Here is the critics' comment:
I strongly disagree with your stance on this issue. First off, you are using The Times as a source. In the pst year the time has put out numerous misleading and outright false stories which they have had to retract, so there credibility has been thrown out the window.
Secondly, it is a well known fact that Sadam did have WMD's. Think about it, Sadam had years and years to hide them or get them out of the country. I dont think we could have strolled in there and found huge store houses of weapons. Then we had the dems in congress who voted against supplying our troops with the sufficient body armor and humvee armor they needed. At first we did not have a sufficient amount of troops in Iraq, but the administration has corrected that by implementing the recent troop surge which has had great success.
Hind sight is always twenty-twenty. Are there things that we should have done differently? Yes, but this is a new kind of ware-fare we are facing so there isnt a set of guidelines we are following. The Administration did not lie to the American public. The only thing we can do is use the best intelligents we have at the time and act upon it.
People, like you, want to paint the Bush Administration as an evil and decitful administration carrying out this war for personal gain. What you fail to realize is that we are much safer now then before 9/11. Instead of waiting or fighting the terrorist here in the U.S. we are taking the fight to them.
Here is my reply:
First, I understand the Times track record, but that point is moot in this case. As pointed out in the article, their source was all the documents, emails, etc that dealt with the analysts and the DOD. They even have many of those documents available for public viewing, just go to their website.
Second, it NOT a well-known fact that Saddam had WMD's. The CIA actually did not think that Saddam had WMD's, but CIA director George Tenet felt pressured to make the case that Saddam did have WMD's, so selectively chose the information he gave the President. Read up about him, you'll learn a lot. I do not disagree, however, that it is a POSSIBILITY, that Saddam may have moved the WMD's, but at this point, I think he probably did not. Yes, we did not have enough troops at first, but this has been corrected by the ousting of Rumsfield (who vehemently supported a small number of troops despite the opinions of most generals). Most of the controversy surrounded the body and Humvee armor has been around the fact that the DOD, particularly Rumsfeld, intentionally hid the fact from these military analysts and from Congress. They often chose to ignore and hide problems rather than fix them.
Thirdly, this is most definitely NOT a new kind of warfare. Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, colonial/imperial wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, etc are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to historical examples. Most military experts and historians, I am sure, would agree with me. We simply handled the war badly from the beginning with the Rumsfeld administration. Currently, we couldn't be handling the Iraq war any better in my opinion. Rumsfeld was simply a current-day Robert McNamara. There are guidelines for the war, and we did not follow them initially. Lastly, the administration did lie, and they did deceive the American public. They deceived the military analysts, indirectly deceiving the American public. They used selective information to incriminate Saddam, they have lied somewhat about their counter-terrorism abilities prior to 9/11, they hid information about the body armor and Humvees and made people think there was progress at a time when the situation was only getting worse because of the negligent handling of the war.
I hate it when people like to paint other people as "anti-Bushites" or Bush haters, but that's what it comes down to. Personally, I am conservative. However, whether you are conservative or not, or whether you supported the war or not, there was a way to handle it properly, and it wasn't done. Bush has largely been a bad republican president. He has deceived the American people in numerous ways.
I never said I did not support the Iraq war, but you have stereotyped me as an anti-Iraq War person. Just because I criticize our handling of the war does not imply I disagree with Bush's foreign policies. I do think the Iraq war could have been done successfully, but it was still a mistake. I think we have actually made ourselves less safe, because we have left ourselves largely defenseless. The War on Terror is not a war against nations, so the enemy is not clear-cut. Meaning that if we go over commit ourselves against other nations which may not be a direct threat to us, we are leaving ourselves defenseless at home. Our military is stretched to the breaking point, we are reducing our long-term readiness, we are sending our border control guards to Iraq instead of guarding our own borders, therefore leaving the door wide open for some terrorist to get through and attack us. Furthermore, instead of attacking us at home, they can just attack us overseas. If you know someone wants to kill your family, and you leave them at home to go attack somebody else, are they safe? No, they are defenseless. If you know who the attacker is, and it is only one person, and you know where he is, then yeah it is no problem. But in this global insurgency, you have no single, clear-cut attacker, so we are leaving our homes defenseless to attack an ambiguous enemy. It is not smart. Yes, we should have attacked Afghanistan, yes we should commit to the intelligence agencies and not tie their hands behind their back, but no we should not over commit to the wrong enemy. By being in Iraq, we also only adding fuel to the fire and helping the enemy to recruit more soldiers. Their "reason" for attacking us has already clearly been proven to be largely because of our foreign policy of interfering in Muslim nations' affairs and being stationed in the holy lands. So, yes I do think the Iraq War was a mistake, but that it could have been done more successfully.
