Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[The Decider]

Quote by: Dieval And if you continue further down that same paragraph that you pulled apart, he says - "AN EVEN WORSE AND MORE DISTURBING ASSESSMENT IS THAT AMERICA CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE POLITICAL CONSENSUS NECESSARY TO DEVISE A GRAND STRATEGY THAT WILL SYNCHRONIZE AND COMMIT OUR NATIONAL POWER TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN IRAQ. " Sounds to me that he's saying we COULD acheive victory there if everyone would get behind our troops, give them what they need and give them the power to WIN the war, rather than one group consistantly trying to undermine our actions there.

Three points. 1) The Surge. Sanchez explicitly criticized the surge as a "desperate" "manipulation" of troops and personnel that won't (and isn't) working. Why can't you address that point directly, Dieval/xyzer?

2) Sanchez still supports the war. I never said otherwise. Nobody said otherwise on this thread. But Sanchez wants a DIFFERENT kind of war from the surge and the low troop numbers. Sanchez sidestepped the issue of where those extra troops would come from. I gave an answer for him--THE DRAFT. Care to comment on those specifics from the good general?

3) Blaming the media is the last refuge of failed arguments. Sanchez shares the disease with the man he criticizes, George Bush. That flaw still doesn't detract from the general's surprisingly blunt criticism of the past and current war--a war we are supposed to believe is getting better on the say so of one General Petraeus.

So who do you trust--General Sanchez or General Petraeus? Let me know AFTER your next anti-media rant.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart . There's goes that dang Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, wreaking their havoc yet again.

Please explain to me how people in Washington constantly saying that the war is lost doesn't demoralize our troops and help strengthen our enemies??

Quote by: Sonart . Our military didn't lose this... they've valiantly done everything we've asked of them. The Bush League lost it through their arrogant incompetence. If the enemy thinks they're winning, so be it... such is consequence of allowing a free press that reports the facts. And if our troops think we've lost, blame those who brought it on us, the Bush League, not the people who are simply pointing out the truth we need to know.

You actually believe the media tells the truth?? :rolleyes:

Quote by: Sonart . What meaningless votes???

How much time have politicians in Washington wasted debating non-binding resolutions, which accomplished absolutely nothing??

Quote by: Sonart . Slander our troops? Who did that? Or are you referring to the pursuit of war criminals who've brutally murdered innocent Iraq civilians... something which, by the way, I predicted years ago would become more prevalent as our troops became more and more frustrated by the unwinnable quagmire of a guerilla war and the inherent inability of telling friend from foe.

I'll have to look in to who said what, but there are multiple accusations that our troops are killing innocent civilians, they're terrorists, etc, etc, etc.
And just where are our troops brutally murdering innocent Iraq civilians??

Quote by: Sonart . None!!! And we WON in a matter of months!!! Is there... by any strange chance... a LESSON here? DUUUHHH!!!! As in don't put troops in a position of occupying hostile ground where they can get bogged down by a local resistance? Instead, punish them from over the horizon, where they can't touch you and from where you ALWAYS have an exit.

You missed the point I was making...telling troops currently ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN HARMS WAY that they've lost, is not nearly the same as when they are conducting bombing runs at 30,000 feet.

Quote by: Sonart . The plain and simple fact, Dieval, is that the more "progress" the Bush League kept claiming to have made in Iraq, the worse the situation continued to get. After four years of ever increasing violence, it simply became impossible to continue the lame fiction that the 'Liberal Press' was somehow hiding all the good news coming out of Iraq.

And there were good things that happened there, yet the fictional Liberal media NEVER reported on such things. New hospitals have been built, new schools opened, etc, etc, yet they seem to ONLY report on the carnage over there....

Quote by: Sonart . So even if the 'Surge' succeeds in forcing some of the insurgency into hiding, it accomplishes what???

Decreasing the amount of civilian and US troop deaths..That sounds like a good thing to me.

Quote by: Sonart having an Iraqi military or police they can trust or an Iraqi government capable to taking over the country,

This is happening, much to your dismay.

