In the debate over the war and its aftermath, the Bush administration has portrayed the insurgency that is still roiling Iraq today as an unfortunate, and unavoidable, accident of history, an enemy that emerged only after melting away during the rapid American advance toward Baghdad. The sole mistake Mr. Bush has acknowledged in the war is in not foreseeing what he termed that "catastrophic success."
But later, in the same article, they point out:
A senior officer who served in Iraq but did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of his position said: "The real question is, did there have to be an insurgency? Did we help create the insurgency by missing the window of opportunity in the period right after Saddam was removed from power?"
Looking back at that crucial time, those officers, administration officials and others provided an intimate and detailed account of how the postwar situation went awry. Civilian administrators of the Iraqi occupation raised concerns about plans to reduce American forces; intelligence agencies left American forces unprepared for the furious battles they encountered in Iraq's southern cities and did not emphasize the risks of a postwar insurgency. And senior American generals and civilians were at odds over plans to build a new Iraqi army, which was needed to impose order.
What's even better is the title of the story: The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War
Oops.
Well, it's nice to see the "liberal" press finally waking up and reporting on how illprepared the Bush 43 Admin was for the Iraq Attack. The thing is, it's been pretty obvious to most of us. Many experts were telling the president and the press that when USUK troops get inside Baghdad, the guerrilla war that would ensue would be brutal. Rummy and others said that Iraq would be on it's back faster than a cheap whore. It turned out that the dissenters were right. So, where was the press when they could have made a difference?
Anyway, the point is that Bush and Co. have made a mistake. Well, another mistake. Guess what? Bush still won't admit that one, either.
I watched a recent episode of the PBS news series Frontline that was essentially a documentary on Kerry and Bush and while it was generally balanced to not favor one over the other, there was a moment I found very unnerving. Journalist and author Bob Woodward was interverviewed for the show and, in a nutshell, explained that he had told him a story about Tony Blair. That Blair had been asked by a reporter in the UK if he had any doubts about the Iraq invasion. Blair admitted that when you get a letter from the mother of a dead soldier in Iraq demanding to know why her son is dead, you have doubts. Woodward then posed the same question to Bush. Woodward said Bush paused for a moment and then said "no."
Any human who doesn't admit doubt after sending over 1000 American soldiers to their deaths is lying to us or himself--or worse, is inhuman.
I figure any one of those reasons is a good reason to not vote for Bush.
Oh, and by the way, that Frontline episode was good, but not great. While you're watching it, you might find yourself thinking that it's very good. The thing is, they don't mention the phrase "neo-conservative" once. How can you do a docu on W, without mentioning the Neo-Cons?
UPDATED 7:15pm PST 10/20/04:
It looks like the NYT is doing penance. Here's another article from them on Bush's mistakes:
Poor Intelligence Misled Troops About Risk of Drawn-Out War
Just as the intelligence about Iraq's presumed stockpiles of unconventional weapons proved wrong, so did much of the information provided to those prosecuting the war and planning the occupation.
In a major misreading of Iraq's strategy, the C.I.A. failed to predict the role played by Saddam Hussein's paramilitary forces, which mounted the main attacks on American troops in southern Iraq and surprised them in bloody battles.
The agency was aware that Iraq was awash in arms but failed to identify the huge caches of weapons that were hidden in mosques and schools to supply enemy fighters.
On postwar Iraq, American intelligence agencies underestimated the decrepit state of Iraq's infrastructure, which became a major challenge in reconstructing the nation, and concluded erroneously that Iraq's police had had extensive professional training.
What's really funny to me is that they fail to mention that it's generally understood that the USMil goes after infrastructure-related targets. So, the reason the infrastructure was so screwed was because the US made it that way--if not in 2003, back in Desert Storm.
No comments:
Post a Comment