Mission Accomplished Redux

[manifold]

Bush's opening remarks from the now infamous speech:

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."


At the time this speech was delivered (May 1, 2003), I was still a pretty vocal defender and supporter of GWB and the war. Also, being a sane, rational and literate person, I interpretted this powerful and resonating opening statement to mean that the worst was behind us and I was thrilled. Obviously that wasn't the case. In fact, it was just the opposite. The worst was yet to come.

The part that really cracks me up though, is how the Bush apologists out there are STILL trying to convince me that I'm the idiot for interpretting the statement literally and taking GWB (their guy) at his word. Talk about irony eh? Even funnier is how the arguments advanced by the Bush ball-washers are generally flimsy, semantic based mental gymnastics that rival Clinton's famous definition of "is" defense.

But I'll give you one more chance. Please explain if you can, the logic behind the suggestion that interpretting the phrase "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" to mean that the worst is behind us, makes one an idiot?

I fully accept the notion that I was an idiot to believe him of course.



___________________
And the sandcastle virtues are all swept away,
in the tidal destruction, the moral melee – Gerald Bostock

 

[Charles_Main]

I have heard it argued that major combat operations means Conventional forces against conventional forces. Not sure I agree with that, but I think it is the best argument in defense of the comment, weak as it is.

 

[manifold]

I have heard it argued that major combat operations means Conventional forces against conventional forces. Not sure I agree with that, but I think it is the best argument in defense of the comment, weak as it is.

Even if that's true, it's still quite reasonable and probable to assume that MOST people, especially the majority with no military experience, would interpret the statement as I did.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to know what the mission IS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Major Combat operations were over, we had finished the Invasion phase and moved into the pacification and rebuilding phase. Learn some military terms and what they mean and you won't look like such idiots to those of us with some military back ground.

As for the oft cited " Iraq has been longer than WW2" claim, bullshit. The fighting to take the country lasted just a few weeks. Now unless I get to count the 9 years we spent in Japan occupying that country with A HELL of a lot of troops, as well as Germany, guess what? You don't get to compare the two.

We did not anticipate the insurgency or terrorist attacks. They had never been a big problem in the pass in situations like this and so we miss planned for the after math. Further we spent 3 years fighting the problem the wrong way. But as is usual, if you do not cut and run, you figure out what has to be done and get it done. In fact we solved this much faster then historically such operations last. 5 years as opposed to 9 or more.

Further we created a stable Government in the process and have trained its police and military so that they believe they can take over by next year. Very impressive indeed.

And our losses were minor. We have a 1000 deaths a year in peace time due to TRAINING accidents. In 5 years we have had just over 4000 die.

You non military turds need to get a clue, try the library, it has books that you can actually read about what you keep talking about with ignorance.

 

[manifold]

Learn some military terms and what they mean and you won't look like such idiots to those of us with some military back ground.

Unlike you, I don't fear being thought an idiot.

Regardless, wouldn't it be a lot easier if when the president makes a speech to the entire country, understanding what he means doesn't require that all 300 million of us be familiar with military terms? That seems just a wee bit unreasonable don't you think?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unlike you, I don't fear being thought an idiot.

Regardless, wouldn't it be a lot easier if when the president makes a speech to the entire country, understanding what he means doesn't require that all 300 million of us be familiar with military terms? That seems just a wee bit unreasonable don't you think?

No, you are being ignorant is all, but thanks for playing. He stated and was right, MAJOR military operations were over.

 

[manifold]

No, you are being ignorant is all,

Agree and disagree. I am ignorant of much, but that is not all.

but thanks for playing.

You're very welcome.

He stated and was right, MAJOR military operations were over.

I can't argue with this either, now that my ignorance is somewhat abated.


Congratulations. You post not one thing I can dispute. But you still have not acknowledged my position. I understood his statement at the time to mean the worst was behind us and even more, that quite likely a reduction in deployed military assets was on the horizon. In hindsight, I'm now convinced that I took his message exactly the way he hoped I, and many others, would. And here I sit, over 5 years later being told that isn't really what he meant. He really meant the worst is yet to come. All I can say to that is well...I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Agree and disagree. I am ignorant of much, but that is not all.




