Bush's War -Frontline

[regular.joe]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

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.?

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.