Quote by: Sonart getting the upper hand back in Afghanistan or of winding down the pace of operations anytime in the next several years...

And how long did you think the war on terror would take? A week? :rolleyes:

Quote by: Sonart By "PC war", you mean not allowing our troops to conduct the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi civilians in order to make it easier for them to kill a few insurgents. It's not the Democrats in Congress who are saying that's a really bad way to fight a war, it's the experts in guerilla warfare, like General Patreus, who are saying that's a really bad way to fight a war.

I don't mean slaughtering Iraqi civilians...please. But there is very little reason troops need to be on foot in dangerous areas, when we have armored vehicles, tanks, and other such weapons which take them considerably further out of harms way.

Quote by: Sonart Only one minor problem... what we already have is stretched way too thin. Read a newspaper... we don't have more troops and more equipment. Not without a draft, or sharing the economic burden with a wartime surtax.

We do have the needed troops, stationed in other countries around the world, that could be used. And right off hand, I don't know the size of our military..can you say for certain we don't have the troops? Are you in the military and know the exact size that's available for use?

Quote by: Sonart Which do they hate more, the Congress that supports Bush or the Congress that opposes Bush? Ooops... better not go there.

What were the polling numbers on the republican congress?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart . Really? I think 9/11 accomplished exactly what bin Laden intended for it to accomplish... to provoke us into invading and occupying a moslem country, so they could repeat their glorious victory over the invading and occupying Soviets and defeat the other super power. Not only did we fall for it, we arrogantly invaded and occupied TWO Moslem countries. Now we're in danger of losing both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Um, perhaps... military personnel under George Washington managed to establish political grounds for the Unitied States, and I'm sure there are other examples... but certainly no military personnel imposed on a local population by a government from another continent.

#1
If Osama bin-Laden is that "smart", then U.S. needs to dismantle all the intelligence agencies and hire him, instead.

U.S. made a crucial mistake in both states :
- Afghanistan : military action(s), in order to get Osama bin-Laden & Co.
- Iraq : political decision(s), in order to control that state

#2
G.Washington vs. Iraq and/or Afghanistan ?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval Please explain to me how people in Washington constantly saying that the war is lost doesn't demoralize our troops and help strengthen our enemies??

Sure, if you'll explain to me how it doesn't demoralize our troops to look around them in Iraq and watch as day by day, despite their best efforts, the situation simply gets worse and worse, as their rotations get longer and longer, their returns stateside get shorter and shorter, and their equipment is breaking down more and more often.

And then you'd have the folks back home know nothing about it because those supporting the war are more concerned about losing face than losing troops.

From this morning's paper: The real Iraq as we saw it By 12 former Army captains

--"Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with “the surge,” we simply do not have enough soldiers and Marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Although temporary reinforcing operations in places such as Fallujah, Najaf, Tal Afar and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet – moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts."

"There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice." --

Quote by: Dieval You actually believe the media tells the truth??

You believe the Bush League does???? 5 years into the war, the Bush League has been shown to have been completely wrong in everything they told us, and the critics of the war completely right.

So yeah, over the long haul, the media -- except for partisan hacks like Faux News -- generally gets it right.

Quote by: Dieval I'll have to look in to who said what, but there are multiple accusations that our troops are killing innocent civilians, they're terrorists, etc, etc, etc. And just where are our troops brutally murdering innocent Iraq civilians??

Haditha, to cite one example. And again, expect more such cases as our troops get more and more exhausted from longer rotations, and more and more frustrated with a deadly enemy they can't tell apart from the civilian population.

Quote by: Dieval You missed the point I was making...telling troops currently ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN HARMS WAY that they've lost, is not nearly the same as when they are conducting bombing runs at 30,000 feet.

And you've missed the point that Clinton didn't put them into a hopeless quagmire they had no chance of winning. You need to redefine 'ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN HARMS WAY' into 'OCCUPYING ENEMY LAND, SURROUNDED BY HOSTILE RESISTANCE'.