You're very welcome.




I can't argue with this either, now that my ignorance is somewhat abated.


Congratulations. You post not one thing I can dispute. But you still have not acknowledged my position. I understood his statement at the time to mean the worst was behind us and even more, that quite likely a reduction in deployed military assets was on the horizon. In hindsight, I'm now convinced that I took his message exactly the way he hoped I, and many others, would. And here I sit, over 5 years later being told that isn't really what he meant. He really meant the worst is yet to come. All I can say to that is well...I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid.

He did hope the worst was behind us and he did hope to remove troops as soon as possible, which has nothing to do with what his comments said. Major military operations were over. All that was left was pacification and rebuilding. The war consisted of 3 or 4 major military units ( Divisions) Manauvering with Divisional assest and air and naval support. After that the biggest operation was what? A brigade, mostly just battalion operations.

Here let me help you, a Division has 16 to 23 thousand men in it. Plus all added support from other sources. A brigade has maybe 4000 men in it, usually around 3000 and a battalion has around 1000. Major Operations ceased when Bush said they did.

 

[manifold]

Thanks.

At the end of the day I know when I've been played for a fool. On the plus side however, common to all such instances is this: I learned from it and have never forgotten.

 

[Paulie]

No, you are being ignorant is all, but thanks for playing. He stated and was right, MAJOR military operations were over.

Yeah, because obviously the toughest part of the mission was marching through the mostly barren desert with a scant amount of enemies firing a rifle or two at you, and perhaps an occasional RPG. And those hordes of surrendering fighters coming out of the woodwork must have been kin to trench warfare.

I mean, once house to house, hand to hand urban combat started in the ghettos of Baghdad, the CAKEWALK part began, right?

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, because obviously the toughest part of the mission was marching through the mostly barren desert with a scant amount of enemies firing a rifle or two at you, and perhaps an occasional RPG. And those hordes of surrendering fighters coming out of the woodwork must have been kin to trench warfare.

I mean, once house to house, hand to hand urban combat started in the ghettos of Baghdad, the CAKEWALK part began, right?

We all know that Chaney even gave a speech during Daddy Bush's presidency explaining what would have happen if we went into Bagdad. So even here they lied.

Greeted as liberators. LOL.

It'd be easier counting the number of times they actually told the truth.

 

[Charles_Main]

Even if that's true, it's still quite reasonable and probable to assume that MOST people, especially the majority with no military experience, would interpret the statement as I did.

I agree, I was not trying to defend the comment, I was just telling you the common defense given. I think where bush went wrong was telling us all it would be easy from then on out. Any fool knows that an occupation is harder than just destroying conventional Armies. At least it is for our military. We excel at destroying Armies in the field. In fact I am not sure there is a conventional army we could not destroy. Occupations are another story all together, and clearly something we are not great at.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks.

At the end of the day I know when I've been played for a fool. On the plus side however, common to all such instances is this: I learned from it and have never forgotten.

That's pretty nebulous, Mani. Who played you for a fool?

 

[Doug]

Let's not quibble over words. The reality is, no one who planned the invasion of Iraq foresaw the sustained, bloody resistance, the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in sectarian warfare, things like Fallujah, etc. They were going to welcome us with sweets and flowers, and be naming a square in Baghdad after George Bush.

War is like that. If you were one of the survivors lying on Omaha Beach on the morning of the 6th of June 1944, you might have been cursing the guys who planned that particular aspect of the invasion. A few years later you might have been cursing General MacArthur as you retreated before the invading Chinese Army. Your great-granddady, if he was in the Union Army, had many opportunities to curse his generals.

This is not to excuse our leaders. I think the follow-on planning for Iraq was criminally light-minded.

But ...

.... so what???

We're winning now. We could still lose. Iraq is fragile. But we made it clear we weren't leaving, and things have turned around. (I admit I didn't think it was possible. I was wrong.)

If we win in Iraq, we win big. We destabilize the whole horrible Middle East. We plant a viable democracy right square in the middle of the place, one with lots of oil money, where people can elect their government.

Can anyone say "domino theory"?