My view on Iraq War. Surge - Well, it is about time!

[ReillyT]

Aha -- I was waiting for this:
The Bush administration didnt plan for it because of something other than the porobability of it happening.
You say that, based on... what?

I think you interpreted that in a manner not intended. The fact that the Bush administration didn't plan for it may be as much a reflection of the thought processes and mind sets of the administration personnel as an absolute unlikelihood that it would not occur. In short, someone different looking at the same evidence may have found it more likely that the Bush administration. So it is not just the evidence that is judged, but the thought processes of the administration itself. Apparently, you were waiting in vain.

Of course I did. The sutiations aren't comparable, just like Greneda isnt comparable.

That is a cop out. We are not talking about the specifics of the engagement itself. We are talking about how history should judge the decisions of our executives. In this regard, it is absolutely comparable - as it FDR and Pearl Harbor, Johnson and Vietnam, etc. However, I would prefer we just stick to the Bay of Pigs because that was such an unmitigated fuck-up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you interpreted that in a manner not intended. The fact that the Bush administration didn't plan for it may be as much a reflection of the thought processes and mind sets of the administration personnel as an absolute unlikelihood that it would not occur.

What, specifically, makes you say that the administration looked at the possibility and said 'that wont happen'?

That is a cop out.

No its not. You have to compare apples and apples.

Iraq and armored trucks is comparable to WW2 and Sherman tanks, not the Bay of Pigs -- we invaded France with woefully inadequate equipment, specifically, our tanks. We COULD have waited until we had an ample supply of M26 Pershings, something that would have given our boys a chance against German armor. But, we didn't - we chose the probability that we would be able to deal with the German armor otherwise. A LOT of men died in those Shermans -- FAR more than in Iraq. We chose to play the odds, just like in Iraq, and go with the Sherman because it was deemed 'good enough', didnt cost as much, and was far easier to ship, even though we had better equipment avaiable.

Further, we told our guys that our equipment, especially our tanks, were the best thing going, and woud cut the Germans apart - that is, we not only knew that so many men would die unncessarily, but we lied to them about it.

Given your argument re: Bush:
What direct criticism does FDR deserve for these plans and all those unnecessary deaths?
Who levied these criticisms, and when?

 

[ReillyT]

What, specifically, makes you say that the administration looked at the possibility and said 'that wont happen'?


No its not. You have to compare apples and apples.

Iraq and armored trucks is comparable to WW2 and Sherman tanks, not the Bay of Pigs -- we invaded France with woefully inadequate equipment, specifically, our tanks. We COULD have waited until we had an ample supply of M26 Pershings, something that would have given our boys a chance against German armor. But, we didn't - we chose the probability that we would be able to deal with the German armor otherwise. A LOT of men died in those Shermans -- FAR more than in Iraq. We chose to play the odds, just like in Iraq, and go with the Sherman because it was deemed 'good enough', didnt cost as much, and was far easier to ship, even though we had better equipment avaiable.

Further, we told our guys that our equipment, especially our tanks, were the best thing going, and woud cut the Germans apart - that is, we not only knew that so many men would die unncessarily, but we lied to them about it.

Given your argument re: Bush:
What direct criticism does FDR deserve for these plans and all those unnecessary deaths?
Who levied these criticisms, and when?

That is just silly. First, the issue isn't just body armor. It is body armor and manpower. In short, it is the whole strategy for conducting the post-invasion occupation.

We are also talking about standards for judging the activities of a President. If Bush executed the invasion and war in a certain way based on his analysis of the situation, then we judge the outcome and the analysis. If Kennedy sponsored an invasion based upon his analysis of the situation, then we judge the outcome and the analysis that led up to the invasion. It is the exact same thing.

As for FDR, if he was late in planning for the war and had the means to do so (i.e., neither the Congress nor the Great Depression were preventing him), then it is fair to criticize him for his pre-war conduct in this regard. Any criticisms are surely outweighed by his subsequent foresight and contributions, but that initial judgement does not disappear. So, quit ducking the question: Is Kennedy not accountable (not blameworthy) for the Bay of Pigs because he and his advisors believed it would work? Is any other judgment impermissible hindsight?

 

[ReillyT]

What, specifically, makes you say that the administration looked at the possibility and said 'that wont happen'?