Our troops were ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN HARMS WAY' during Desert Storm, but there was never any question of losing, was there? That only became a factor when the Bush League started up a bad war.

Quote by: Dieval But there is very little reason troops need to be on foot in dangerous areas, when we have armored vehicles, tanks, and other such weapons which take them considerably further out of harms way.

And once again, how does this equate to being PC???

If our troops are pounding the pavement, patroling on foot, it's because those who know about fighting guerilla wars -- like General Patreus -- say it's what needs to be done, not Democrats in Congress and anti-war pundits. They want our troops out of there altogether, remember?

Quote by: Dieval ]Decreasing the amount of civilian and US troop deaths..That sounds like a good thing to me.

For how long? Until the surge ends? Or do we simply make the surge permanent?

This (having an Iraqi military or police they can trust or an Iraqi government capable to taking over the country) is happening, much to your dismay.

Oh really??? According to whom?


U.S. report says Iraq Interior Ministry 'dysfunctional'

--"Iraq's Interior Ministry is regarded as "dysfunctional and sectarian," and the National Police should be "disbanded and reorganized," according to an independent report ...produced by the Independent Commission on Security Forces in Iraq."--

U.S. Military Rejects Call To Disband Iraqi Police ...

--"We are way past the point where we just fire everyone and start over," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who commands U.S. military forces in a large swath of central Iraq, where he seeks to have five more police battalions assigned."--

--"It (the report) said the Iraqi Defense Ministry is increasingly capable and the Iraqi army has made measurable progress, although it will not be ready to take over domestic security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months. In contrast, it called the Interior Ministry "dysfunctional" and unable to control tens of thousands of its armed members. The national police was singled out as "beyond repair,"--

By any analysis, a functioning government, military and police are years away. Years our crumbling military simply doesn't have.

Quote by: Dieval And how long did you think the war on terror would take? A week?

War on terror? Is that sorta like the War on Drugs?

It all depends on how smart or dumb you fight it, and fighting an international confederation of terrorist cells with our military is just dumb. It's the wrong weapon.

Bush apologists like to point out that, thanks to our war in Iraq, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks. This is a total lie. There have been, at the very least, two major terrorist attacks aimed at U.S. civilians. It's just that they were both found out and thwarted by British intelligence and police.

In fact, the most success we've had has been in rounding up terrorist cells using internationally cooperative intelligence and police work... in Spain, Germain, Italy and Great Britain. That's how to fight a war on terrorists, not with our military. They're designed to fight actual wars, not underground criminal gangs who we declare 'War' on for PR purposes.

Quote by: Dieval ]We do have the needed troops, stationed in other countries around the world, that could be used. And right off hand, I don't know the size of our military..can you say for certain we don't have the troops? Are you in the military and know the exact size that's available for use?

It's not me saying it, Dieval, it's our military. Y'know, as in General George Casey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Army is worn too thin, says general 9/27/07

--"The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict - one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.
Article Tools

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."--

Quote by: Dieval What were the polling numbers on the republican congress?

About 10 points higher 1 and 2 years ago. But then, so were Bush's I guess folks were hoping for more from a Democratic Congress, but they're still blaming the Republicans for it.

.

[Gaius]

Nice post, excellent deconstruction of the republican mindset. Its easy to destroy, but its always nice to see someone doing it

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 If Osama bin-Laden is that "smart", then U.S. needs to dismantle all the intelligence agencies and hire him, instead.

Why would anyone assume that bin Laden is stupid?

It makes total sense to me... why attack us on 9/11? As horrible as the attack was, the U.S. is so vast and economically powerful that a dozen such attacks would never really significantly hurt us. So what would hurt us?

Well, Vietnam hurt us. Economically, politically, internationally, etc. And as both Vietnam and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan had shown, a determined people on their own turf, no matter how weak nationally, could defeat a super-power.

Besides, how would anyone imagine the U.S. would respond to such an attack?

Quote by: Rainbow U.S. made a crucial mistake in both states : - Afghanistan : military action(s), in order to get Osama bin-Laden & Co.

