Question for Iraq war supporters

[ReillyT]

I havent a clue. See, I know I know a lot. I know there are things I don't know. And there are things I don't know I don't know. I'd need to know all these things.

One of the things I -do- know is that, long term, its very hard to predict what an adversary will do, to the level that, two years before he does it, you can make sure you have the right equipment in the right place at the right time. No one has that sort of foresight, and it rather to silly to argue that someone should.

Okay, I can buy that. Depending on the scenario, I might disagree whether someone should have the foresight to prepare for things sufficiently ahead of time, but as long as you are consistent in how you apply your metric... I can buy it. Considering your standards, I can see why you choose not to opine on something like the Bay of Pigs (not a slight by the way, I can respect your viewpoint).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, I can buy that. Depending on the scenario, I might disagree whether someone should have the foresight to prepare for things sufficiently ahead of time, but as long as you are consistent in how you apply your metric... I can buy it. Considering your standards, I can see why you choose not to opine on something like the Bay of Pigs (not a slight by the way, I can respect your viewpoint).

Fair enough.

Just for the record...
Its my understanding that the Bay of Pigs failed, in large, part, due to a lack of support from the US, primarily in the form of airpower. This wasnt a fault in the planning, its was a fault in the decision to not provide the air support that was planned.

In that, if the failure was due to the lack of air support, and that support was lacking because of a decision to not send it, then the fault, so far as that goes, lies with the person that decided to not send the air support. the planning itself may have been perfect, but, obviously, if a principle part of the plan is deliberately held back, you cannot fault the plan (or the planners).

 

[ReillyT]

Fair enough.

Just for the record...
Its my understanding that the Bay of Pigs failed, in large, part, due to a lack of support from the US, primarily in the form of airpower. This wasnt a fault in the planning, its was a fault in the decision to not provide the air support that was planned.

In that, if the failure was due to the lack of air support, and that support was lacking because of a decision to not send it, then the fault, so far as that goes, lies with the person that decided to not send the air support. the planning itself may have been perfect, but, obviously, if a principle part of the plan is deliberately held back, you cannot fault the plan (or the planners).

But maybe we can't fault the person who decided not to send air support either - unless we know why exactly they didn't send the air support. Maybe there were political considerations, maybe information was held up, maybe faulty information was passed along...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But maybe we can't fault the person who decided not to send air support either

Well, at least part of the reason it failed was because of him.
He may have had good reson, he may not have, but that's why it failed.

IF an effort fails because of an external decision to hold back an element of a plan, you cant (necessarily) blame poor planning for the failure.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, at least part of the reason it failed was because of him.
He may have had good reson, he may not have, but that's why it failed.

IF an effort fails because of an external decision to hold back an element of a plan, you cant (necessarily) blame poor planning for the failure.

Well, to the extent we have the information, we know it may have failed because there wasn't air support. Perhaps a downed phone line or typo was responsible for that (or something else we have no idea about), so Mr. X (whose identity we don't know) shouldn't be blamed on suppositions.

I think I like this approach.

However, you are right that if this is what occurred, one shouldn't blame the planners - although I still personally believe in the "buck stops here" approach, so I will continue to blame Kennedy. I say tomato, You say... tomato (damn it if it isn't spelled the same).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, to the extent we have the information, we know it may (b/c we can't be sure of the alternate outcome) have failed because there wasn't air support. Perhaps a downed phone line or typo was responsible for that (or something else we have no idea about), so Mr. X (whose identity we don't know) shouldn't be blamed on suppositions.

No, from what I understand, there was a decision was to not send the aircraft.

However, you are right that if this is what occurred, one shouldn't blame the planners - although I still personally believe in the "buck stops here" approach, so I will continue to blame Kennedy.

I doubt the airpower was withheld w/o his approval.

 

[mattskramer]

Its possoible to say, sure.

But "Plan for everything you can think of and then double what you think need' isnt possible in reality.

See, in reality, you have limits, limits that cannot be ignored or moved at the wave of a hand or dimissed by simply saying that 'we are the most powerful nation in the world'. No matter how hard you try, some things just can't be done, for any number of reasons, many of which are quite often completely out of your control.

There isnt a military planner, through the course of recorded history, that would not have LOVED to be able to 'figure out what you need and double it'. Few, if any at all, have ever had the luxury to be able to do that.

If you knew -anything- about military planning, you'd understand.

Here is a real life example of what I mean by thinking of as many possibilities as you can and then giving yourself twice as much coverage as you had originally planned for.

My wife and I wanted to go to the Texas State Fair a few months ago. I haven’t been to a fair in decades. I thought that I had considered all possibilities. I considered how long it would take to reach the fair. I thought about the price for tickets. I thought about the price for food. I considered other variables and finally I expected that the trip and amusements would cost $100. We took $200 from our bank account. We then decided, even at that price, that it would be worth it to “get away for a while”.

Well, I made some wrong turns so it took more gasoline than expected. Then, I forgot that it cast money to park your car near the fair. I didn’t realize how much the price for amusements cost. My wife wanted to play more games at the Midway arcade than I had anticipated. We ate more than I thought that we would and food cost more than I expected.

The gross expense for the trip and its amusements and return home cost $178.00. We came home with $22.00 left over that we put back into the bank.

