Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Actually the only assumption I made was that you want to believe that our country is run by good people. You don't want to believe that? Fine. I guess there really are some people out there that want to believe that their country is run by bad people. Mostly, the ones profiting off of the current state of affairs.

Everything else I said directed at your state of mind was accompanied by plenty of "If's." If you harbor certain thoughts, which your posts show evidence of, then certain conclusions can be drawn. If you don't have those thoughts then much of what you have said here is a mystery.

As far as Israel is concerned, the only word you chose to use that I have a problem with is 'mindlessly.' I'm not sure why you chose to use it; perhaps only to undermine the intelligence of those you label terrorists. Israel and the organisations labeled terrorists both very pointedly and deliberately target civilians, and I'd like to see any scrap of evidence you could drudge up to the contrary since you originally chose to deny me without any supporting information. There is nothing mindless about the civilian casualties that Israel routinely inflicts on Palestine.

I have a few questions for you; A) what evidence do you have of the liberal/conservative demographics for this forum and B) What does being liberal have to do with disagreeing with our government's actions and motives? I personally would not describe myself as a liberal, and aside from a misguided conservative attempt at an insult; no one else would either, yet I still disagree with you. From where I stand, the original conservative republican stance on foreign and domestic policy is that the government should have as little effect on our daily lives as possible and that we should avoid world conflicts at all costs; two things that are quite obviously not being done. There was a time when the Democrats were seen as the big spending war mongerers; although I know its hard to see it that way when only focusing on the current state of affairs.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually the only assumption I made was that you want to believe that our country is run by good people. You don't want to believe that? Fine. I guess there really are some people out there that want to believe that their country is run by bad people. Mostly, the ones profiting off of the current state of affairs.

No, you assumed I would like to think that the other posters in this thread are idiots. Your ifs were stated as counterarguments to my points, thereby illustrating your assertion that they were true. And I do want to believe that our country is run by good people. I just don't believe it. That is another assumption you made. I think politicians suck, but I think it is unfortunate that they do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as Israel is concerned, the only word you chose to use that I have a problem with is 'mindlessly.' I'm not sure why you chose to use it; perhaps only to undermine the intelligence of those you label terrorists. Israel and the organisations labeled terrorists both very pointedly and deliberately target civilians, and I'd like to see any scrap of evidence you could drudge up to the contrary since you originally chose to deny me without any supporting information. There is nothing mindless about the civilian casualties that Israel routinely inflicts on Palestine.

If Israel targets civilians, they are way out of line. I know they target Palestinian soldiers and key government places. Whatever it is, at least it is not mindless. It is about protection of Israel from those who are terrorists. Israel is being well preserved, so the military strategy is successful. It is not about pure rage ventilation or a quest to screw virgins. That would be terrorism. Calulated, intelligent, effective military strategy for the greater good is not terrorism. Blowing up a coffee shop to make God happy is.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have a few questions for you; A) what evidence do you have of the liberal/conservative demographics for this forum and B) What does being liberal have to do with disagreeing with our government's actions and motives? I personally would not describe myself as a liberal, and aside from a misguided conservative attempt at an insult; no one else would either, yet I still disagree with you. From where I stand, the original conservative republican stance on foreign and domestic policy is that the government should have as little effect on our daily lives as possible and that we should avoid world conflicts at all costs; two things that are quite obviously not being done. There was a time when the Democrats were seen as the big spending war mongerers; although I know its hard to see it that way when only focusing on the current state of affairs.

A) My history of posting here. The only people with conservative foreign policy views I have ever seen post in here at all are myself, Oneironaught, Hominus Feralis and the alterego he took on after he got banned, Tdkyo, that guy who used to get severely offended over every single atheist argument in the religion forum, and one other guy who posted in here for like a month. That is a total of six people. Maybe there were like two others who were extremely temporary, but that's it. I am talking about my entire history of posting in here. The list of people with liberal foreign policy views who have posted here is in the hundreds.