Interestingly enough, when we first decided to go into Afghanistan

Quote by: Rainbow #2 G.Washington vs. Iraq and/or Afghanistan ?

Someone had suggested that "no military personnel can establish political grounds for any state, except for non-democratic one."

This seemed like an odd thing to say, considering that our own democratic state, the United States of America, was formed as a result of military action.

.

[xyzer]

I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to Sonarts good but tediously detailed post on the sucess or lack of it in Iraq. I will say that it inpart substantiates my question as to the lack of clearly defined goals for the operation? Has anyone ever really defined success?

I will say this the surge was not ongoing when Sanchez served, nor were the so called complaining captains serving during the few months old surge.? I think it was a sop to criticism and replaced a definition of what the adminstration feels is success! However, I would also point out that a captain in charge of several hundred men doesn't really have the over all picture. Another problem Sonart, is that Iraq before the invasion was a third world country that might appear to a US citizen much different than it was in Saddams regime when in reality it isn't much different.. Full time electric power was not a reality then as it is now? Saddam drained the marshes depriving a segment of the population of their livelihood. Saddam oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds. Thats forgotten?

I don't know what the captains are comparing progress to, do you? certainly not a country of our standards? While I agree that the war hasn't progressed well, I am inclined to believe that the press and the critics have made it seem much worse than it really is. If you are a reporter you take pictures of the aftermath of explosions rather than a peaceful market place? If you are a reporter you venture into the mean streets in response to an event rather than to cover progress or seek out positve progress. The whole campaign has been reported in negatives and thats what people eventually come to believe?

Dieval also has a good point...how is the troop morale affected by the condemnation and defeatism of our elected representatives? Even general Sanchez said if we don't have a collective national effort to fight a war we wont win it? Here is a good example of the push and pull of politics. The arm chair generals in Congress aided by the press have
become a drag on success.

[Gaius]

Quote by: xyzer I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to Sonarts good but tediously detailed post on the sucess or lack of it in Iraq. I will say that it inpart substantiates my question as to the lack of clearly defined goals for the operation? Has anyone ever really defined success?

You should have taken time out of this useless post to make a response then, or simply not post til you have a response and the time to make it. But i guess you just want to waste our time by watching you rant.

If you are a reporter you take pictures of the aftermath of explosions rather than a peaceful market place?

I agree, why did all the new stations cover 9/11 instead of other parts of new york, or the calm midwest? DERRRRRRR

If you are a reporter you venture into the mean streets in response to an event rather than to cover progress or seek out positve progress. The whole campaign has been reported in negatives and thats what people eventually come to believe?

Ya dude, if car bombs started going off in downtown new york, i dont need the press to report on that, what i need is for them to report the good news, like places were bombs werent going off, DERRRRR

[Sonart]

Quote by: Xyzer Another problem Sonart, is that Iraq before the invasion was a third world country that might appear to a US citizen much different than it was in Saddams regime when in reality it isn't much different.

Iraq used to be quite modern, but yeah, after losing two wars and 12 years of economic sanctions, how about that.

Quote by: Xyzer Full time electric power was not a reality then as it is now?

Where'd you get that information? Baghdad averages about 8 hours of power a day... considerably less outside of Baghdad. They still have no reliable water system, phone service and remain plagued with mile long waiting lines for gasoline.

Quote by: Xyzer Saddam drained the marshes depriving a segment of the population of their livelihood. Saddam oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds. Thats forgotten?

Is that any worse than what's going on in, for example, Darfur, or North Korea or half a dozen other countries?

We got out of Somalia because Americans determined that, however grand it was for us to go in and help the hundreds of thousands of pitiful, starving Somalis, it wasn't worth the lives of our soldiers. Now suddenly helping the pitiful Iraqis is?

Quote by: Xyzer The whole campaign has been reported in negatives and thats what people eventually come to believe?

