3 Flawed Assumptions - Time Magazine

[James_F]

Time Magazine Article (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030407/nfailures.html)

According to this article there are "3 Flawed Assumptions" that were made.

1. THERE WOULD BE LITTLE RESISTANCE.
The enemy we're fighting," said Army Lieut. General William Wallace last week, "is different from the one we'd war-gamed against." At least the commander of V Corps and the highest-ranking officer at the front was honest in assessing one of the most unsettling battlefield surprises: Iraqis are resisting vigorously. And they're doing so in ways that seem to have caught Washington off guard—that is, by embedding paramilitary forces behind the front lines to engage in guerrilla tactics that can't win the war but can dangerously drag it out.

2. THERE WOULD BE DANCING IN THE STREETS.

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney on March 16—and he was hardly the only Administration warrior to believe it. In the White House vision, freed Iraqis would dance with joy from the very first days of the war. Pictures of happy, liberated Iraqis were crucial to the plan, since the Bush team counted on those images to help persuade Saddam's army to surrender, inspire civilians across the country to rise against the regime and defuse global opposition to the U.S. campaign. Iraqis may yet exhibit gratitude, but the "rose petal and rice" scenario hasn't materialized yet.

3. THE WAR PLAN COVERED ALL CONTINGENCIES.

"It's a plan that's on track," Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, kept saying last week, and in the broadest sense, he is probably right. But as 19th century Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke famously said, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." Shifting circumstances on the ground last week posed a test for the Administration's skill at adaptation. Although the Bush Administration seemed unwilling to recognize it, there's actually nothing wrong in trumpeting U.S. flexibility in the face of new facts on the ground.

I think Time hit the first 2, but the third one is incorrect. As a former Marine, I know we planned for everything and I seriously doubt they overlooked this. In fact I don't think Time Magazine even proved this was a flaw in their article. :mad:

[RichW]

The problem is that Cheney and Rumsfeld had too much of a hand in the military operation. It has been reported that Cheney wanted to do this "on the cheap" while the military men wanted more resources and a bit more time to put them in place.

I hope GWB dumps Cheney for the next election.

[James_F]

Originally posted by RichW
I hope GWB dumps Cheney for the next election.
Don't tease me like that. :lol:

[Rick_EE]

The indications is that 2 is starting to occur in some form. They needed to believe that this time we would not abandon them. But, like any population you don't have 100% agreement.

[Punkitup]

Originally posted by RichW
I hope GWB dumps Cheney for the next election.

Has anyone taken a look at the economy? Our troops are going to be coming back to the largest national deficit in history, and home States that are cutting essential services under crushing debt. Take a look at this state by state budget map (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/budgetmap.html).


I don’t think Mr. Bush will have to worry about who is in his cabinet; I believe like his Father before him, he is not going to enjoy any sort of post-war bounce.


Pray for Peace
James – USMC 1980-84

"Armed and Curious" (http://www.radiofreerecording.com/armed.jpg) - The George Bush story

[Rick_EE]

CNN reported that they guy shown early in the war beating a picture of Saddam with his shoe was killed by Saddam loyalists. 
I could see how that would dampen the celebration.   Even if the story is not true, the rumor is just as effective.  Other reporters have said that people won't say on camera that they are glad the Americans are there, but will off camera.

[Richard King]

From a true Iraqi hero:

"Believe me, not only I, all the people of Iraq, not the people in the government, like Americans," Mohammed said. "They want to help the Americans, but they are all afraid."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/5552797.htmv

[AllieVi]

Originally posted by Punkitup
Has anyone taken a look at the economy? Our troops are going to be coming back to the largest national deficit in history, and home States that are cutting essential services under crushing debt. Take a look at this state by state budget map (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/budgetmap.html).
I don't believe our troops will be coming home any time soon. Since Bush already declared Iran one of the "evils" and it's just next door, I suspect he'll develop a rationale for continuing his crusade into their territory.

[RandyAB]

Originally posted by AllieVi

I don't believe our troops will be coming home any time soon. Since Bush already declared Iran one of the "evils" and it's just next door, I suspect he'll develop a rationale for continuing his crusade into their territory.