I don't know, maybe they did look at the possibility of a civil conflict after the overthrow of S.H. and thought it might happen. However, that certainly doesn't make them look any more competent. Then it isn't a question of not seeing. It is a question of seeing and not doing.

 

[jillian]

I don't know, maybe they did look at the possibility of a civil conflict after the overthrow of S.H. and thought it might happen. However, that certainly doesn't make them look any more competent. Then it isn't a question of not seeing. It is a question of seeing and not doing.

Well, we know that the assessment was made during Gulf I that if they went to Baghdad, they would destabilize the government and there would be sectarian violence. It was why Bush I chose not to go further. Bush II said he wasn't interested in taking advice from *his* father, but only from *the* Father.

How do you think that worked out for him?

 

[Dr Grump]

Given your argument re: Bush:
What direct criticism does FDR deserve for these plans and all those unnecessary deaths?
Who levied these criticisms, and when?

I know you like to talk specifics, and that is all that matters to you. I'm gonna go on a tangent here, so don't go all Holier Than Thou on me stating that I am not addressing your point.

And this is my point. In order to answer the above question, you have to take context into account. In this case, the types of war. World War II was an open and shut case of overt Nazi and Japanese aggression. Iraq is far from it. It may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And this is my point. In order to answer the above question, you have to take context into account. In this case, the types of war. World War II was an open and shut case of overt Nazi and Japanese aggression. Iraq is far from it. It may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

You're right -- none of this has anything to do with the issue being duscussed. You might as well be telling us how much you love 50cent and hate Carrie Underwood.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is just silly. First, the issue isn't just body armor. It is body armor and manpower. In short, it is the whole strategy for conducting the post-invasion occupation.

Actually, the issue as presented was body armor and armored vehicles, and that all of the troops should have had the same of each that the combat troops had, and that ALL eventualities/EVERY possibility should be planned for.

That last part, alone, is enough to render the entire argument absurd.

We are also talking about standards for judging the activities of a President. If Bush executed the invasion and war in a certain way based on his analysis of the situation, then we judge the outcome and the analysis. If Kennedy sponsored an invasion based upon his analysis of the situation, then we judge the outcome and the analysis that led up to the invasion. It is the exact same thing.

Yes. And in both cases, its a matter of probability - you plan for what's most probable. However small you judge the probability of an event, there's still a chance of that event, and so if that unlikely event occours, its NOT necessarily a matter of poor assessment and incompetence on hte part of those doing the planning, as you argue, but that the probabilities didnt play out.

As for FDR, if he was late in planning for the war and had the means to do so (i.e., neither the Congress nor the Great Depression were preventing him), then it is fair to criticize him for his pre-war conduct in this regard. Any criticisms are surely outweighed by his subsequent foresight and contributions, but that initial judgement does not disappear.

"He may have screwed up, deliberately and unnecessarily killing thousands of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK"


That's sad, dude.

Is Kennedy not accountable (not blameworthy) for the Bay of Pigs because he and his advisors believed it would work? Is any other judgment impermissible hindsight?

You can blame Kennedy for anything you want - the discussiuon -here- is, in hindlsight, whether or not ALL of our troops should have had the same vehicles and equipment as our combat troops.

Since you and Matt seem to have a handle on these things, you can do all the planning for the next war. I'll be sure to offer my after-the-fact criticisms.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, the issue as presented was body armor and armored vehicles, and that all of the troops should have had the same of each that the combat troops had, and that ALL eventualities/EVERY possibility should be planned for.

That last part, alone, is enough to render the entire argument absurd.

We are not talking about all possibilities. We are not talking about Klingons from space (as you rather ludicrously pointed out). We are talking about a very real possibility, if not probability.

Yes. And in both cases, its a matter of probability - you plan for what's most probable. However small you judge the probability of an event, there's still a chance of that event, and so if that unlikely event occours, its NOT necessarily a matter of poor assessment and incompetence on hte part of those doing the planning, as you argue, but that the probabilities didnt play out.

When planning is done well, you don't just plan for the most probable outcome as you see it. You plan for all the probable or reasonably possible outcomes. Of course, this doesn't get around the fact that the administration obviously didn't lend enough weight to the outcome that did in fact occur. In fact, failing to provide enough weight to a possibility (absent unforeseeability - which is clearly not the case here) that does in fact occur is poor planning.