Read up on some George Tenet, on some General Anthony Zinni, and some Ben Scheuer, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Don't just pick a side in an argument and take knowledge for granted, and do not selectively choose information either.
Second, it NOT a well-known fact that Saddam had WMD's. The CIA actually did not think that Saddam had WMD's, but CIA director George Tenet felt pressured to make the case that Saddam did have WMD's, so selectively chose the information he gave the President. Read up about him, you'll learn a lot. I do not disagree, however, that it is a POSSIBILITY, that Saddam may have moved the WMD's, but at this point, I think he probably did not. Yes, we did not have enough troops at first, but this has been corrected by the ousting of Rumsfield (who vehemently supported a small number of troops despite the opinions of most generals). Most of the controversy surrounded the body and Humvee armor has been around the fact that the DOD, particularly Rumsfeld, intentionally hid the fact from these military analysts and from Congress. They often chose to ignore and hide problems rather than fix them.
Thirdly, this is most definitely NOT a new kind of warfare. Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, colonial/imperial wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, etc are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to historical examples. Most military experts and historians, I am sure, would agree with me. We simply handled the war badly from the beginning with the Rumsfeld administration. Currently, we couldn't be handling the Iraq war any better in my opinion. Rumsfeld was simply a current-day Robert McNamara. There are guidelines for the war, and we did not follow them initially. Lastly, the administration did lie, and they did deceive the American public. They deceived the military analysts, indirectly deceiving the American public. They used selective information to incriminate Saddam, they have lied somewhat about their counter-terrorism abilities prior to 9/11, they hid information about the body armor and Humvees and made people think there was progress at a time when the situation was only getting worse because of the negligent handling of the war.
I hate it when people like to paint other people as "anti-Bushites" or Bush haters, but that's what it comes down to. Personally, I am conservative. However, whether you are conservative or not, or whether you supported the war or not, there was a way to handle it properly, and it wasn't done. Bush has largely been a bad republican president. He has deceived the American people in numerous ways.
I never said I did not support the Iraq war, but you have stereotyped me as an anti-Iraq War person. Just because I criticize our handling of the war does not imply I disagree with Bush's foreign policies. I do think the Iraq war could have been done successfully, but it was still a mistake. I think we have actually made ourselves less safe, because we have left ourselves largely defenseless. The War on Terror is not a war against nations, so the enemy is not clear-cut. Meaning that if we go over commit ourselves against other nations which may not be a direct threat to us, we are leaving ourselves defenseless at home. Our military is stretched to the breaking point, we are reducing our long-term readiness, we are sending our border control guards to Iraq instead of guarding our own borders, therefore leaving the door wide open for some terrorist to get through and attack us. Furthermore, instead of attacking us at home, they can just attack us overseas. If you know someone wants to kill your family, and you leave them at home to go attack somebody else, are they safe? No, they are defenseless. If you know who the attacker is, and it is only one person, and you know where he is, then yeah it is no problem. But in this global insurgency, you have no single, clear-cut attacker, so we are leaving our homes defenseless to attack an ambiguous enemy. It is not smart. Yes, we should have attacked Afghanistan, yes we should commit to the intelligence agencies and not tie their hands behind their back, but no we should not over commit to the wrong enemy. By being in Iraq, we also only adding fuel to the fire and helping the enemy to recruit more soldiers. Their "reason" for attacking us has already clearly been proven to be largely because of our foreign policy of interfering in Muslim nations' affairs and being stationed in the holy lands. So, yes I do think the Iraq War was a mistake, but that it could have been done more successfully.
Read up on some George Tenet, on some General Anthony Zinni, and some Ben Scheuer, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Don't just pick a side in an argument and take knowledge for granted, and do not selectively choose information either.
No comments:
Post a Comment