I believe as well as hope that you are wrong. Just because they are declared as part of the axis of evil does not mean that we will go bomb them next. Look at the North Korea situation, so far the Bush admin is saying that this will be handled diplomatically. No plans for war with North Korea.

I think Iran is even a different case. Currently in Iran(majority Shi'ite population) you see people unhappy with the current militant islamic regime. People want american products in there, and I think the war with Iran would just bring us back to 1980. However assuming we win this war....the Shi'ite population will be happier with America since we freed their people. This being my opinion that this could start a change in parts of the Arab world. However I am still we will be predominately hated there.

[Richard King]

Same story, different source.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547680.shtml
Notice they left off the line that I quoted above, a very important part of the whole story.

[AllieVi]

Originally posted by RandyAB
I believe as well as hope that you are wrong. Just because they are declared as part of the axis of evil does not mean that we will go bomb them next. Look at the North Korea situation, so far the Bush admin is saying that this will be handled diplomatically. No plans for war with North Korea.
If, as we all hope, the war is over quickly with no repercussions, the news media and the public will turn their attention to other things, primarily the US economy. I doubt that Bush is going to want that to be the focus of our attention going into next year's election cycle. The war has maintained our attention almost to the exclusion of everything else for a very long time (to Bush's advantage). I really doubt he'll want to lose that advantage.

As I mentioned before, Iran is right next door...

[Rick_EE]

They will NOT go into Iran. The seed of discontent have been sown there already, it is only a matter of time before things change there. The upcoming generation is much more pro-western.

[Bogy]

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I have fears that if it isn't Iran Bush will find some other country to go to war with, right through the next election. Can't change horses in the middle of the stream (or war), ya know.

[RandyAB]

I think (and hope) you will be wrong. And then we will be able to have a new administration come in and start to mend some fences...not all deserve to be mended...but most of them should be fixed

[Mike123abc]

I think the push is on to get all the conflicts done and the economy moving before the next election. If you want to see something scary (and I am surprised no one has mentioned it on this board) is that troups are being massed on Guam. There is a quite build up at the moment out in the Pacific:

http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2003/February/02-05-01.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2723133.stm

[AllieVi]

Originally posted by Rick Densing
They will NOT go into Iran. The seed of discontent have been sown there already, it is only a matter of time before things change there. The upcoming generation is much more pro-western.
While that may be true, the administration could make the case that we can't risk the security of America while waiting for the next generation to take control. Both Iran and Korea have capabilities that Iraq lacks, so it's reasonable to assume that this president will take action against them. In the case of Iran, the troops are already in the neighborhood. Prolonging conflict through the next election cycle must be a tempting thought. Americans tend to rally around the president during time of war, but turn fickle later (just ask Bush, Sr.).

[Rick_EE]

However, the economy cannot handle a continuous state of war. Witness the slowdown in the time leading up to this conflict. If the economy doesn't turn around by election time, Bush will not be re-elected, war or no. Bush should know this. Frankly, if the economy doesn't start recovering, even I probably won't vote for him.

[Richard King]

The enemy we're fighting," said Army Lieut. General William Wallace last week, "is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."This quote was originally attributed to Wallace by the New York Times, that ever so even handed "fair and balanced" publication. It has since been corrected and the two words that were left OUT of the quote have been replaced. The original quote is as follows:
The enemy we're fighting," said Army Lieut. General William Wallace last week, "is A BIT different from the one we'd war-gamed against." The same publication has stated that Vice President Cheney claimed that this would be a "cake walk" they have since retracted that "quotation".

[Bogy]

Originally posted by Rick Densing
They will NOT go into Iran. The seed of discontent have been sown there already, it is only a matter of time before things change there. The upcoming generation is much more pro-western.
"Upcoming generation?" We couldn't wait to give the weapons inspectors another few weeks in Iraq, and we're going to wait for another generation to take over in Iran? It's not that I don't agree with you about the upcoming generation. I do. Discontent is huge in Iran. But that would seem to give certain people all the more reason to "liberate them." Hopefully however, the next/continuing campaign will be the rebuilding of Iraq into a peaceful, prosperous, materialistic, America loving democracy which will provide the incentive to Iran and other countries to follow the lead.