B) It's the specific disagreements. They are liberal in nature. It is the left that wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq and that believes we should have never gone to war in the first place. Moderate leftists supported the war in the beginning, but now they do not. Far leftists have been against it the entire time. Plus, we have a long list of people in this forum who believe in the 9/11 inside job conspiracy, who despise Bush on a deep personal level, who support socialism, and so forth. The posters in this forum are almost all liberals. I don't hold that against them personally, but it is a fact.

That is not what is so important to my earlier point any way. What is really relevant is that the posters in this forum are very against the war in Iraq and disagree majorly with the government's rationale for why we have a terrorism problem and how it should be handled. The consensus here is very unrepresentative of the real world demographics. That is why I am completely alone in arguing my view in here.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I can understand if people are bored or frustrated from this debate, though.

*sigh*... I thought I was done, but I am compelled to return. I'm not sure if UM is serious sometimes, or if he is just giving us a target and the opportunity to say everything we disagree with that is going on--there are many other things that he is actually right about, so it's not a lost cause, I don't think.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Israel has a policy of mindlessly targetting civilians? False.

UM, you really need to do a little bit of research on what goes on in Isreael. You keep denying things that are really common knowledge. I don't really feel like putting together a reading list for you, maybe someone else will; but in the meantime, why don't you just find out a little bit about it? Yes, the are good at preserving their country, but at the expense of freedom and human rights.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But to keep their power, they know they have to do what the people want in the long run, though not necessarily in the short term.

I think it's totally the opposite; the people never think about the long run, and the politicians totally try to give them what they want in the short run to stay in power. Hence, the debt, pork, etc.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The regular posters in this forum are almost 100% liberals. That is why everybody disagrees with me. It's not like the poster pool in this forum is representatives of real world demographics.

I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian. Invading other countries to spread our philosophy is a liberal idea, not a conservative one. A real conservative would be in favor of leaving other countries alone. Traditionally I mean; liberal vs. conservative makes no sense anymore--the people who consider themselves "conservative" think they are voting that way when they vote Republican, but they don't even know what it means, and if they are poor, they don't know that they are being f***ed in the a** and begging for more.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And I do want to believe that our country is run by good people. I just don't believe it. That is another assumption you made. I think politicians suck, but I think it is unfortunate that they do.

Then how can you believe what they are doing is good? It's the same old thing--power to the money (multi-national corporations), not the people.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The only people with conservative foreign policy views I have ever seen post in here at all are myself...

You mean neocon, not conservative.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are liberal in nature. It is the left that wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq and that believes we should have never gone to war in the first place. Moderate leftists supported the war in the beginning, but now they do not.

Again, correlating with what I said above about Republicans, the people who think of themselves as "liberal" have been fooled into voting for Democrats. The Democrats were for the war when it seemed to be politically popular; now that it may be changing, they're taking the voters who are against it. Any of them that were for the war in the first place are just as responsible as Bush, in my opinion, and also lose points for being wishy-washy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is why I am completely alone in arguing my view in here.

There may be other explanations for that. Maybe most people are against the war, but our government with the help of our media cover that up and do whatever the hell they want.

I think it is funny that the bush administration thinks they can end terrorism. Anyone is possible of becoming a terrorist, plus it is just a tactic. Ending terrorism is a retarded concept. It has given them power to declare groups as terrorist (such as the revolutionary guards) and then include them in our war. It gives us free reign to make people enemy combatants as we see fit, or whatever we designate as "terrorism"

It's retarded. At least in the cold war it was "Russia" or communism. But this is declaring war on an obscure loosely definable enemy.

Actually, usually Bush says the "War on Terror". Like he is fighting an emotion.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, you really need to do a little bit of research on what goes on in Isreael. You keep denying things that are really common knowledge. I don't really feel like putting together a reading list for you, maybe someone else will; but in the meantime, why don't you just find out a little bit about it? Yes, the are good at preserving their country, but at the expense of freedom and human rights.

You said nothing in there at all about how you figure Israelis attacks are "mindless" and every bit as "terrorist" as Islamofascist terrorist attacks. You need to keep up with what you are trying to talk about. You also need to read my posts so you will know what you are saying when you comment on what I am talking about. You keep screwing that up.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think it's totally the opposite; the people never think about the long run, and the politicians totally try to give them what they want in the short run to stay in power. Hence, the debt, pork, etc.