"He may have screwed up, deliberately and unnecessarily killing thousands of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK"


That's sad, dude.

Well, it may not have been a deliberate lack of planning, and I don't even know that any other option was possible at the time (check a history book). However, it is true that commanders make mistakes and soldiers do die as a result. However, commanders are also judged on the totality of their decisions and outcomes (as Bush will be). Your pathetic little comments aside, if you can't see that... well, then you are putting your head in the sand.

You can blame Kennedy for anything you want - the discussiuon -here- is, in hindlsight, whether or not ALL of our troops should have had the same vehicles and equipment as our combat troops.

Since you and Matt seem to have a handle on these things, you can do all the planning for the next war. I'll be sure to offer my after-the-fact criticisms.

I do blame Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs invasion. I think almost everyone says he made a mistake there - except you... who refuses to answer the question.

You are a smart guy, but you lack intellectual honesty. It is a shame. Your position that "after-the-fact criticisms" are unwarranted is just plain absurd, and I don't even think you really believe it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know, maybe they did look at the possibility of a civil conflict after the overthrow of S.H. and thought it might happen. However, that certainly doesn't make them look any more competent. Then it isn't a question of not seeing. It is a question of seeing and not doing.

So there isnt anything that specifically makes you say that the administration looked at the possibility and dismiss the possibilit out of hand -- you're just guessing.
Thanks.

 

[ReillyT]

So there isnt anything that specifically makes you say that the administration looked at the possibility and dismiss the possibilit out of hand -- you're just guessing.
Thanks.

I don't know that they dismissed it how of hand. There were warnings from the National Intelligence Council. Maybe they considered them very seriously. Maybe they never seriously considered them at all. I don't know.

They did, however, to the extent that they did listen to those warnings, ultimately decide that those warnings were not precient enough to plan accordingly. That was their decision, and it was the wrong one.
Thanks.

Try not to read into my statements things that aren't there. I know it might be difficult for you to converse without such a tactic, but gosh darnit, I have faith in you kid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are not talking about all possibilities.

I suggest you read the discussion Matt and I were having.
ALL possibilites, EVERY eventuality, ALL troops equipped like the combat troops -- damn the cost!

When planning is done well, you don't just plan for the most probable outcome as you see it. You plan for all the probable or reasonably possible outcomes.

That is -exactly- right.

Of course, this doesn't get around the fact that the administration obviously didn't lend enough weight to the outcome that did in fact occur.

That isnt -at all- necessarily the case.

You ASSUME that because the situation that happened wasnt planned for that the Administration either made a mistake or deliberately didn't weigh it properly. What you continue to fail to consider is that, even if weighed and planned for properly, there's still the chance that the unlikely will occur.

And so, for your criticisms to carry any weight, you have to show that the situation wasn't given the proper weight.

Well, [FDR deliberately killing our tankers by issuing them sub-standard equipment] may not have been a deliberate lack of planning, and I don't even know that any other option was possible at the time (check a history book).

Hmm. And you don't give this benefit of the doubt to GWB. Why?

However, it is true that commanders make mistakes and soldiers do die as a result. However, commanders are also judged on the totality of their decisions and outcomes (as Bush will be).

So, we're back to "He may have screwed up, deliberately and unnecessarily killing thousands of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK".

In the grand scheme of things, the post-fact whining and complaining by people that dont know the first thing abut military planning, if remembered at all, will be seen as the political posturing and partisan bigotry that it is.

Your pathetic little comments aside, if you can't see that... well, then you are putting your head in the sand.

Aww... getting a little ruffled?

I do blame Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Good for you.

You are a smart guy, but you lack intellectual honesty.

Likewise.

 

[ReillyT]

I suggest you read the discussion Matt and I were having.
ALL possibilites, EVERY eventuality, ALL troops equipped like the combat troops -- damn the cost!

It was clear that Matt was talking about all realistic possibilities - not a corresponding Chinese invasion to thwart the US. As for troops, he mentions them in his very first post.

You ASSUME that because the situation that happened wasnt planned for, that the Administration either made a mistae or deliberately didnt weigh it properly. What you continue to fail to consider is that, even if weighed and planned for properly, there's still the chance that the unlikely will occur.

And so, for your criticisms to carry any weight, you have to show that the situation wasn't given the proper weight.