[Rick_EE]

Would inspections have brought about any meaningful change in Iraq? If so, how? I have not heard anyone answer these questions in a practical way.

[BobMurdoch]

Forget Iran. We'll go over Syria before we take them on. But even then, the administration is going to want to slow down and see what happens with Iraq and Afghanistan before going forward. They WILL use the two conflicts as a negotiating tactic to get Syria, Libya, Iran, and even North Korea to stop supporting terrorists in their midst (whether openly or covertly). It may be wishful thinking, but hey, my guess is as good as anybody elses. Anyone remember the naysayers about this conflict boasting about Iraq's ability to kill 10,000 of our soldiers? They've only managed less than 1% of that. I don't mean to belittle ANY lives lost, but their sacrifice may have saved 10,000 others as I believe that the NEXT terrorist strike would have cost that many lives, and I believe that their ability to hurt drops further each day.

[Punkitup]

Originally posted by BobMurdoch
I don't mean to belittle ANY lives lost, but their sacrifice may have saved 10,000 others as I believe that the NEXT terrorist strike would have cost that many lives, and I believe that their ability to hurt drops further each day.

I wish I could share your optimism Bob, but I don’t believe this war will have any deterrent factor on terrorism at all. In fact I think the effect is going to be a burgeoning of the ranks of those willing to carry out attacks against US and British interests.

I was opposed to going into this war, not because I believed that the UN would accomplish anything; they couldn’t organize a circle-jerk without an unending debate. No, going into the war was an all or nothing proposal and we would have to deal with the consequences, one of which I believe is going to be increased terrorism.
 
It is tremendous to watch television here and see as you point out that Coalition losses have been lower then may have been feared, and for that I am immensely grateful. But images of the invasion of an Arab nation and thousands of deaths accompanied by a very biased editorial slant is what has been playing out on the televisions of Arabs. And those after all are the viewers from whom the terrorists recruit the willing, not from our respective viewing populations of Massachusetts or New Jersey.

On the other question, as to whether we will move against Syria? I am sure that Donald Rumsfeld would like to, especially when he now has troops which are combat seasoned. I don’t think however it will fly with the American public or Congress.  But of course the whole thing could be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy; if we incur increased terrorism and that can be linked to Syria, well who knows.

Pray for Peace
James – USMC 1980-84

"Armed and Curious" (http://www.radiofreerecording.com/armed.jpg) - The George Bush story

 

 

[James_F]

Don't think for a second that these Arab governments are now very afraid of the U.S. While you know I don't agree with what we did in Iraq, it does show to all of them that there is nothing they can do to stop us. The problem with this is that isn't not really the governments that are the problem, its the people on the street. They are angry not because they don't want us in Iraq, but because they feel afraid that they can do nothing to stop us.

[Punkitup]

Originally posted by James_F
it does show to all of them that there is nothing they can do to stop us.

I can think of one thing that Iran and Syria could do and very well might do to stop us, or at least give us pause for thought. Increase the speed of their nuclear weapons programs, or look to covertly acquire such from a third party, and then announce their possession as a deterrent. 

Pray for Peace
James – USMC 1980-84

"Armed and Curious" (http://www.radiofreerecording.com/armed.jpg) - The George Bush story

 

[James_F]

Originally posted by Punkitup


I can think of one thing that Iran and Syria could do and very well might do to stop us, or at least give us pause for thought. Increase the speed of there nuclear weapons programs, or look to covertly acquire such from a third party, and then announce their possession as a deterrent.
Maybe, but neither are North Korea. Iran might be close, but Syria is no where near getting them (unless NK or Iran gives it to them). NK has China, but Syria and Iran have no one behind them. I think Dubbya has shown he will not let anyone get WMD even if there isn't any concrete proof.

[AllieVi]

US military might is without equal today or for the foreseeable future. Our adversaries must realize that they will have to use unconventional techniques to hurt us. Our corporate interests are worldwide and will probably become targets. Our domestic infrastructure is also at risk due to our open society and freedoms. Having infuriated the entire Middle East, we should expect retaliation - not soon, but after we've become complacent.