That is the Bill Clinton way of doing things. People like Bush and Reagan think more about their legacies.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian. Invading other countries to spread our philosophy is a liberal idea, not a conservative one. A real conservative would be in favor of leaving other countries alone. Traditionally I mean; liberal vs. conservative makes no sense anymore--the people who consider themselves "conservative" think they are voting that way when they vote Republican, but they don't even know what it means, and if they are poor, they don't know that they are being f***ed in the a** and begging for more.

Yeah, the traditional associations are getting put in a blender. The same stuff can be said about the war on drugs. I am a libertarian also, but not on foreign policy, which is what I specified I was talking about. Are you sure you are reading all that I write in this thread? Besides, I am talking about the entire pool of forum posters, not just you.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Then how can you believe what they are doing is good? It's the same old thing--power to the money (multi-national corporations), not the people.

I need to explain that again? Because they want to look good, some now but most in the long run.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You mean neocon, not conservative.

NeoCON... as in "CONservative". The people who share the views of the people who are conservative on pretty much everything. I agree with those people on foreign policy, except I am more extreme.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Again, correlating with what I said above about Republicans, the people who think of themselves as "liberal" have been fooled into voting for Democrats. The Democrats were for the war when it seemed to be politically popular; now that it may be changing, they're taking the voters who are against it. Any of them that were for the war in the first place are just as responsible as Bush, in my opinion, and also lose points for being wishy-washy.

Why the far left associates itself so much with the Democratic party is a big puzzle to me. They were all gung ho John Kerry in 2004 because they hate Bush because they hated the war. Uh, John Kerry voted for the war. Duh! He is also an admitted Vietnman war criminal. So bizarre.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

There may be other explanations for that. Maybe most people are against the war, but our government with the help of our media cover that up and do whatever the hell they want.

I don't think the ratio is 100 to 1 or whatever it is in here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said nothing in there at all about how you figure Israelis attacks are "mindless" and every bit as "terrorist" as Islamofascist terrorist attacks.

UM, just read about Isreal's treatment of Palistinians. I already said I don't feel like explaining it to you. E

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is the Bill Clinton way of doing things. People like Bush and Reagan think more about their legacies.

Wow. You don't know anything about what happened to the deficit under Clinton and under Bush II, do you? Nice legacy, huge debt to China.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I need to explain that again? Because they want to look good, some now but most in the long run.

I disagree with that. I think it is all for short-term gain. What long-term are you talking about? History? That's not going to keep them in power now, which is what they are concerned about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

NeoCON... as in "CONservative". The people who share the views of the people who are conservative on pretty much everything. I agree with those people on foreign policy, except I am more extreme.

1. No, they are not conservative in the traditional sense, more in the fascist sense. 2. That is pretty fucking scary. So who do you think we should invade next? Do you think China will keep loaning us money? Should we start drafting to make up for the declining enlistment?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why the far left associates itself so much with the Democratic party is a big puzzle to me. They were all gung ho John Kerry in 2004 because they hate Bush because they hated the war. Uh, John Kerry voted for the war. Duh! He is also an admitted Vietnman war criminal. So bizarre.

Like I said, they're wishy-washy, they go with the flow--now the Democrats have decided to take the people who are against the war, because every one has already forgotten that in the beginning they were for it. I'm surprised that you think anyone could be a war criminal in Vietnam; weren't you in favor of containment?

I think Kerry and Bush were in league to keep Bush in power.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, just read about Isreal's treatment of Palistinians. I already said I don't feel like explaining it to you. E

That's a very convenient response.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wow. You don't know anything about what happened to the deficit under Clinton and under Bush II, do you? Nice legacy, huge debt to China.

I didn't say they are always successful with it. However, I did say that Clinton was the type of politician who was much more concerned about immediate power and not so much about legacy. You are still not reading my posts very carefully.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I disagree with that. I think it is all for short-term gain. What long-term are you talking about? History? That's not going to keep them in power now, which is what they are concerned about.