That all depends on how unlikely the scenario is. The determination of the unlikelihood of the scenario was made by the administration. If there determination was wrong, they should accept the blame for it. How do we know it wasn't given proper weight? 1. Because it ultimately occurred 2. Because the intelligence community warned that this was a real possibility.

Of course, this is judged in hindsight. But that is how all decisions and actions are and should be judged. That is how people and actions are assessed. Do you have a sense of who were good presidents and who were bad presidents? How do you arrive at this? Is it impossible to say that Johnson did not handle the Vietnam conflict very well, or that Clinton made a mistake of the Somalia intervention? I don't think so. Nobody else thinks so either.

Hmm. And you don't give this benefit of the doubt to GWB. Why?

It is purely a factual question. I have no idea in what manner FDR attempted to prepare the military for WWII. I don't know if he requested a larger defense budget and it was rejected. I don't know if the Great Depression left the country so economically depressed that there were inadequate means to ready the military. I know more about the Iraq war because I have lived through it.

So, we're back to "He may have screwed up, deliberately and unnecessarily killing thousands of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK".

Presidents are judged on the totality of their actions and decisions. That is just the way it is.

In the grand scheme of things, the post-fact whining and complaining by people that dont know the first thing abut military planning, if remembered at all, will be seen as the political posturing and partisan bigotry that it is.

I doubt it. Criticisms about Johnson and the Vietnam war aren't viewed as just the political posturing of the day.

Aww... getting a little ruffled?

It isn't easy talking to a brick wall. It can be frustrating.

 

[ReillyT]

Perhaps there is an easier way to go about this.

My understanding of your position is:

It is inappropriate to judge GWB on his actions and decisions leading up to the Iraq war as he was merely making calculations based on his assessment of the possibilities and probabilities of the potential outcomes; and in his assessment, the possibility of civil conflict of the nature that subsequently existed was insufficient to warrant the time and expense of additional troops and equipment.

As such, it is not appropriate to judge any president on their decisions and conduct so long as they have made an assessment of probabilities in a world of finite resources and acted accordingly - regardless of how events subsequently turn out.

If this is your position, we can just agree to disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was clear that Matt was talking about all realistic possibilities

Except that I specifically addressed that idea and he continued with all/any.

That all depends on how unlikely the scenario is. The determination of the unlikelihood of the scenario was made by the administration. If there determination was wrong, they should accept the blame for it.

Yes. You keep saying that.
What you continue to fail to consider is that, even if possibilities are weighed and planned for properly, there's still the chance that the unlikely will occur

How do we know it wasn't given proper weight? 1. Because it ultimately occurred 2. Because the intelligence community warned that this was a real possibility.

Neither of these things point to the administration not giving the possibility the proper weight. You, yourself, when asked for specific reason to think that the proper weight wasnt given, admit that 'maybe this, maybe that, I don't know'.

It is purely a factual question. I have no idea in what manner FDR attempted to prepare the military for WWII. I don't know if he requested a larger defense budget and it was rejected. I don't know if the Great Depression left the country so economically depressed that there were inadequate means to ready the military. I know more about the Iraq war because I have lived through it.

And, you admit that there are critical things you dont know -- particularly, the planning, the weight given to various possibilities, etc -- about the Iraq war.
And yet, no benefit of the doubt.

Presidents are judged on the totality of their actions and decisions. That is just the way it is.

And so, 60 years from, now when the war in Iraq is won and long in the past, you'll say "GWB may have screwed up, unnecessarily killing several dozen of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK".
Right?

I doubt it. Criticisms about Johnson and the Vietnam war aren't viewed as just the political posturing of the day.

First, this is apples and oranges, both in terms of the wars themselves and the criticisms levied against the particular Presidents

Second, Vietnam is mostly forgotten -- there are two entire generations of people that know nothig at all about it. The Boomers hang onto it because thy lived through it, but their progeny usually don't have a clue. In the end, like Vietnam, the Iraqi war will become a footnote -- and those few non-combat Gis that died because they didnt have the equipment that the combat troops had will be forgotten.

Dont think so?
In Vietnam, the troops in the trucks running supplied thru VC held territory needed to up-gun and up-armor their vehicles because of the VC ambushes. They called these vehicles 'gun trucks'. You can Google them if you want. The situation there was somewhat similar to that in Iraq.