No, Xyzer, it hasn't. For a long time, with their imbedded reporters, the American media was acting like so many cheerleaders in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush was a flightsuited hero, the Republican Congress was in lockstep, and most of the media and the American people were fully behind the effort.

Only after months began creeping by, with no WMD, with Abu Ghraib and with the violence ever increasing instead of decreasing, as was constantly promised, did the press and Americans start wondering just what we'd gotten into and why none of the wonderful promises seemed to be panning out.

It wasn't that long ago that those of us who were critical of the war were being ridiculed and laughed at. Well, it turns out we were dead right, and it pisses you off, doesn't it.

Quote by: Xyzer The arm chair generals in Congress aided by the press have become a drag on success.

Folks have been promising success for so long, while things have instead gone from bad to worse to horrible, that such blather as yours has become meaningless, Xyzer. No one seriously envisions "success". The absolute best anyone is hoping for is for some way to declare victory and escape, while saving as much face as possible.

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

Oooops!!! I wrote... "Interestingly enough, when we first decided to go into Afghanistan...", but I never completed the paragraph.

Interestingly enough, when we first decided to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, Bush placed CIA chief George Tenet in charge of the operation. It was his plan to flood Afghanistan with CIA operatives and special forces, using local resistance to help root out bin Laden, and then sweep across Europe and Asia using cooperative intelligence and police forces to round up the various al-Qaeda cells. Something I've always advocated.

The military in Afghanistan would be called in only when blunt force was needed for the end game and final capture.

Alas, as they would do later with Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney led a palace coup, taking over the Afghan operation from Tenet, turning it over to Tommy Franks and, eventually, blowing their chance to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to Sonarts good but tediously detailed post on the sucess or lack of it in Iraq. I will say that it inpart substantiates my question as to the lack of clearly defined goals for the operation? Has anyone ever really defined success?

This is not the time to argue semantics on points of this magnitude. Define success, man, that sounds like Wiretap himself speaking.


This just illustrates the disingenuous nature of the people supporting your side of these discussions.

[xyzer]

I'm amused Gaius, you show evidence of a controlling personality?

You should have taken time out of this useless post to make a response then, or simply not post til you have a response and the time to make it. But i guess you just want to waste our time by watching you rant.

If I'm wasting your time don't read my rant? If you are referring to Miltons post, I didn't think it worthless just too detailed to resopond to in a few words.

But I will post my opinions in spite of your evident distaste for them. You and 'Dirty Harry' Reid should bone up on the Ist amendment?
I notice none of you have answered my main assertion and that is what is the definition of 'success' in the Iraq venture? IMNSHO it isnt defined by the President, Congress or any of you naysayers who access this thread?

[xyzer]

By the way Sonart I disagree with you on this..

For a long time, with their imbedded reporters, the American media was acting like so many cheerleaders in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush was a flightsuited hero, the Republican Congress was in lockstep, and most of the media and the American people were fully behind the effort.

The so called embedded reporters were only embedded during the assault phase of the campaign. They soon retired to the 'Green Zone" and its comforts and sallied out to report whenever there was something exciting going on? A couple of big mistaken reports I remember was our troops were permitting thieves to steal art treasures froma museum and the one about our troops leaving ammo dumps untended so they might possibly be used by the enemy.The negaitive aspects? The lightening campaign was reported as exciting and successful. After that the reports became more sensational and critical.

[thx1138]

Quote by: xyzer You got the point Zee! I can only ask you, why doesn't Congress strive for agreement either. All I've seen from them is a stubbor, many faceted, attempt to hinder the effort...through funding, resolutions, and other means. It seems obvious to me that demanding a hurried exit from Iraq is ridiculous and would percipitate chaos in the middle east! Agree Bush has been stubborn and slow to act but all Congress has done is antagonoze him and those who are leading the fight in Iraq..Patraeus and Sanchez. Realistic solutions appear to be lacking? Bottom line.... it takes a coordinated effort at home to fight such a campaign and as Sanchez mentions it hasn't happened! And I add again the press has reported results in a derrogatory fashion...often far from truthful?

