Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
when i watch and read news analysis concerning post-war iraq, the comments often end in someone saying something like...
"we should have a more developed exit strategy"
"it could have been handled much better"
"unseating saddam was the right thing to do, but we didn't have to use military force"
"the post-war strategy is going much worse than planned"
and infinite permutations of such things. the end of the conversation is always a nodding of heads, a kind of silent assent to the the assumed truth of such thought. i am surprised to see these statements go unchallenged.
now i'm not saying that we haven't made mistakes in our post-war strategy. however, did you really expect it to go much better?
|
There were plenty of people in 2001 and 2002 who said that invasion was the wrong course of action. There were plenty of people who said shock and awe was the wroung route. There were plenty of people who heard Bush say things like "You're either on our side, or you're on the terrorist's side." and knew something was wrong. There were plenty of people who questioned why we stopped chasing Ossama and started chasing Saddam. There were planty of people who asked what Iraq had to do with terrorism. There were plenty of people who asked why we were going against the UN. There were plenty of people who knew this was going to go very badly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
to me, that's like saying the Patriots really didn't go about playing the Super Bowl the right way. sure, they won... but didn't you see them fumble? their running game was slow out of the gate! too many penalties!
|
Not a super comparison. We lost a lot of good soldiers over there. There was little danger of death on the football field yesterday. Also, we didn't win. America did not beat terrorism by dethroning Saddam and killing and alienating so many Iraqi citizens. We heald elections, and that was a touchdown, but this game is far from over. I'd say we're losing right now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
while all those statements are true, they don't reflect the fact that a monumental achievement was made. the same is, i think, true for people's perceptions of iraq. sure, it has been hell for our soldiers there. sure, we've had things thrown at us that we weren't prepared for. but in the end, did you think it would or could have gone much better? i know i didn't.
|
Why didn't you speak up if you knew so many soldiers were going to die and there would be so many rebels in Iraq against the "army of freedom"? Why not ask if there was a way that didn't cost so many lives?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
let's face it: many of you out there predicted SEVERE doom and gloom. if i didn't have a life outside of TFP i'd love to compile a list of all the nay-sayers for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from the public debate and opinions given on this board. the new fetish seems to be to create (and by create, i mean completely imagine) inflated casualty figures in a sleazy attempt to add weight to an argument. instead of going to such lengths to justify the negative forecasts... why not rejoice in the fact that such predictions were wrong?
-if you did not predict that the iraqis would be holding successful elections in less than two years after the war... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought the war would unstabilize the region and spiral into an uncontrollable regional conflict... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought that it would cost 10,000 American lives... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought that the result of insurgent destabilization would be an iraqi civil war... you were wrong. rejoice.
and I KNOW that many of you were in hysterics because you were SO SURE this was all going to happen. well, it hasn't... yet nothing but negativity is heard from many. it's unfair to judge such a dangerous operation on such untested ground a failure because there are obvious problems. rather, think of this operation and match it against all plausible outcomes... i see a strong case for labeling it a success.
|
You think the Middle East is stable? Eek.
You think that it's okay to lose 1447 American military officers just because some people said it'd be more? Big victory. I won't rejoice over that.
There could be a civil war if the American soldiers weren't fighting the rebels. There is a rebelion going on against the US invaders. Again, where's the victory?
I realize what you are trying to do, and I say you are noble for attempting it. I won't see the second Gulf War as a success until Iraq is ruled by a peaceful government and there economy is on the up and up and there is not one American soldier even thinking about Iraq and there is equality and the Iraqi government is working independant of foreign aid or assistance. Even then, I'll be saying there was a better way to go about helping them. Somehow leveling parts of the capitol with all our smart bombs didn't scream "liberation".