But, in the discussion regarding Iraq, none of the antagonist brought up the issue - no parallels were made, no snide comments were tossed, no accusations of 'wont we ever learn?'

Why? Because those that presently accuse Bush either forgot about them, or, as is more likely - and as I would bet applies to you - didn't know about them to begin with.

It isn't easy talking to a brick wall. It can be frustrating.

I know. But I respond to you anyway.

 

[ReillyT]

And so, 60 years from, now when the war in Iraq is won and long in the past, you'll say "GWB may have screwed up, unnecessarily killing several dozen of GIs -- but we won anyway, so that's OK".
Right?

I fully expect that will be the case if the Iraq war turns out for the best. Any pre-invasion mistakes will be forgotten and Bush will be judged very well by history - if it turns out for the best.

Anyway, read my prior post and maybe we can just agree to disagree. Sorry about the brick wall comment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyway, read my prior post and maybe we can just agree to disagree. Sorry about the brick wall comment.

Roger roger.

 

[mattskramer]

Actually, the issue as presented was body armor and armored vehicles, and that all of the troops should have had the same of each that the combat troops had, and that ALL eventualities/EVERY possibility should be planned for.

I stand by my comment that more time should have been allowed before gong to war so that the soldiers had all of the armor and supplies that they thought that they would need. When what was to be a pep-rally and photo-op for Bush’s secretary of defense turns into a gripe sessions where soldiers complain that they need more supplies, something is definitely amiss in my humble opinion.

However small you judge the probability of an event, there's still a chance of that event, and so if that unlikely event occours, its NOT necessarily a matter of poor assessment and incompetence on the part of those doing the planning, as you argue, but that the probabilities didnt play out.

The very sentence suggests incompetence and negligence. One brainstorms and plans for every possible offense scenario before going to war – and provides equipment accordingly.

Since you and Matt seem to have a handle on these things, you can do all the planning for the next war. I'll be sure to offer my after-the-fact criticisms.

That would not concern me in the slightest. I’m without a doubt that there would have been less to be criticized if I had led the war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I stand by my comment that more time should have been allowed before gong to war so that the soldiers had all of the armor and supplies that they thought that they would need.

They had all of the armor and supplies that they thought that they would need.

The very sentence suggests incompetence and negligence.

No. It doesn't.

One brainstorms and plans for every possible offense scenario...

No. You dont. Because its not possible to do so.

That would not concern me in the slightest. I’m without a doubt that there would have been less to be criticized if I had led the war.

Given what you've demostrated here, the only thing that's certain in this case is that the war would never have started, as you dont have the capacity to plan even the movement of troops to their start lines.

 

[mattskramer]

His argument is based on the idea that the administration failed plan for -every- possibility and -every- eventuality. His lack of familiarity with the subject precluded him from realizing that this is never done because it is impossible to do, and he refuses to accept that.

It is possible, though very expensive, to prepare for every possibility.

Also, consider for a moment the reaction from theese people (in this case, Matt) had all that money been spent and the threat not materialized.

And before you do -that- take note that the US military has thousands of up-armored Humvees and mine resistant vehicles, bought just for this war, that will be superflous in the next; once we are out of Iraq, these vehicles will sit unused -- certainly as an example of military waste, mismanagement, war profiteering, cronyism and poor planning by the Bush administration.

There is a simple solution for that. Take the extra, unused armor and vehicles “back to the shop” and store them for the next possible war. Break some down and sell the parts for revenue. Make appropriate cuts in the military. Convert some of the vehicles to make them conform to requirements for public or private transportation on our city streets. Send some of the unused items to the surplus stores. Auction off some stuff and donate the money to the orphans of our soldiers. Spend some of the money to clean up the shoddy federal hospitals. There are all sorts of possibilities.

Matt's argument is nothing more than Monday Moring Quarterbacking, derived from partisan talking popints and media pundits -- no real thought on his part went into this.

No. It is common sense to be fully prepared before going to war. It is concern for the security and safety of our troops – which the trigger-happy Bush seemed not to exhibit- except for crocodile tears during perceived photo opportunities. You never did answer my question about the shoddy hospitals. Don’t you think that Bush should have had them inspected and prepared for the wounded soldiers before the war took place - or did it never dawn on him that we would be getting a bunch of wounded soldiers?

No. No real though went into Bush concerning the possible consequences of this war.