Let's not forget that the threat of a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city was used to duke you into the war. Will you fall for it again in Iran?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer A couple of big mistaken reports I remember was our troops were permitting thieves to steal art treasures froma museum and the one about our troops leaving ammo dumps untended so they might possibly be used by the enemy.The negaitive aspects? The lightening campaign was reported as exciting and successful. After that the reports became more sensational and critical.

'Mistaken' reports???

MarineTimes -- GAO: Most IEDs built from looted Iraqi ammo, Apr. 2007 --"Unattended Iraqi ammunition depots provide the majority of explosives used by insurgents to attack U.S. and coalition troops with improvised explosive devices, according to a Government Accountability Office report released April 27.“There’s an unknown number of sites that remain unsecured today,” GAO Director Davi D’Agostino said."--

Knight-Ritter -- Vast Amounts of Weapons-Related Material Missing, Official Says, Oct. 2004 --"WASHINGTON - The more than 320 tons of missing Iraqi high explosives at center stage in the U.S. presidential election are only a fraction of the weapons-related material that's disappeared in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion last year.

Huge amounts of arms and ammunition were stolen from military sites, and there's "ample evidence" that Iraqi insurgents are firing looted weapons at U.S. troops and using some of them in car bombs and improvised explosive devices, said a senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity."--

Looted Iraqi Relics Slow To Surface , Nov. 8, 2005 --"More than 2 1/2 years after looters sacked Iraq's National Museum in Baghdad, Iraqi authorities and police forces throughout the world are still searching for thousands of stolen items, including a handful of the most famous artifacts in history."--

For over 4 years now, Xyzer, we've been listening to the same crap, "the lib'rul media got it wrong... there were WMD, Saddam did have connections to al-Qaeda, they're not reporting the good news, blah, blah, blah." Yet time and time again, with a little digging, these "mistaken" reports were shown to have been correct after all.

Yeah, the media turned on the Bush League, but not for a year or so, and they could still be talked into hyper-ventilating events the administration wanted us to believe were positive mileposts... the purple pinkies, the capture of Saddam, etc, etc. But when a war touted as a cakewalk only managed to sink further and further into bloody chaos, with the much ballyhooed "good news" -- rebuilding schools and hospitals -- promptly abandoned because of the increasing violence, when everything that the Bush League told us and promised us turned out to be nonsense, and the entire effort exposed as a grossly negligent, incompetent fiasco...

...what did you expect? The media to lie to us?

.

[xyzer]

...what did you expect? The media to lie to us?

Right on Sonart!
Yep I did and I do! I'm wondering how US GIs intent on capturing Iraqis had time to guard the national museum? Why are they blamed for the looting that went on as they fought their way up to Bagdad. Thats not evidence of anything but press perfidy! The logic of the press is often faulty!
Another little caveat that evidently escapes the antiwar nuts and that is we don't have enough troops to guard all the Iraqi Ammo Dumps in a country the size of California. The libs unrealistic expectations are that everything in a war has to be perfect and rational? It aint?

Do you think the flake who wrote the scare piece about vast amounts of explosives looted realized that Saddam hauled a lot of that stuff out before we even got there and our troops were engaged in taking real estate not guarding it? Gen Powell showed pics of loaded trucks driving away from storage areas just before the invasion? What were the Iraqis doing while this went on, preventing the Iraqi army from using the stored stuff? Who inventoried it before and after? The press?

And how in the hell did our officials know that the non existent Al Qaida people would be looting anything? Lefitst have been hammering away on the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, haven't they? Are we now admitting there were really some bad guys over there?

[Sonart]

--"This is not just any old warehouse in Iraq that happened to have explosives in it; this was a leading location for developing nuclear weapons before the first Gulf War," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a nonprofit organization that has followed Iraq's attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade. ''The fact that it had been left unsecured is very, very discouraging. It would be like invading the US in to order to get rid of [weapons of mass destruction] and not securing Los Alamos or [Lawrence] Livermore [National Laboratory]."--

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

Quote by: Xyzer Yep I did and I do! I'm wondering how US GIs intent on capturing Iraqis had time to guard the national museum? Why are they blamed for the looting that went on as they fought their way up to Bagdad.