[James_F]

Our adversaries must realize that they will have to use unconventional techniques to hurt us.
That is the huge reason why I was so against this war. It solves nothing.

[RandyAB]

Originally posted by James_F

That is the huge reason why I was so against this war. It solves nothing.

I think letting Saddam stay in power does more damage then this war. If you read even some of the Arabic and European papers online talk about some hatred right now, but I think once this is over people will be able to move past it.

I honestly thought we would see more hatred towards us from Arab countries then we are seeing now.

[Bogy]

Originally posted by RandyAB
I think letting Saddam stay in power does more damage then this war. If you read even some of the Arabic and European papers online talk about some hatred right now, but I think once this is over people will be able to move past it.
"Move past it?" You're kidding, right? These are Arabs we are talking about. Slights which occurred a thousand years ago are still fresh and cause for blood. This war got rid of Saddam (if we ever find him) but it didn't get rid of terrorism. It may have removed one potential source of material from terrorists, but it only gave terrorists recruiting material for fresh bodies. War will never solve the problem of terrorism. Remember that "war on drugs?" Every time you put a drug dealer, no matter how big, in jail, another springs up to take their place. As long as the demand, and the money, is there, the supply will be there. You can kill or jail a terrorist, but as long as the hate and/or fear is there, dozens will spring up in their place. Whether the drive is religious fundamentalism, or nationalism, or racism, or any other 'ism, force will never stop it, and it will take a generation or more to make a significant difference.

[Rick_EE]

Is Time going to print a retraction?

[TNGTony]

Are you kidding? They'll say that the Iraqis were rioting in the streets of Baghdad and trying to get the tank crane away from the statue but were too late and all the people were juming up and down in disgust and anger! That's what happened wasn't it?

The fighting was also fierce in Baghdad. Didn't you see it?

See ya
Tony

[toenail]

Originally posted by Bogy

"Move past it?" You're kidding, right? These are Arabs we are talking about. Slights which occurred a thousand years ago are still fresh and cause for blood. This war got rid of Saddam (if we ever find him) but it didn't get rid of terrorism. It may have removed one potential source of material from terrorists, but it only gave terrorists recruiting material for fresh bodies. War will never solve the problem of terrorism. Remember that "war on drugs?" Every time you put a drug dealer, no matter how big, in jail, another springs up to take their place. As long as the demand, and the money, is there, the supply will be there. You can kill or jail a terrorist, but as long as the hate and/or fear is there, dozens will spring up in their place. Whether the drive is religious fundamentalism, or nationalism, or racism, or any other 'ism, force will never stop it, and it will take a generation or more to make a significant difference.

There will always be some lunatics who will continue to cause trouble. Human nature. But, the incredible backlash some have predicted MAY be an overestimation. The attached link is an interesting article about this issue.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1055

[lastmanstanding]

We could have had centuries of weapons inspections and nothing to show for it. Except Saddam would have had time to murder a few more hundred thousand innocents and continue supporting terrorists.

Weapons Inspection Advocates need to realize how wrong they were/are.

A foolish act with good intentions is still a foolish act.

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by James_F

That is the huge reason why I was so against this war. It solves nothing.

    Doing nothing solves even LESS.

    For those saying we are only going to have more terrorism and that fighting back encourages it, you are putting the cart before the horse. Terrorists are at their hearts BULLIES and bullies are COWARDS. When faced with evidence of real and immediate pain and suffering being inflicted on them by a superior force, they tuck tail and run and the only thing proping up international bullies(a.k.a terrorists) are gutless wonders without the willpower exercised by the founders of the US at its inception.

    The survivalist movement I used to belong to does have one thing right and that's that Americans have become so fat, dumb, and lazy that they have for the first time in human history enough leisure to afford being absolute cowards if they choose because there are others to protect them from terrors and pitfalls foreign and domestic. They, like the lefties, are dead wrong when they proceed to go from there to saying America first, let's stay home and leave the rest of the world to itself.