Nobody in office right now wants a major terrorist attack to happen on the U.S. and to go down in history as somebody who could have prevented it but didn't. Legacy does matter to politicians, some more than others. If Bush were concerned much more about immediate popularity than legacy, we would be out of Iraq already.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1. No, they are not conservative in the traditional sense, more in the fascist sense. 2. That is pretty fucking scary. So who do you think we should invade next? Do you think China will keep loaning us money? Should we start drafting to make up for the declining enlistment?

1. They are conservative in the sense that the people who are conservative in the traditional sense on pretty much everything are their supporters. 2. I have already covered this. Do you remember what I said about bringing the world together to liberate the world?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm surprised that you think anyone could be a war criminal in Vietnam; weren't you in favor of containment?

So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes? I don't get get your reasoning there.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think Kerry and Bush were in league to keep Bush in power.

From Universal Mind
So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes?

I don't think anyone is arguing that, but I think those who initiate wars must be responsible for them.

If it is a choice to initiate war, then every crime that is committed as a result is part of that initial decision. As the Nuremburg trials concluded, an aggressive war is the greatest evil because it contains within it all of the evil of its parts. We are left to interpret a workable definition of 'aggressive.'

The motives of those who initiated the war determine their liability as war criminals, but even nobly-purposed leaders must accept responsibility for not conducting wars to the best of their ability (limiting civilian casualties, not breaking international or constitutional law, etc). The "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" justification can only be stretched so far. When those who ostensibly have noble motives do not attempt to limit needless destruction, their motives become suspect.

Those who decide to initiate wars have the dual responsibility of justifying the action and carrying it out without tolerance for anything more than the minimum in civilian casualties, even if that is a severe constraint. When those who initiate wars shirk the responsibilities they have accepted, it is easy to cross the thin line between moral bankruptcy and criminality without realizing it.

North Vietnam initiated war and take over against South Vietnam. We just helped South Vietnam fight back. Similarly, the Hussein regime initiated war and take over against Kuwait. We defended Kuwait. The current war in Iraq is a continuation of that war because the Hussein regime did not meet the counterterrorism requrirements of the ceasefire.

The goal of the Vietnam war was quite clear and isn't very controversial. What made the war such a foreign policy disaster was that the implementation was poor. When it should have been clear that a military victory would require millions of innocent deaths, if it was possible at all, the war continued unabated, with little change in strategy. The political necessity of preserving a non-existent military victory took precedence over the lives of innocent people. In that sense, those who managed the war were irresponsible.

Do you have any theories as to why Bush Sr. and Clinton decided not to invade Iraq?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The goal of the Vietnam war was quite clear and isn't very controversial. What made the war such a foreign policy disaster was that the implementation was poor.

I totally agree.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

When it should have been clear that a military victory would require millions of innocent deaths, if it was possible at all, the war continued unabated, with little change in strategy. The political necessity of preserving a non-existent military victory took precedence over the lives of innocent people. In that sense, those who managed the war were irresponsible.

I don't think it required millions of deaths. That is just how it was fought. I don't think civilians should have ever been targetted, but they were. The idea was one of calculated war strategy, but it was a failure. I think the Vietnam War taught us a lot of major lessons on how to handle situations like that.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Do you have any theories as to why Bush Sr. and Clinton decided not to invade Iraq?

The costs would be so high, as they presently are. War is very serious stuff. Cheney showed in an interview back then that they understood exactly what would happen. Cheney fully saw the picture that would happen. It was enough then to make them refrain. But 9/11 illustrated the seriousness and urgency of dealing with our terrorism threats, and that created the difference in the cost/benefit analysis.

By the way, for those who think the current war is completely about Haliburton revenue, you must think Dick Cheney is the most patient person who has ever lived and a fool for giving away the arguments against the decision he would be part of twelve years later.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1. They are conservative in the sense that the people who are conservative in the traditional sense on pretty much everything are their supporters.

There a lot of real conservatives who hate what Bush and co. are doing. It may destroy the Republican party (wouldn't that be a shame--not.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

2. I have already covered this. Do you remember what I said about bringing the world together to liberate the world?

Well, I remember what you said, I just don't remember the world agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes? I don't get get your reasoning there.

