http://slate.msn.com/id/2080657/ "It would be neither wise nor necessary for us to send ground forces into Iraq when patriotic Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their own country." If the United States were "to give logistical support and military equipment to the opposition and to use airpower to defend it in the territory it controls," the result would be "a full-blown insurrection against Saddam." -Richard Perle "It is by no means certain that the various elements of Iraq's army would fight well, or, in some cases, at all if the US showed determination to delegitimate Saddam and to create exclusion areas to be placed under Iraqi opposition control, defended with US-supplied anti-tank weapons, and protected by the US Air Force and, only if necessary, by US ground forces." -Douglas Feith "I don't believe that it's as hard as it is made to sound. Maybe it's not as simple as it sometimes sounds, but it's certainly not as hard as [Clinton administration National Security Adviser] Sandy Berger makes it sound when he talks about a major land invasion of Iraq. I know there are differences between Iraq and [Soviet-era] Afghanistan, but I think it is relevant to point out that we overthrew the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan without a single American ground troop; as a matter of fact, without a single American pilot." -Paul Wolfowitz
Yeah, I read that piece. It's so bogus that the hawks, both here and in the Bush administration (I hope there's no overlap) are trying to blame the media for the high expectations. I'm sorry, the neo-cons promulgated this view. And they were wrong.
Too bad you don't have a quote of Rumsfeld, Bush, or Cheney saying the same thing. Seems to me like some deputy hawks were wrong, although logistical support could have been enough at the end of GW1. Too bad we missed that boat.
Re: Re: The Hawks Were Wrong What you don't seem to realize that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney based their plans on the advice of Wolfowitz and Perle.
They, the political brain trust that currently resides in the WH, had to spin it this way to get Americans behind it. A vast majority of the people in this country would have balked from day one, if it wasn't for "the Iraqi people want us to free them" spin.
How can I jump ship when I was never on board? What will there be for me to regret? I hope the Iraqi people liberate themselves. I just don't see it happening.
Re: Re: The Hawks Were Wrong Tuna-breath, I'm afraid you are the one who has missed the boat. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle are the ones who have come up with this whole Neo Pax Americana - Freedom Through Force idea. They developed it during the late years of the Bush (41) administration, tried to push it on Clinton during the 1998 crisis, and indoctrinated Bush (43) during the campaign and transition. Rumsfeld's name is on the 1998 open letter to Clinton advocating this very scheme.
My problem isn't with the speed that the war is being carried out. In fact, I'm in awe of how quick they reached Baghdad. My problem is that the mass uprising that I wanted to believe in and was preidcted by the hawks aint happening.
Re: Re: The Hawks Were Wrong Dude, these guys pretty much wrote the playbook we're using in Iraq right now.
So how far into the war do we have to be before we admit there won't be popular uprisings? We're a week in now. So according to Rummy (I think it was Rummy), the war should be over in a maximum of five more weeks.
There may have been a poor estimation of the conditions necessary for popular uprisings. But we've already seen one, have we not?
In an article that was the basis of a thread here yesterday (either the WaPo article, or the Knight-Ridder article I linked), an unnamed general said that Rummy said the war would be over in two days. FWIW.
Reports are varying on that. The Iraq Shi'ite opposition says no http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=574&e=1&u=/nm/20030326/wl_nm/iraq_basra_dc_7
There have been a few. And others will happen once the Iraqis realize we're in it for good this time, and we're not going to back-stab them like Bush I did. Alex
Can I ask one more time if we really want any significant uprisings? An uprising would mean "we hate Saddam" There is no reason to believe it would mean "we love America and US/UK/UN occupation forces" Shiites may hate saddam, but do they want mini-Iran instead? Kurds may hate Saddam, but considering the Kurdish terrorist groups, would they want to be Taliban East? Any group's "thanks" for our invasion may be pretty short if the final outcome post-Saddam is not to their liking. Or will they be so glad that they give us their daughters as tribute to our forces, as some pre-war interventionists seemed to imply?
Re: Re: Re: The Hawks Were Wrong What you don't seem to realize is if their names were Wilson and Phillips nobody would have given them any notice. They're not really pulling the strings, but it makes for a more interesting story. By the way, Bill Kristol feels terribly left out in all of this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Hawks Were Wrong I haven't read Wilson Phillips' war plan yet. I'll bet it was better than Wolfowitz and Perle's. And yes, Bill Kristol was part of the original Axis of Evil as well.
While I'm not going to say that insurrentions will happen for sure, I'd have to agree with Alex on this. It's understandable that the people are reluctant to rise against Saddam right now, especially given the history of uprisings against Saddam and the fact that there are still (mostly paramilitary) forces in the Shiite cities keeping a lid on such activities. Also, while such uprisings don't necessarily translate into a love of the West, if these people start receiving aid from the coalition forces once Saddam's forces are gone, then they might be much more willing to accept the coalition forces' presence than not.
I don't know how they can uprise - we still don't have control of any major cities. I can't imagine a worse time to stage an uprising than when the oppressing troops are well armed and bunkered in the town center and cannot retreat.
Agreed that if there are significant Iraqi forces in the towns and cities, the people might be unwilling to revolt. Still, once they see that their hold on power is cracking, there is a good chance they might take it upon themselves to take some sort of action that would likely be of benefit to the coalition.