    We did that and MILLIONS of Europeans ended up dead. We did that and unknown THOUSANDS of Cambodians ended up dead. We did that and unknown THOUSANDS of Vietnamese ended up dead. We did that and unknown THOUSANDS of North Koreans ended up dead. And BILLIONS NEVER EVER got the chance to exist because their forbearers were exterminated. How many Einsteins, Ghandis, Churchills, etc. did we never get to know because of that?

    This world has proven over ten thousand years it needs a police force and there's no better nation to do it than this organically evolving democratic republic composed of refugees, ex-colonials, and escaped political criminals. More and more, as time goes by and more emigrate here, our population increases in number of those who know the price of inaction, and the penalty for willful ignorance, and that the most notable victims are those who did nothing whatsoever to deserve their fate.

    This new pre-emptive mode should only be the beginning and soon should come the day the rest of the world, which spat upon the freedoms and dignities of its individuals, fear the booming voice and rattling sabers of their expatriate children, beaten and abused into drawing together with others of like situation and who built in a far off place a whole new life they were never allowed to have anywhere else. We should bring America everywhere because everywhere you go, people are on their way to live in America.

    I'm proud to be a citizen of the USA, a.k.a the United Individuals.

 

[Nick]

Just damn! Sure wish I'd wrote that!

Well said, waydwolf.

[Bogy]

With power comes responsibility. We have shown we have the power, now we have to show we have responsibility to go with it. There is a fine line between being the policeman of the world, and being the bully of the world.

[Nick]

...and written along that fine line are the words Compassion and Humanity. Maybe that's the reason God wanted the U.S. and the British to do the job alone. He knows well of our deep compassion and great humanity.

Bogy, take a moment to thank God that He chose us, and not Iran, Russia or any other country to do this job. To free an entire people from the jackboots and chains of a murderous tyrant. We've done it before.

[Timco]

I am just wondering where Bush will stop. I could have sworn he said he was against nation building. He is working on his second in the last 15 months....

[Bogy]

Originally posted by Nick
...and written along that fine line are the words Compassion and Humanity. Maybe that's the reason God wanted the U.S. and the British to do the job alone. He knows well of our deep compassion and great humanity.

Bogy, take a moment to thank God that He chose us, and not Iran, Russia or any other country to do this job. To free an entire people from the jackboots and chains of a murderous tyrant. We've done it before.
I was against this war, but particularly I was against this war without a true coalition. If the only answer to the situation was to have a war, then our nation needed to take a leadership role in that conflict. I see that as our role. But it is my belief that as the most powerful nation on earth, that we must act as a part of the global community (yes, along with being a dreaded liberal, I am also an Internationalist). We should not act outside the community of nations, or it is we who will be seen as the "rogue nation," inspiring hatred and fear.

I have prayed both privately and publicly about this war for months now. For three Sundays the beginning of each service is set aside for a time of prayer specifically for those engaged in war. I have prayed for this to be a quick war, with a minimum loss of life, on both sides. I feel for the most part those prayers have been answered.

I still feel the Bush administration bungled this war. The Military has done what they were asked to do, and did it admirably. The civilians, who have the task of diplomacy, have performed horribly. If they had done their jobs half as well as the military did theirs, or George the first's administration did their job, this might have been a war I could support, as I did Desert Storm. But they didn't, and I cannot now support them, in order to show my support for those who were called to fight. I cannot support this administration, not until they show some sign of rectifying their mistakes. A good test will be how they handle the rebuilding of Iraq.

[toenail]

Looks like Time scored a trifecta on this one. Zero for three! Did they use tea leaves?

[James_F]

I don't see anyone dancing in the street anymore, they are all looting.... How many marines does it take to restore peace in Iraq?

[markh]

Originally posted by toenail
Looks like Time scored a trifecta on this one. Zero for three! Did they use tea leaves?

There is still pretty stiff resistance out there. Yesterday was the worst day for Marine casualties, 50 according to Oliver North on Fox News. The worst part is that it's not Iraqi military, it's the religiously motivted fighters that will suicide bomb and fight until death.

What worries me maybe more than anything else, is the hawks out there that are saying Syria is letting Iraqi officials into their country. On top of that I've been hearing speculation about the WMD being hidden in Syria. Anybody ready for another invasion?:(