Question for Iraq war supporters

[tigerbob]

Asks the guy that believes that it -is- possible to think of, and then plan for "every" possible contingent when going to war.

Do you understand what every possible contingent means?

If you did, you'd undertsand why its pretty clear you dont think for yourself.

Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.

An asteroid strike, for instance, might have been tough to take into consideration. A plague of frogs would have been difficult to foresee.

And a power vacuum after a dictator's removal? Who would have thought?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.

Its not just difficult, its impossibe - you cannot possibly know if you have 'everything' covered, and a huge number of things that you come up with cannot be planned for.

 

[mattskramer]

Its not just difficult, its impossibe - you cannot possibly know if you have 'everything' covered, and a huge number of things that you come up with cannot be planned for.

Well. That’s sort of an answer, so I’ll comment. Oh well. We disagree. I think that before deciding to go to war, people can and should consider everything. I wonder if Bush planned for the possibility that Iraqi citizens might not be terribly excited about fighting along side us for the cause. I wonder if Bush thought that the religious factions, without national leader Saddam to maintain brutal order, might cause problems. I wonder if Bush thought that people supportive of Saddam’s Iraq or hateful toward American involvement might come to fight against American soldiers in Iraq. – and as I asked several times, I wonder if you would criticize Bush for not checking on military hospitals before the war.

 

[mattskramer]

Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.

An asteroid strike, for instance, might have been tough to take into consideration. A plague of frogs would have been difficult to foresee.

And a power vacuum after a dictator's removal? Who would have thought?

An asteroid has just as much chanced of striking America as it does of striking Iraq. A plague of frogs would be a nuisance but not a hindrance.

Okay. Suppose that I replace the superlative “every” and replace it with “many” – as in “Bush should have considered many possibilities” and made sure that we were provided with twice the armor and supplies necessary to thwart such possibilities”? It is my contention that this is possible and that Bush did not do a good job in preparing for the war and the many possibilities that could await our soldiers throughout this Iraq war.

 

[MasterChief]

Ummmm,
You are all aware that after the battle of Bull Run during the American War Between the States, Abe Lincoln's decision to fight to save the Union looked pretty stupid.

That being said--I think having Donald Rumsfeld as SOD was pure lunacy. Here was a man who wanted to micro-manage all military matters and run war on the cheap. He refused to allow military units to fight in the way they had trained. When I heard he'd refused to allow the 101st to bring its artillery to Afghanistan, I knew we were in trouble. Likewise, when he was talking Iraq and the 3rd was not allowed to disembark in Turkey yet he did not see that as a problem, I could only shake my head and knew that we were not prepared for this war.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ummmm,
You are all aware that after the battle of Bull Run during the American War Between the States, Abe Lincoln's decision to fight to save the Union looked pretty stupid.

apples and oranges

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It was the 4th Infantry Division that didn't get out in Turkey. But no problem.

Further it did not disembark because Turkey refused to allow it after agreeing to it. It was to late to stop the Invasion. Further the argument we should have had more troops ignore the fact that Kuwait was basicly stacked to the gills. The 4th had no where to go because there was no where left in Kuwait for them. We couldn't have added another 100k much less 200k troops to Kuwait.

Maybe we should have ask Syria or Iran for permission to use their territory?

It is sumple, the argument about armored vehicles is stupid. We had NEVER before faced the level of road side bombs as in Iraq. No one expected it. Rear area vehicles were never armored. The military had x number of armored vehicles based on how the units were built and trained to function. The Military rushed every available armored vehicle it could from non involved units.

Further the armor breaks the vehicles down. They were not designed for it. It is to heavy, it causes extreme wear and tear on the vehicle. It also does not actually protect the occupant from a roadside blast. It protects them from shrapnel if they are not IN the blast zone. No truck or Hummer can survive a 155 mm artillery shell going off next to it, which is what a lot of the early road side bombs were.

The armor for troops was a flak jacket, every one had one. We had never developed any special approved body armor. The argument that this armor or that was better was bogus. Further combat troops do NOT like the extra armor, it is heavy, cumbersome and hard to function in. The combat zone is HOT and the armor makes it even HOTTER.

And like it or not one does " Go to war with the army they have" Every war is like that, no one has a crystal ball to know what will happen in future wars, so in effect we arm train and prepare for the last war.

The biggest mistake we made was allowing the Republican Guard to avoid battle and disappear into the country side. The second biggest mistake we made was dismissing the entire army after we did not destroy it.

We never should have disbanded the army , that sent the wrong message. We never expected the cops to quit in mass either.

 

[DeadCanDance]

As I've said more than once ...

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.

But Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The DoD assessment back in 91 was that if Saddam was taken out, it would create a power vaccuum and lead to factional fighting, and a (as predicted then) a rush for control by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria. While some of the players have turned out to be different, the result has been essentially the same.