See? That is all there is to it. My idea, though it might not have been taught or tried militarily, is not impossible. It simply asks the question: Would this particular endeavor (visit to the fair, war in Iraq, etc.) be worth the cost we should spend to make sure that as many possibilities as we can think of are accounted for?

Wars should not be played on the cheap.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is a real life example of what I mean by thinking of as many possibilities as you can and then giving yourself twice as much coverage as you had originally planned for.

My wife and I wanted to go to the Texas State Fair a few months ago....

Dude...
Even the smallest miltary operation is FAR more complicated than your trip to Texas. At this point, its pretty clear you are neither listening nor hearing.

 

[mattskramer]

Dude...
Even the smallest miltary operation is FAR more complicated than your trip to Texas. At this point, its pretty clear you are neither listening nor hearing.

The same principle applies. Instead of cars, we use tanks and jets. Instead of a few hundred dollars, we are working with several billion dollars. Instead of a day, we are talking about several years. Yet, the same principle applies. Plan ahead, think of as many possible problems that might arise, consider the cost to defend against those possibilities, and then, just to be safe, double the price. Then decide if it is worth it.

Yes. War is more complicated than is a vacation trip. There would be more things to consider, but the principle is the same.

 

[Warner]

First off lets be reasonable. There is no way military planners can account for "every" possibility. There must be some limits of reasonability. And sometimes unreasonable things may occur.

For example, in the War of 1812 the British defeated the Colonial defenders in Washington and burned the city. The operation was well planned and succeeded. However, there was no planning to protect the victorious British army from the HUGE TORNADO (perhaps more than one) that set down while the British troops were setting fire to the city.

http://www.afweather.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123042444

The end result was a serious defeat which probably reduced British strength sufficiently to allow the American victory at Baltimore which effectively won the war.

There is simply no planning for such things.

-----------------------------------

As for the Bay of Pigs fiasco - the CIA planned that OP, but they were unable to keep the lid on it. The Russian's and therefore the Cuban's were ready for it. Airpower might have made a difference, but the Soviet's were prepared with a response (in another part of the world) should JFK have decided to commit US airpower to that fight.

The plan was weak in that it depended on tight security while also depending on foreigners (the Cuban "freedom fighters").

----------------------------------

Finally, getting back to the meat of this topic, the Iraq war was ill conceived not because GWB had a bad plan for war but because he had a foolish plan for peace. His assumption that the majority of Iraqi's would stand up for freedom and embrace a Western-style democracy was pure stupidity.

What amazes me is GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean, and thus chose not to invade in the Gulf war. Every reason he gave for not doing so has come to pass in under his son's invasion.

The war is unwinnable because the goals are unrealistic. We must change our goals or be defeated. At this point our primary goal should be to secure oil to pay for this fiasco, and to keep Iran from becoming the defacto ruler of Iraq.

 

[jillian]

Except that if you read Daddy Bush's book, you'll know that in this case they DID know.

So, while I agree that not every contingency can be provided for, when your State Department reports predict pretty much exactly what happened (and I say pretty much because I'm going by what the elder Bush said and haven't read it myself) then there's really no excuse besides incompetence to fail to provide for the known factors. So, even if one agrees with the initial action, one still has to acknowledge the failure of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

They should have at least listened to Colin Powell if they were going to proceed.

 

[Warner]

Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so. I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).

This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.

Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America

 

[tigerbob]

Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so. I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).

This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.

Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America

Broadly agree, but to say GWB is responsible for destroying America is a bit glib isn't it? He has harmed America's credibility globally, but that hardly amounts to destruction.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so. I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).

This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.

Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America

That rhetoric is a little bit extreme, isn’t it? I doubt that Bush fully understood what he was doing. He is a clumsy war hawk who didn’t sufficiently consider the consequences of his invasion of Iraq. He didn’t even make sure that throughout the war the soldiers had more than enough armor. He didn’t even check on the hospitals before having us go to war. Simple steps that I think should be obvious precautions.

Yet, GWB did not destroy America. America is not destroyed. America is still one of the greatest nations – but with a clumsy and careless leader.

 

[MasterChief]

This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.

You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.

 

[maineman]

You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.

Carter was a smart guy and well meaning. Big difference.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Carter was a smart guy and well meaning. Big difference.

Sure thing, you would support Pol Pot if he were a democrat.

 

[MasterChief]

Carter was a smart guy and well meaning. Big difference.

I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory. But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion. Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president. Well meaning but completely ineffective. His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.

 

[tigerbob]

Carter was a smart guy and well meaning. Big difference.

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

Carter doesn't come out particularly well in the average scholar rankings of US Presidents. At =28th, he's currently six places lower than GWB.

And on the individual poll rankings, JC only cracks the top 20 once. Carter also fails to make the top 10 among historians who describe themselves as liberals. Among conservatives, he's at the lower end of the scale (one place above Nixon).

It remains to be seen whether GWB's current 22nd place will stand the test of time. It's only based on the aggregation of 2 polls currently, so I'd guess not.



Actually, I've just noticed that the further you scroll down that page, the worse the Bush adminisration looks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory. But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion. Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president. Well meaning but completely ineffective. His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.

Careful or Nancy will start claiming your a teenage pimple faced kid and no vet.