Who's blaming our troops, Xyzer????? Not me. That's the whole frigging point that seems to be eluding you. Those were all things that SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR PRIOR TO THE INVASION, BUT WEREN'T! Those were exactly the reasons General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that we'd need at least 300,000 troops to occupy Iraq, before Rumsnamara unceremoniously dumped his ass.

Quote by: Xyzer Another little caveat that evidently escapes the antiwar nuts and that is we don't have enough troops to guard all the Iraqi Ammo Dumps in a country the size of California. The libs unrealistic expectations are that everything in a war has to be perfect and rational? It aint?

The libs unrealistic expectations???

Dood, if you're planning to invade and occupy a large, hostile nation the size of California, which happens to be surrounded on three sides by even more hostile Moslem and Arab populations, smack in the middle of Jihad Central, a part of the world where terrorism and holy war are practiced art forms, then yeah, securing the mass of accumulated weaponry surrounding you strikes me as one of the very first tasks you do, so you need to have sufficient people to do it.

That's why not having planned for this obvious necessity strikes me as just another example of gross criminal negligence, the reckless, willful incompetence, with which this adventure was undertaken.

How does it not strike you the same?

Quote by: Xyzer Do you think the flake who wrote the scare piece about vast amounts of explosives looted realized that Saddam hauled a lot of that stuff out before we even got there and our troops were engaged in taking real estate not guarding it?

And again, and far more importantly, why didn't Rumsnamara anticipate that it would happen??? Christ, a friggin' 6 year-old could predict they'd try to stash munitions for a post-invasion resistance.

Quote by: Xyzer Gen Powell showed pics of loaded trucks driving away from storage areas just before the invasion? What were the Iraqis doing while this went on, preventing the Iraqi army from using the stored stuff? Who inventoried it before and after? The press?

What do you THINK they were doing? Did you imagine the Iraqis were simply going to walk away from them, for us to gather up at our leisure?

Did it simply never occur to you that, especially after experiencing Desert Storm, the Iraqis knew they could never stop the Americans in a conventional battle, that they put up a token resistance to the invasion and then melt away with their vast stashes of weapons in preparation for a long term unconventional war of guerilla resistance. I know that's EXACTLY what I figured would happen.

--"We were going to use most of the Iraqi army for reconstruction, we were going to hire them and make them, for lack of a better word, reconstruction battalions and use them to help rebuild the country…. They had the skill set to do everything I thought we needed to do. I mean, they know how to fix roads, they know how to fix bridges, they know how to move rubble around. They're all trained to a certain degree. They know how to take orders, they have a command and control system, they have their own transportation, you can move them around -- that type of thing. So that was a good concept. The problem with that concept is the Iraqi army evaporated. It wasn't there at the end of the war…. A lot of people said the Iraqi army would collapse, and when they said, "collapse," they meant "surrender," so, therefore, it would be available. No, it didn't surrender. It just evaporated."-- Jay Garner, former U.S. Administrator of Iraq

Quote by: Xyzer And how in the hell did our officials know that the non existent Al Qaida people would be looting anything? Lefitst have been hammering away on the fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, haven't they? Are we now admitting there were really some bad guys over there?

You friggin' moron! Bush was explicitly warned 3 months before the invasion that this was EXACTLY what was likely to happen. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded because there was no reason for terrorists to be in Iraq. After the invasion, they came to Iraq in the hundreds because that's were WE WERE, pinned down as occupiers right where they wanted us, easy targets sitting in their own back yard.

Intelligence group warned of pitfalls of Iraq invasion

--"The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence.

The assessments predicted that an invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or U.S.-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said.

The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said."--

Xyzer, what is it going to take for you to comprehend what a monstrous clusterfuque this war has been and how criminally negligently it was handled by those supposed to be running it?

.