Strategically, as long as Saddam was in power, he stood between all the factions and kept them at bay.

for once, I am in agreement. Saddam was a thug, but he was the lesser of two evils. Now, we have a fractured, failed nation-state on our hands.

The ultimate expenditure of over a trillion dollars, and tens of thousands of dead and wounded american soldiers was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well. That’s sort of an answer, so I’ll comment. Oh well. We disagree. I think that before deciding to go to war, people can and should consider everything.

If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for.

 

[mattskramer]

If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for.

I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done. Even if it weren’t, your comment is irrelevant. Just because something has never been done does not mean that it can’t be done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done.

Aside from the fact that if you really knew about the operation, you would know better...
What makes you think everything was properly planned for?

Even if it weren’t, your comment is irrelevant. Just because something has never been done does not mean that it can’t be done.

Ah, that's it -- hold GWB to a standard that's never, ever, been met.

And you say you think for yourself.

 

[mattskramer]

Aside from the fact that if you really knew about the operation, you would know better...
What makes you think everything was properly planned for?

Did I say that everything was properly planned for in Grenada? We made intelligence mistakes and we had communication problems in Grenada but we had 7300 people on our side (military people) going in against 2200 opponents (Grenada people and Cubans). Compare that to the Iraq war. At the start of the Iraq War, Saddam had more military personnel than we did. I know that times had changed and that we had better fighter power and equipment (what we had). I still think that we should have gone in with many more armored vehicles and soldiers.

Perhaps I don’t have an ideal war for comparison. I still think that we committed glaring errors and miscalculations in the Iraq war. I guess that I would just prepare more thoroughly for a war than would most leaders (as costly as that overly-preparedness may be). When I heard about the disrepair of the hospital, I thought, “Uh. Hello leaders, didn’t you think to run a check of the hospitals before going to war?” That would have been an obvious step in preparing for war. “Hey, the enemy might have a lot of explosives and supporters. Perhaps we should double up on armor and supplies.” I mean that these are like a given.

Ah, that's it -- hold GWB to a standard that's never, ever, been met.

And you say you think for yourself.

No. There you go again putting words in my mouth. I would hold all presidents to an equal standard. I don’t know if I posted a criticism here but I think that Clinton really messed up in Somalia. Like Bush, he did not send in nearly enough armor, vehicles, or soldiers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did I say that everything was properly planned for in Grenada?

You used Grenada as an example of an operation where things were properly planned.

No. There you go again putting words in my mouth. I would hold all presidents to an equal standard.

Good. Please beging decribing their errors and how they are accountable.
In total, and in detail.

 

[mattskramer]

You used Grenada as an example of an operation where things were properly planned.

I said that I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done - in that we went in with overwhelming odds on our side and swiftly took care of business and got the job done.

Good. Please beging decribing their errors and how they are accountable. In total, and in detail.

Similarly to the Iraq War, in Operation Gothic Serpent we didn’t send in nearly enough vehicles, weapons, or soldiers to take care of business. We had 600+ while the enemy has around 20,000+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gothic_Serpent

…the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 837 calling for the arrest and trial of those responsible for the ambush. US warplanes and UN troops began a concentrated attack on Aidid's stronghold. Aidid remained defiant, and the violence between Somalis and UN troops escalated....

In Mogadishu, the task force occupied an old hangar and construction trailers under primitive conditions. The force even lacked potable water and was subject to frequent mortar fire.

This sort of reminds me of the trouble we had in getting Saddam and the trouble we seem to be having in trying to find Osama. I call it half-hearted efforts and tiddly winks.

-----

P.S. What ever happened to Adid?
The United States withdrew its forces soon afterwards and the United Nations left Somalia in 1995. Aidid then declared himself President of Somalia in June 1995. Aidid died on in 1996 as a result of gunshot wounds sustained a week earlier in a fight with competing factions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said that I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done

Yes... after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"

So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?

Given your standard, can one name ANY military operation that was properly planned for?

Similarly to the Iraq War, in Operation Gothic Serpent we didn’t send in nearly enough vehicles, weapons, or soldiers to take care of business

You have several hundred more to go.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes... after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"

So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?

Okay. Okay. I think that I see what you are driving at. I already removed superlatives and absolutes regarding war preparedness. Now cut me some slack. No. Grenada was not perfectly planned for but I think that it was better planned for than was the Iraq war.

Given your standard, can one name ANY military operation that was properly planned for?

No but some are better than others and I think that Bush blundered badly in Iraq one, relatively speaking.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes... after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"

So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?

Given your standard, can one name ANY military operation that was properly planned for?


You have several hundred more to go.

M14,

Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14,
Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?

Of course it is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. Okay. I think that I see what you are driving at. I already removed superlatives and absolutes regarding war preparedness.

Good.
So now, your argument is... what?

 

[ReillyT]

Of course it is.

By what criteria do you judge if a military endeavour is well planned or badly planned?