06-18-2004, 11:28 PM
The media spin on the war is actually quite comical to me. Here we have people drawing parallels to the Vietnam War for a conflict where we've only had about 600 soldiers killed in the course of a year. To put that in perspective both New York and Chicago had over 600 homicides last year. The thing that is disturbing to me about the response to US casualties is that it indicates we have a weak stomach for war. I am of the opinion that if we're not willing to die for a cause then we have no business killing other people for it. But then again that is why soldiers are soldiers and civilians are civilians. Most civilians probably do not understand military sacrifice and never will.
The only parallel I can see with Vietnam though, is that the political leadership's involvement in military planning might be higher than it should be. Several US generals have openly criticized the strategy of going into the war with less force than what was needed to totally stomp out any chance of insurgency. Still, we're not doing too badly considering we left several Iraqi ammunitions depots open for looting.
As for the intelligence, I can appreciate the difficulty in compiling an accurate picture of the situation on the ground. In Bush's defense as president I think its reasonable to assume that the information you receive on your front desk is somewhat accurate. That said there is a level of verification and objective scrutiny that must take place. For instance, when Iraqi exiles give you intelligence you have to consider that they have an agenda to push. When you have your own people do the legwork and refute previous assertions you probably should take heed. I don't pretend to know where all of the failures and miscalculations in our intelligence were but it is apparent that there were a good number of them. George Tenet's resignation pretty much sums it up.
But the fact is that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and he wanted his people to prove a case. Again, started with a premise, and wanted people to prove it. What is especially damning to me is that pre 9/11 people in Bush's cabinet flat out said that they didn't believe Saddam has significant WMD capabilities. People like who? Look for yourself.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://home.comcast.net/~john.guzik/wmd.wmv">http://home.comcast.net/~john.guzik/wmd.wmv</a><!-- m -->
In spite of all this history is ultimately about outcomes. If the new Iraqi government does well and gives rise to a prosperous nation all of the ugly and questionable stuff leading up the war will become moot. That is certainly the result I hope for.
The only parallel I can see with Vietnam though, is that the political leadership's involvement in military planning might be higher than it should be. Several US generals have openly criticized the strategy of going into the war with less force than what was needed to totally stomp out any chance of insurgency. Still, we're not doing too badly considering we left several Iraqi ammunitions depots open for looting.
As for the intelligence, I can appreciate the difficulty in compiling an accurate picture of the situation on the ground. In Bush's defense as president I think its reasonable to assume that the information you receive on your front desk is somewhat accurate. That said there is a level of verification and objective scrutiny that must take place. For instance, when Iraqi exiles give you intelligence you have to consider that they have an agenda to push. When you have your own people do the legwork and refute previous assertions you probably should take heed. I don't pretend to know where all of the failures and miscalculations in our intelligence were but it is apparent that there were a good number of them. George Tenet's resignation pretty much sums it up.
But the fact is that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam and he wanted his people to prove a case. Again, started with a premise, and wanted people to prove it. What is especially damning to me is that pre 9/11 people in Bush's cabinet flat out said that they didn't believe Saddam has significant WMD capabilities. People like who? Look for yourself.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://home.comcast.net/~john.guzik/wmd.wmv">http://home.comcast.net/~john.guzik/wmd.wmv</a><!-- m -->
In spite of all this history is ultimately about outcomes. If the new Iraqi government does well and gives rise to a prosperous nation all of the ugly and questionable stuff leading up the war will become moot. That is certainly the result I hope for.