Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
After more than 3 years of beating my head against a brick wall with pinheads over Iraq, I have objectively considered everything, and have determined that the Iraq War was, indeed, a mistake. Many of you will be so giddy over this statement, you will not even bother to read the rest of the post, and that is fine, go ahead and stick my words in your sig lines and carry on with your mission of disrespecting and ridiculing people who disagree with you.
I believe Iraq was a mistake, but not because of all the reasons spewed by pinhead haters of president Bush. Those arguments have all been addressed, and there simply was no mistake made in the objectives or principles of the war, they were completely well-founded, and based in reasoned objectivity and logical justification.
The "mistake" was, to think that America could intelligently understand the principles and objectives, and would have the resolve to complete the mission, once it had been embarked upon. To compound this mistake, there was no one in the Administration capable of effectively articulating these principles and objectives to the media and the people or explain the importance of completing them. Because of this miscalculation, and inability to adjust, the Administration found itself quickly on its heels, trying to make half-assed attempts to defensively explain itself, and do battle with the formidable liberal spin machine.
Being that Bush is a Bush, just as his father ignored the polls leading up to his re-election, Dubya ignored the growing sentiment against the war, and underestimated the cumulative effect it would eventually have. For months on end, liberals and democrats would lob criticism after criticism at the president, and the administration followed the elder Bush's pattern of ignoring them, not responding, not offering a counter point, and allowed the points to stand without challenge. Regardless of whether the detractors made any valid point, it was the perception of the ignorant masses, which mattered. Again, to compound this mistake, Bush couldn't articulate his way through wet toilet paper, and had no chance of making a "Clinton Comeback" in this political game.
The first mistake Bush made, was listening to Colin Powell on Iraq, in attempting to garner UN blessings for the war. He should have used the presidential authority Bill Clinton used in '98 to bomb Saddam, and never even brought it to the UN. IF, all of the administrations reasons and justifications were legitimate, there is no requirement for UN approval, he is within his executive powers to take whatever action necessary to defend the security of the United States, it's been done countless times in US history, and is pretty much the whole reason we elect a "president" ...to preside over these kind of urgent and key decisions that have to be made at a moments notice. Otherwise, we could allow Congressional vote on anything we ever do as a nation.
The next mistake was in not formally declaring war. This should have been done on September 14, 2001. The declaration of war should have been voted on by Congress, against all Radical Islamist Terror Organizations in general. It would have defined War on "Terror" in a clear and concise manner, and this would have led to a completely different understanding of what we are doing and who we are at war with. In establishing this, it could have played an important role for justification of taking military action in Iraq, because regardless of what pinhead propagandist tell you, there certainly was a legitimate connection between Saddam's regime and Radical Islamist Terror Organizations. This angle could never be explored, because the essential groundwork was not done, the Declaration of War would have covered it. Instead, the "case was made" on the basis of these "WMD's" that Saddam posed a threat in having.
The next mistake... The WMD's! In making the argument about the WMD's, a physical tangible is introduced... the physical existence of which, can be debated, questioned, suspected, scoffed at, contradicted, speculated upon, and the perception of having to produce this physical object to legitimize it. Compound this mistake in strategy, with the common sense fact of the matter here... Saddam would have to be the biggest idiot to ever live, to have been "caught with the goods" after the enormous period of grace, courtesy of the 12-year UN debacle. The odds of being able to produce this tangible physical object, were virtually nil from the start. Whether WMD's existed, didn't exist, were moved, had been destroyed, were being smuggled out to alQaeda... it didn't matter, and never should have been made a vital part of the justification for war. The "case" as it were, should have always been centered around the declared War on Terror.
On top of all these mistakes, is the mistake of not handling Iraq like we handled Afghanistan, and attempting to place an "interim ruler" in Baghdad. This irreversible mistake was the needed fuel for the insurgency to gain strength, and they exploited it every single day. We mistakenly assumed the combat-heavy forces we executed, could handle any resistance, and failed to understand the nature of a terrorist enemy. Bush, in a very rare moment of poignancy, said that the War on Terror would be unlike any war we've ever fought, because this is a different type of enemy, and because of this nature, we would have to fight this war differently.... then, he and Rumsfeld promptly tried to fight a 'conventional' war in Iraq.
The next mistake, keeping Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, after Abu Grahib. Bush should have taken that opportunity to replace Rumsfeld with someone of military background and experience... Norman Schwarzkopf comes to mind. Having a Defense Secretary who is familiar with military operations in Iraq, would have been enormously beneficial to us in this war. Instead, we got the Bush loyalty and indifference to reality of public perception, and inability to adjust or compensate. The more the left related Iraq to the quagmire of Vietnam, the more Rumsfeld did the very things in Iraq, that turned Vietnam into a quagmire in the first place. He began to do what Rumsfeld does best, and micromanage the whole thing. The very same mistake was made by Westmorland during Vietnam, and the results were catastrophic.
With all of these mistakes, comes the consequences... the current public perception of Iraq... which, in the end, is really all that matters. We can't determine what will become of the middle east in years to come, for all we know, in fifty years, it could be a giant glass fishbowl full of radioactive oil. We do know, the phrase, "Where are the WMD's?", will be around for eternity. Bush will be remembered as one of, (if not the), most unpopular two-term presidents in history. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, there will be pinheads who go to their graves convinced that it was all about the oil and revenge for Pappy, just as those who have gone to their graves believing FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. In the end, Bush will be remembered for the same mistakes of his father, his inability to understand America doesn't understand.
