forget that little fact to endorse a lying president. What happens if George Jr must decide to launch nuclear weapons? Will he be as responsible as Kennedy; use the doctrine of containment? Or will he use the principles of Tojo and Hitler - a preemptive strike only because they *might* be a threat. A future and possible threat always justifies unilateral war. Is a potential threat also sufficient to launch nuclear weapons? So we just lie a little. After all, a nuclear bomb is just another bomb. Does anyone remember the definition of the word 'integrity'?

Once the US said we would never execute a "first strike". Already, Lookout123 endorses principles of "first strike". He supports George Jr and those who say "first strike" is good. It is called preemption.

We are talking about White House credibility: people who literally encouraged war with China over a silly spy plane. People who have no problem with preemtive strikes on India, Russia, and Germany - if necessary (doctrine upon which the Project for a New American Century was created). Lookout123 endorses these neocons? Even Republicans such as Richard Lugar and Billy Kristol (Weekly Standard) have declared this administration as incompentant in Iraq. What will they do when we have a real crisis? These leaders could not even authorize fighter planes to go 'weapons free' - to protect US buildings when America was under attack. The leader even sat in a FL schoolroom for seven minutes and never even asked one question. We are talking about basic management competance that also considers outright lying as acceptable.

To avoid all this, Lookout123 argues whether Franks got angry.

Even Pat Buchanan says their fundamental concept - preemption - is a perversion of conservative principles. Same conservative principals that kept us out of WWIII on multiple occasions. Fundamental questions about management competance in George Jr administration. Questions that Lookout123 will avoid answering - instead denying that Gen Franks had a "mini-explosion". Questions will be reposted so that Lookout123 can provide answers; demonstrate that Lugar and Kristol are wrong; to justify his endorsement of George Jr. To demonstrate that the president is competant even though he even subverted the Oslo Accords andoutrightly lied about the WMDs. Do you really think this president is investigating who outted a CIA agent? What is one more lie? Ahh, but we return to other questions that Lookout123 side stepped.

[tw]

To avoid these questions, Lookout123 argues that Franks did not have a mini-explosion even though we know any honest general in his position would have done same. Why does he waste time defending this nonsense? To avoid hard questions. Same questions that Lookout123 characterizes as condescending - so that he need not answer them. A sample of posts Lookout123 avoids so that he can support a mental midget president. Ignore what you cannot disupte? He hopes all other readers will forget these were even posted:

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing.

[Too] many sources - especially the video of him sitting in the FL classroom - say this president does not make his own decisions. He is told what to think.
...
He just sat [there] in that FL classroom for seven minutes. He did not even ask if anyone was in charge. I ask others repeatedly what they would have done if Andy Card said to them, "A second plane has just hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Everyone - yes everyone - says they would have gotten up and left the classroom immediately. George Jr never even asked one question for seven minutes. Seven minutes when fighter pilots still had no authorization to fire - to protect America. Why?

If we had intelligent leadership, then the army and police would never have been disbanned. Today's American deaths and the resulting double or tripling of insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr ...

So lookout123 - do you deny this insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr? Or do you assume this was inevitable. Any leader with even basic knowledge - or who had even seen the end of the movie Patton - knew disbanning of military and police was wrong.

Please tell us that George Jr did not make Iraq ripe for insurgency. Please explain where he made an intelligent decision to disban the military and police?

Again you promote the George Jr mantra. You mix Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. How is it that a war justified by virtually every nation in the world is same as the war condemned by most every nation? Only those who would promote George Jr propaganda or are completely misinformed would imply an Afghanistan war and an illegal invasion of Iraq are same.

Lookout123 - where does the invasion of Afghanistan - with approval of virtually the entire world - have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq - that was not justified according to most of the world including Canada, Mexico, and the UN Secretary General? Where do you find any logic in associating and justifiying wars in Iraq and Afghanstan as one in the same?

In a previous post, I listed 14 successful, thwarted, or possible attacks by bin Laden on the US. Name one attack by Saddam during those last ten years. By mixing Saddam with bin Laden, you intentionally confuse the issue. Its called propaganda. A technique often used to mask the truth or to promote outright lies. Do you feel personally spoken of in a "condescending manner" because I exposed your propaganda?

An idea that [Zarqawi] is as dangerous as bin Laden is more White House propaganda. When did [Zarqawi] conspire to take out 10 Pacific airliners, kill hundreds outside an American embassy, or kill thousands in an American city. Get real. [Zarqawi] is only a major threat when the president is promoting hype to justify his illegal war. You are representing the George Jr logic which is why your positions are exposed and not based upon facts.

The last and most major question that George Jr supporters must ignore.

When will we go after bin Laden?

Not if - when. Not al Qaeda - bin Laden. Why those "Not..." clauses? Because George Jr supporters would have us believe we are looking for terrorists in Iraq. Lookout123 - when will we finally go get bin Laden? A supporter of George Jr clearly must know this answer because, after all, George Jr is constantly talking about waging a war on terrorism. Good. When does it start? When do we go after bin Laden?

We are talking here about supporting the troops. When the public blindly follows a lying president, then the troops suffer first and most. It was called Vietnam and Nixon. Support for the troops means we must demand competant leaders and never reelect lying leaders. Again lessons well taught by history. Blunt hard questions are asked here. To relect this president, George Jr supporters must avoid answering these questions. Still waiting for a George Jr supporter to answer these questions.

Maybe if we don't answer, he will stop asking, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Or was the invasion of Iraq just another honest mistake?