Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

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.

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.