I believe Iraq was a mistake, but not because of all the reasons spewed by pinhead haters of president Bush. Those arguments have all been addressed, and there simply was no mistake made in the objectives or principles of the war, they were completely well-founded, and based in reasoned objectivity and logical justification.
The "mistake" was, to think that America could intelligently understand the principles and objectives, and would have the resolve to complete the mission, once it had been embarked upon. To compound this mistake, there was no one in the Administration capable of effectively articulating these principles and objectives to the media and the people or explain the importance of completing them. Because of this miscalculation, and inability to adjust, the Administration found itself quickly on its heels, trying to make half-assed attempts to defensively explain itself, and do battle with the formidable liberal spin machine.
Being that Bush is a Bush, just as his father ignored the polls leading up to his re-election, Dubya ignored the growing sentiment against the war, and underestimated the cumulative effect it would eventually have. For months on end, liberals and democrats would lob criticism after criticism at the president, and the administration followed the elder Bush's pattern of ignoring them, not responding, not offering a counter point, and allowed the points to stand without challenge. Regardless of whether the detractors made any valid point, it was the perception of the ignorant masses, which mattered. Again, to compound this mistake, Bush couldn't articulate his way through wet toilet paper, and had no chance of making a "Clinton Comeback" in this political game.
The first mistake Bush made, was listening to Colin Powell on Iraq, in attempting to garner UN blessings for the war. He should have used the presidential authority Bill Clinton used in '98 to bomb Saddam, and never even brought it to the UN. IF, all of the administrations reasons and justifications were legitimate, there is no requirement for UN approval, he is within his executive powers to take whatever action necessary to defend the security of the United States, it's been done countless times in US history, and is pretty much the whole reason we elect a "president" ...to preside over these kind of urgent and key decisions that have to be made at a moments notice. Otherwise, we could allow Congressional vote on anything we ever do as a nation.
The next mistake was in not formally declaring war. This should have been done on September 14, 2001. The declaration of war should have been voted on by Congress, against all Radical Islamist Terror Organizations in general. It would have defined War on "Terror" in a clear and concise manner, and this would have led to a completely different understanding of what we are doing and who we are at war with. In establishing this, it could have played an important role for justification of taking military action in Iraq, because regardless of what pinhead propagandist tell you, there certainly was a legitimate connection between Saddam's regime and Radical Islamist Terror Organizations. This angle could never be explored, because the essential groundwork was not done, the Declaration of War would have covered it. Instead, the "case was made" on the basis of these "WMD's" that Saddam posed a threat in having.
The next mistake... The WMD's! In making the argument about the WMD's, a physical tangible is introduced... the physical existence of which, can be debated, questioned, suspected, scoffed at, contradicted, speculated upon, and the perception of having to produce this physical object to legitimize it. Compound this mistake in strategy, with the common sense fact of the matter here... Saddam would have to be the biggest idiot to ever live, to have been "caught with the goods" after the enormous period of grace, courtesy of the 12-year UN debacle. The odds of being able to produce this tangible physical object, were virtually nil from the start. Whether WMD's existed, didn't exist, were moved, had been destroyed, were being smuggled out to alQaeda... it didn't matter, and never should have been made a vital part of the justification for war. The "case" as it were, should have always been centered around the declared War on Terror.
On top of all these mistakes, is the mistake of not handling Iraq like we handled Afghanistan, and attempting to place an "interim ruler" in Baghdad. This irreversible mistake was the needed fuel for the insurgency to gain strength, and they exploited it every single day. We mistakenly assumed the combat-heavy forces we executed, could handle any resistance, and failed to understand the nature of a terrorist enemy. Bush, in a very rare moment of poignancy, said that the War on Terror would be unlike any war we've ever fought, because this is a different type of enemy, and because of this nature, we would have to fight this war differently.... then, he and Rumsfeld promptly tried to fight a 'conventional' war in Iraq.
The next mistake, keeping Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, after Abu Grahib. Bush should have taken that opportunity to replace Rumsfeld with someone of military background and experience... Norman Schwarzkopf comes to mind. Having a Defense Secretary who is familiar with military operations in Iraq, would have been enormously beneficial to us in this war. Instead, we got the Bush loyalty and indifference to reality of public perception, and inability to adjust or compensate. The more the left related Iraq to the quagmire of Vietnam, the more Rumsfeld did the very things in Iraq, that turned Vietnam into a quagmire in the first place. He began to do what Rumsfeld does best, and micromanage the whole thing. The very same mistake was made by Westmorland during Vietnam, and the results were catastrophic.
With all of these mistakes, comes the consequences... the current public perception of Iraq... which, in the end, is really all that matters. We can't determine what will become of the middle east in years to come, for all we know, in fifty years, it could be a giant glass fishbowl full of radioactive oil. We do know, the phrase, "Where are the WMD's?", will be around for eternity. Bush will be remembered as one of, (if not the), most unpopular two-term presidents in history. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, there will be pinheads who go to their graves convinced that it was all about the oil and revenge for Pappy, just as those who have gone to their graves believing FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. In the end, Bush will be remembered for the same mistakes of his father, his inability to understand America doesn't understand.
