I grant you that the benefits of replacing the Ba’ath Party regime are uncertain, but there’s every reason to believe that the Iraqi people will be far better off.
Villages are not being slaughtered wholesale. All the coverage I’ve seen shows the coalition taking pains to try to avoid civilian casualties, as well as casualty soldiers helping Iraqi civilians.
Some of the “stable” countries in the middle east have governments that are virtually fascistic. Maybe the world would be better off if the governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the Palestinians had less stability.
Iraq was already controlled by fanatics.
One cause of the horrendous governments in much of the middle east is that the west has stood by and done nothing to try to improve them.
You blame the United States for not overthrowing Saddam by force of arms and you blame us for overthrowing Saddam by force of arms.
SentientMeat, in my opinion, criticism that is uninformed or malicious includes such items as:[ol][li]Starting the war without enough troops.[]Supply lines stretched too thin.[]Making war on the cheap.[]Progress is too slow[/ol]It’s just bizarre to have this sort of criticism when nothing bad has happened. If someone wants to criticize US strategy or tactics in the Vietnamese War, that makes sense. We didn’t win. But, we haven’t seen troops starve or die of thirst due to overstretched supply lines. We haven’t lost a major battle (or even a minor one.) We haven’t had a single retreat. Having troops on the ground early in the bombing process hasn’t led to massive coalition casualties. We’ve obviously made rapid progress.[/li]
Why are some people engaging in this carping? [ol][]Some are army people who want to undermine Rumsfeld’s modernization plans (a point made by this New York Times editorial, I cited earlier.)[]Some are media and media experts, looking for something to say.[]Some are Democrat supporters, looking for an excuse to criticize Bush and Republicans. E.g., Lawrence Eagleburger said on Hannity and Colmes that he was approached by the New York Times to write an op-ed piece. The Times told him, explicitly, to be critical of the administration. [/ol]
slaughtering villages wholesale? I’m afraid I’m going to need a cite.
Your second two points are unprovable at this point. We’ll have to wait and see if this happens.
I guess the Empire State Building will have to come down before you start thinking more in terms of cause and effect rather than just expecting intentions to realize themselves out of thin air. **
[/QUOTE]
The World Trade Center came down before this war in Iraq. In fact, there have been terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests for years. Are you suggesting that we could have stopped terrorist attacks against us by not going to war in Iraq?
I’m interested in this line of OPs, but as I posted in a previous one, they’re lacking something important: any sort of hard evidence backing them up.
The fact that Rummy has made the same argument isn’t evidence in favor of the argument. Evidence might include interviews with US soldiers saying that they’re likelier to retreat in battle because of inaccurate complaints about the war, or interviews with Iraqi soldiers saying that they fight harder every time CNN criticizes Rummy’s war plans, or even data correlating periods of exceptional war criticism with exception US troop losses FOLLOWING the criticism (although the latter might not establish causation).
Lacking evidence, however, what is there to discuss?
December, the fact is that this is a different sort of war that demands different sorts of expectations. We are so superior to the Iraqis in terms of expertise and technology that we might as well be aliens invading earth. And we are going in not because anyone we are defending our country, but because we’ve decided to take on an adventure to change a regime we don’t like and re-shape the region. Given that, this isn’t the sort of war where it makes sense to just shrug off avoidable deaths due to not committing the full thrust of our reasources.
—SentientMeat, in my opinion, criticism that is uninformed or malicious includes such items as:
Starting the war without enough troops.
Supply lines stretched too thin.
Making war on the cheap.
Progress is too slow—
You forgot: starting before we were strategically prepared, with alll troops in place.
All of these are legitimate questions, not “uninformed or malicious.” This view is of someone seeking not only to cover his ass, but also to silence debate. This is particularly hypocritical in light of the fact that Rumsfeld paraded himself around as a non-adminisration figure criticizing Clinton’s Kosovo plans.
—But, we haven’t seen troops starve or die of thirst due to overstretched supply lines.—
We’ve had unprotected supply troops in our rear attacked and kidnapped.
Also, responding “Iraq was already controlled by fanatics.” to the fear that we’re “driving thousands into the arms of the fanatics” is a non-answer: it’s a diversionary response containing some of the same words, but not really responding the problem raised at all. Yes, Iraq was controlled by fanatics: but it was also weak and isolated: it’s the entire Arab world that’s been inflamed.
I agree. However critics have not cited which deaths were “avoidable”. And, they’ve often ignored the advantages of rapid troop deployment, such as protecting the oil wells, giving Saddam less time to prepare, and getting the war going while the weather was not too hot.
Yep. If this had led to some sort of harm or disaster, it might be a valid criticism. But it didn’t.
But, the’re not being presented as questions by some critics. They’re being presented as significant mistakes.
I cannot disagree with your assessment of Rumsfeld’s motives (although they cannot be proved.)
True, but in very small numbers.
I gave a cute response because this is a hijack. It’s far from clear whether this war will have a positive or negative impact on the Arab world. Either way, the question deserves its own thread.
—And, they’ve often ignored the advantages of rapid troop deployment, such as protecting the oil wells, giving Saddam less time to prepare, and getting the war going while the weather was not too hot.—
There’s no reason you can’t have rapid troop deployment AFTER you have many more troops in place to make sure the rear is also well covered as well. Unless there are some other things we’re not being told about the motives and eventualities here. I think it’s very plausible that the point of using this few troops is what Kaus speculated: Rumsfeld wants to prove to the world that we can acheive major objectives with a small portion of our total force: thus cowing other potential enemies who might otherwise believe that we can mount a major invasion only every couple of years. If that’s so, it’s certainly not a crazy idea at all. But it’s disingenuous to not tell us about it and then expect us to see the decision as wise without knowing that those extra goals are on the table.
—True, but in very small numbers.—
Yes, but as I pointed out, when we have such huge advantage, it makes sense to hold our leaders to a much higher standard.
If our rear-guard supply troops had been well armed and escorted, they would not have been so easily taken. If the 2002 war games hadn’t been rigged to avoid considering the possibility of perfidy on the new tactics, we might not have been so easily taken in by surrender ruses. But there was a rush to validate those particular pop strategies without any real desire to inquire whether they really were valid.
And, though you passed over it, I think it’s pretty significant that Rumsfeld’s major line of criticism: that it’s wrong to be critical of a plan you weren’t involved in, especially when troops are in action, is completely hypocritical. It most certainly calls into question his motives and the veracity of his defense of his plan.
On your other points, there’s no way to know how much more harm Saddam might have done during the extra time needed to deploy more troops. It’s fine to hold our leaders to high standards, but we cannot forget that we have an enemy whose actions were unpredictable.