*LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, “miscalculation,” of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we’d whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn’t. And now we’re fighting them now.* (bold mine)
So let me get this straight. We’re mired in the nightmare that is today’s Iraq because we planned the operation too well. Then, instead of rounding up the Baathists and Saddam Loyalists who “laid down their arms,” according to the President, we let them go away. And now they’re kinda, y’know. Blowing up civilians and killing our soldiers. Whoops!
Did others perceive this as the gist of what Junior was saying? I am truly not trying to put a partisan spin on it.
More importantly, is that what seriously happened?
“We thought we’d have a conventional war that would last a few months and we’d kill a lot of those bastards. Instead we rolled though, finding minor opposition, because most of the Iraqi loyalist quickly moved underground rahter than be wiped out by our superior firepower - so now we are fighting a guerrilla war.”
Now, did they really think the Iraqi’s were so stupid they they’d line up and get shot at and bombed? It only made sense for them to move underground as quickly as they could. There hope is that we will eventually get bored or tired and pull out (which they will). And while the world may be a safer place without Saddam Hussein, I think there are a lot of nutcases that will make fine replacements - many who may be actively supported by the Iraqi people and be Baathists.
I was too focused on the beginning of his answer, “No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory…etc.” (i.e. Generally, if you start a response with, “No”, you’re gonna give the impression that you ever used the term “miscalculation”… which you did.)
After that, though, I took the rest of his answer in about the same way that you seem to have taken it. In fact, I could swear that Bush has used that terminology in other speeches (something along the lines of “we did everything too well”).
If we had done everything “too well”, we certainly wouldn’t be in this quagmire. If we had planned too well, we would have planned for the event “What happens if a lot of Hussein loyalists surrender, or run away?”, which we obviously didn’t do.
How do you get “we let them go away”? The miscalculation was that they’d give up so quickly and then reform as a guerrilla movement. I’m not sure how you prevent that from happening, but if you’re going to invade a country like Iraq, you should consider that as an option and have a plan to at least try to prevent it.
There’re reasons why the Neocons are distinguished from the Realists. When even Henry Kissinger’s opposed to a war, you should realize that it may be worse than a crime- a blunder.
Well, I don’t know, it seems to me that if an opposing force lays down their weapons, you don’t just say “Good, now SHOO.” Why weren’t they taken into custody as prisoners of war?
But even the “We never dreamed they’d go underground and start a guerilla movement” stance is weak. Inexcusable, really. Isn’t the greatest military power on Earth supposed to have brains enough to allow for these contingencies?
Ummm, let me take a wild guess— because we weren’t there to grab them when they did it? That is, they didn’t “lay down their arms” in front of US troops.
That was my point. You and I are not in disagreement on that point.
Didn’t Hussein call on his people, publicly, to do exactly what they’re doing? Wasn’t Viet Nam used in his speeches as the example? Am I remembering this wrong? How could anyone not expect it?
But what if they lay down their arms before you get there? What if you roll into a military complex and all the tanks are parked with their guns pointing inward and no personel are around? How do you do anything but move on to the next military instillation and hope to catch any of the bad guys once the shooting war is over?
Meanwhile we have the implication that this should have prevented us from gong to war in the first place? Remember the main purpose of the war was to remove Saddam from power and prevent his regime from developing WMDs. From that mindset (and allowing that most people still think in terms of conventional war) moving forward as fast as possible was the best thing to do. Sure, it would have been nice to have 3 or 4 hundred thousand more soldiers in place to secure more sites. But the main focus was on moving forward to engage and destroy any remnants of the Saddam regime still extant.
The miscaclulation was in underestimating the amount of foriegn support that would come into Iraq after the war. I think the insurgents would be much less effective without the money and leadership supplied by AQ since the shooting war ended.
The essential question is not so much “How did we get into this mess” as much as it is “What was the alternative”.
I don’t think so. I don’t have a cite, but I remember hearing one of the generals over there saying that the vast majority of the insurgents were Iraqis, not foreigners. Do you have a cite supporting your claim?
IIRC, it was to prevent the WMDs that Iraq had from being given to terrorists to use against the US.
From that mindset not securing the WMD sites was myopic and the subsequent failure to secure these sites is also a failing.
Here’s something close. Talking about the insurgent groups: "*“The majority of these groups do not know their leadership, the sources of their financing, or who provides them with weapons,” the Sunday’s report stated.
A senior U.S. commander in Iraq agreed with that assessment.
“The leadership, funding, and financing is coming from the more dangerous group of terrorist organizations and Baath identified (by the report). Those groups are essential elements of control and influence,” he told UPI Friday.
I suppose these sites are not exactly on point. I’ll try to find better ones later today.
I was not talking about manpower. That the ex bathists have in spades. Even small arms they have. What they lacked was the money and leadership*. Al Zarqawi and other provided both.
*strictly speaking leadership is the wrong word. I don’t mean people who the foot soldiers would follow. I mean people who they would follow and who would give orders to do the things they are doing. Perhaps moral or will to fight is a better word.
I really have to ask again- is that how the United States of America plans for military contingencies when mapping out a major offensive? By crossing our fingers and hoping the little bastards’ll hang around? Where was our intelligence stating the probable action of an enemy following a sustained attack? Shouldn’t we have been ready for the fact that a smaller, less powerful armed force might high-tail it underground and come at us guerilla-style from the safety of their home turf? As Yllaria points out, if Sadaam himself is offering the example of Vietnam, is it so outrageous to hope that our best and brightest at the PENTAGON might keep it in mind?
Yeah, it would have been nice. It would have nice if the Secretary of Defense hadn’t decreed that we would do the Iraq invasion on the cheap. Look ma, minimum number of ground troops!) It was this arrogant, eh-no-biggie mentality that effectively nullified, or at least drastically reduced the chances of, “moving forward to engage and destroy any remnants of the Saddam regime,” as you put it. Those remnants are currently making soup out of our National Guardsmen and reservists.
The relevant purported casus belli was the weapons themselves, and the need to keep them from being used or falling into the hands of *other * bad guys, not catching the bad guys who were purported to have actually had them. But then Bush didn’t do any of that, did he?
Meanwhile, look up what the Administration’s position is on “catastrophic success”.
And this is only one of the signs that Bush is incorrect, when he implies that we planned too well for this invasion/occupation. Deeper down the rabbit hole…
When I came across it, I figured as much. Glad I could help.
