Of course, rjung, the authors of the “shock and awe” plan weren’t the ones who planned the invasion. In fact, it seems to me that all the talk of shockNawe was disinformation. We certainly haven’t engaged in the massive demoralizing bombardments the report advocated. ShockNawe was never our real battle plan.
As for Rummy claiming that the war would be quick, look at your quote. He said it would be quick. It could be six days. It could be six weeks. It won’t be six months. Has the war even lasted six weeks? If the war is still going on six months from now, then yes Rummy was wrong. But the war isn’t even 3 weeks old, and you think he was lying because we haven’t won yet. We are on the outskirts of Baghdad today, Baghdad Airport was captured. We haven’t won the war yet, but to claim that we are losing is ludicrous.
Your claim that the entire military plan was to drop a few bombs on the first day and Iraq would surrender is blatantly false. Yes, it was claimed the war would be easy. So far it has been pretty easy. So far, the people who claimed the war would be easy have not been proven incorrect. You might have a definition of easy that only means winning the war in one day. The administration has claimed that the war would last “weeks, not months”. If the war is still going on months later, then they lied. But we still haven’t reached even one month, much less “months”.
I’ll agree that the war has generally been going pretty well, but probably not the route we wanted.
However, you will have to help me out, my dear Lemur, and point out where rjung claims that the war will go on for months and months, and you should probably avoid using quotes unless that person actually says what they quote.
No…he posted administration claims that the war would be easy and not last for months as examples of lies that the administration has told. Obviously, these statements cannot yet be classified as lies.
Before the war, George W. Bush and everyone on down keeps playing up how quick-n-easy the war will be, to soothe skepticism from the citizenry. “Shock and awe!” they cry. “Adavanced American technology! The natives will uprise against Saddam once they see us! We’ll intimidate the Iraqi army into surrendering!”
War starts. Shock and awe doesn’t work. Fierce resistance every step of the way, and a surprise sandstorm keeps the troops stalled for a few days. Supply lines stretch thin. Troops down to one meal a day. Supply lines continue to get ambushed. No uprisings from the locals. Another 100,000+ troops are requested, because the initial 250,000+ ain’t enough after all.
People ask about the discrepencies between #1 and #2. Rumsfeld et al spin it by saying “we meant to do that.” Me skeptical.
Note that I’m not saying that the American effort is doomed – it’s obvious that the U.S. will eventually “win,” just by sheer numbers and technological superiority, if nothing else. But it hasn’t been as easy-peasy as the folks have been claiming back before the war started, and Rumsfeld’s bald-faced insistence that this has all gone according to plan smells like a lie to me. And as I said back in my first post in this thread, both sides lie, and I wouldn’t expect it any other way. Heck, if Rumsfeld would be honest enough to admit “yeah, it wasn’t as trivial as we thought it’d be, but we still have the situation under control”, I’d give him a pass for fessin’ up.
As for the duration of this war… while I’d like it to end as soon as possible, given how things have played out so far, I think anything less than three months is overly optimistic. We shall see…
I really hope you are wrong about that. As much as I might chortle over anything that shows up the shallowness of Fearless Misleader’s ham-fisted approach to International relations, let us pray it is not so.
If we have to fight our way into downtown Baghdad with the streets littered with Iraqi civilians, the Al-Queda recruiting stations will have to hire extra staff from Al Kelly Girls, and stay open 24/7.
I didn’t bregrudge the iraqis for saying some of the things they said. To say “We are losing badly” would be horrible for morale. I realize that propaganda is par for the course. However, at this point, when the enemy is at the gates of the capital, There should be some admission that “The Yankees will not be defeated…so easily”.
But you also said, using the Minister of Information as the point of comparison:
**Jesus, talk about spinning. Now you say your position is that if Rumsfeld would admit that resistance has been tougher than planned, but the situation is under control, this “admission” would amount to clearing the air, so to speak. Is the absence of this admission still roughly equivalent to the Minister of Information stating that the Iraqis are routing the Coalition forces on every front, that the Coalition is mainly aiming for civilian targets in Baghdad, that Coalition forces were not remotely close to Baghdad, that those really weren’t Iraqis surrendering, etc., etc.? I’m just checking.
I hate to break it to you, but the military knew its supply line would be stretched thin. That is the bane of every advancing army in the history of warfare.
There were fake surrenders in the last Gulf War. Nothing new there.
We have been told from the beginning that terorists would likely strike our troops. The car bomb is one ofthe staple weapons of the terrorist.
I cannot find one thing in your post that would cause even the most junior soldier to smack his head and say “I never thought they would do THAT!”… Instead you post seems to illustrate your lack of knwledge of warfare, of our military and the nature of the 2 sides involved in this war.
I find it dubious that you compare the Information Minister of this tyranical regime with the Sec. of Defense. If it were an honest comparison, I would not have a problem with it, but this just seems shrill and bitter.
You seem to want the military to script out the war, hand out the plan, and have everyone follow it. Evern if they had hoped the Iraqis would surrender quickly, dont you think they had a plan for, just in case, they did not?
This is WAR. Things do NOT go as planned. But our military plans for every conceivable contingency. They were not caught flat footed by anything that has happened.
It is intersting how many people want to find fault with the conduct of this war, when it is one of the most successful military operations in history.
Your disdain is clear. I am not sure who it is directed at, but I would assume Bush and the military. Shame. Everyone in the military seems to be performing admirably, yet you are sniping them from the rear.
In this era of internet news, 24 hour coverage and daily press broefing, you are STUNNINGLY uninformed. Grossly naive. I suspect you summona smile each time you hear the US military has had a bit of trouble.
** elucidator :* " Cetainly not. Stand them next to the balderdash ladled out to justify this military adventure, and they appear as shining paragons of utter veracity.*"**
With a typical stroke of Saddamic brilliance the Iraqi Generals have chosen Baghdad as the best position of final defense.
Equally brilliant, elucidator has chosen this thread to attempt elucidation of a position that has no frontal, much less final, defense.
In both cases Robert E. Lee would roll over in his grave.
The choice of Baghdad was, most likely, not a strategic choice at all, but merely the best of a collection of disastrous possibilities. There is not now, nor was there ever, any real chance that Iraq could stand up, militarily. They had two chances, slim and none, and opted for slim.
I think you will find, Milum, that here in the GD the bald assertion that your position is superior will not suffice.
Once you have made your argument personal, for instance, deriding another poster’s opinion by name, you cannot make claims to offended virtue by reason of virginity. Once you lower yourself, your just as much a slut as any of the rest of us.