What R.D. 735 said; thank you!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

By the way, for those who think the current war is completely about Haliburton revenue, you must think Dick Cheney is the most patient person who has ever lived and a fool for giving away the arguments against the decision he would be part of twelve years later.

Oh, he's much more patient than even that; he's been working since the Nixon administration to increase the power of the presidency.

From Universal Mind
The costs would be so high, as they presently are. War is very serious stuff. Cheney showed in an interview back then that they understood exactly what would happen. Cheney fully saw the picture that would happen. It was enough then to make them refrain. But 9/11 illustrated the seriousness and urgency of dealing with our terrorism threats, and that created the difference in the cost/benefit analysis.

If they knew what the difficulties were going to be, they did a very poor job of preparing for them, and an even worse job of informing the public. I have never heard anyone from the administration claim that a coherent post-war plan was ready to be implemented when Saddam was deposed. Rather, the plan formulated by the State Dept. was rejected, and no alternative was provided. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said that the insurgency wouldn't last more than a few months, and Cheney himself said long ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.

There are three scenarios that come to mind to explain this:

1) The proponents of the war had a post-war plan, but implemented it poorly and were too incompetent to accurately judge the situation.

2) The proponents of the war had a post-war plan, but implemented it poorly and lied about its effectiveness to cover themselves.

3) The proponents of the war had no post-war plan, and initiated war while fantasizing that nothing was necessary beyond deposing Saddam.

Are there any scenarios I'm missing? What explains the degree to which the military and the administration were unprepared to deal with conditions in Iraq? This article is a little old, but relevant nonetheless:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...778139,00.html

General Shinseki testified before congress that the war would need far more troops for a longer period than the administration was suggesting. He was subsequently pressured to retire early.

What evidence is there that a realistic post-war plan was available?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Are there any scenarios I'm missing?

4) The administration knew of the post-overthrow problems that would result, as illustrated by Cheney's 1990's description of exactly what would happen if we overthrew the Hussein regime. The administration had a post-overthrow plan, but no plan could avoid an insurgency problem except destroying the country. Knowing this, the administration avoided explaining the inevitable problems to the public before the invasion because they knew the war was necessary and had to be sold to the public.

This might be off topic and I know Keith Olberman isn't "news" anymore than The O'Rielly factor is news, but he makes a good point about Rudy's campaign in this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k-RwhQOn_g4

From Universal Mind
4) The administration knew of the post-overthrow problems that would result, as illustrated by Cheney's 1990's description of exactly what would happen if we overthrew the Hussein regime. The administration had a post-overthrow plan, but no plan could avoid an insurgency problem except destroying the country. Knowing this, the administration avoided explaining the inevitable problems to the public before the invasion because they knew the war was necessary and had to be sold to the public.

In that case, the failure to prepare for the inevitable insurgency is an inescapable moral liability. In such a scenario, the administration could be guilty of criminal neglect.

Is there a scenario that doesn't leave the administration responsible for the lack of preparedness or misleading the public?

By the way anyone hear about Pakistan? Pakistan offically became a dictatorship. They just declared they are no longer following their constitution and have already started rounding up all the media sources that disagrees with the government. Though I am sure that isn't all that surprising.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In that case, the failure to prepare for the inevitable insurgency is an inescapable moral liability. In such a scenario, the administration could be guilty of criminal neglect.

Is there a scenario that doesn't leave the administration responsible for the lack of preparedness or misleading the public?

I said there was nothing more they could do without destroying the country, so I think they were prepared. That does not mean they could work a miracle.

Originally Posted by Alric

By the way anyone hear about Pakistan? Pakistan offically became a dictatorship. They just declared they are no longer following their constitution and have already started rounding up all the media sources that disagrees with the government. Though I am sure that isn't all that surprising.

That is very scary.

If they were aware of a problem that would inevitably crop up and took no measures to mitigate the problem, then that is neglect, not preparedness. Preparedness means that one takes action to ensure the best outcome possible. Accepting the inevitable and not doing anything to make the situation better is more akin to giving up than to being prepared. They couldn't work a miracle, of course, but it doesn't take a miracle worker to take basic measures to reduce the insurgency. Disbanding the Iraqi military, for example, was a step that made the US less equipped to handle the insurgency.

The situation in Pakistan is so horrifying that it's considered much worse than Iraq. Violence isn't so prevalent, but such instability in a country with nuclear weapons is more dangerous, to say the least. Still, I'm sure a few in the more radical political circles will hail Musharraf as a man simply doing what the US should have done on 9/11.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If they were aware of a problem that would inevitably crop up and took no measures to mitigate the problem, then that is neglect, not preparedness. Preparedness means that one takes action to ensure the best outcome possible. Accepting the inevitable and not doing anything to make the situation better is more akin to giving up than to being prepared. They couldn't work a miracle, of course, but it doesn't take a miracle worker to take basic measures to reduce the insurgency. Disbanding the Iraqi military, for example, was a step that made the US less equipped to handle the insurgency.

I think they did prepare. The counterinsurgency has been very well organized, considering the insane nightmare we are dealing with, and great progress is being made. We had a first week of zero U.S. casualties very recently. I just think the administration did not publicly address the inevitable factor when they were trying to sell the war. That does not mean they did not prepare.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The situation in Pakistan is so horrifying that it's considered much worse than Iraq. Violence isn't so prevalent, but such instability in a country with nuclear weapons is more dangerous, to say the least. Still, I'm sure a few in the more radical political circles will hail Musharraf as a man simply doing what the US should have done on 9/11.

Yes, we could have a monster of a situation on our hands over this.

From Universal Mind
I think they did prepare. The counterinsurgency has been very well organized, considering the insane nightmare we are dealing with, and great progress is being made. We had a first week of zero U.S. casualties very recently. I just think the administration did not publicly address the inevitable factor when they were trying to sell the war. That does not mean they did not prepare.

The counterinsurgency, after years of trial-and-error, is now well-organized. The sectarian violence is falling, thanks at least in part to the displacement of millions of Iraqis from mixed Shia-Sunni communities. US casualties are down, though whether that is due to more effective counterinsurgency, greater reliance on air-strikes, or a greater reluctance to leave fortified American zones of control is unclear to me. Still, there is no real plan for Iraqi political reconciliation, and Iraq's political future looks more bleak by the month.

Whatever the circumstances are today, the beginning of the post-war reconstruction process was most certainly unplanned and unscripted. Contractors were paid millions for their employees to merely be within Iraq for months after the invasion, waiting amidst the chaos until they were given projects to complete. The number of soldiers was far too small, is too small, and can't be made larger without a draft. The Iraqi army was disbanded, leaving hundreds of thousands of Sunnis with military training to search for new jobs in a decimated country. No doubt, some of them were the seeds of the current insurgency.

Colonel Van Riper retired in protest at the colossal farce that was the Millenium Challenge '02, when the military insisted that the war games follow a script that made a US defeat all but impossible, that was planning, but it sure didn't prepare the US for the challenges of Iraq. Instead, it blinded the military to the challenges that it would face fighting the crude, but effective tactics Van Riper used to defeat the US forces, guerilla tactics that were not unlike those that have been encountered in reality.

Arguably, more was done to undermine the efforts of the military than was done to prepare for what was widely known to be inevitable. Not telling the public the true cost of the invasion was a strategic mistake, and it has crushed the trust in government that allowed the war to be waged in the first place. Perhaps that's a good thing, but obviously an unplanned side-effect.

Everything seems to point toward an appalling lack of foresight.

Here's a great talk by Thomas Barnett (Strategic Planner for the Pentagon) that discusses the problems with US post-war planning:

http://blog.ted.com/2007/06/thomas_barnetts.php

Cheney's statements from the 90's show that they had the foresight. The proof is right there. They knew what to expect. In knowing what to expect, I seriously doubt that they had no plans for how to deal with wha they knew was coming. However, I think part of the illusion involved situations like the short contracts you mentioned, and that made it look to the public like they had not planned on an insurgency, but we do know that they knew what was coming. That strongly suggests that they had secret planning up their sleeves. Of course that is only circumstantial, but I think it makes a very strong suggestion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I