Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed

[Penn]

Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue? We are not in disagreement with SH being a SHead, or that he needed to go, but he was contained and controlled by the no fly zones. Hell, Russia was contained for 45 years!!! What was the rush to war if in fact the disicion was made 8 months before 9/11? What was the policy issue that put this plan into motion. It wasn't WMD's that was the excuse.

My instinct tells me the reason Rumsfield went with a smaller force was not because he thought it reasonable, but because he did not want to call up the full force as was done in GW1. It was a PR decision.

What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.

It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!

This is not a statement of I don’t support the war, but I support the troops. Its, if you are going to commit boots to the ground, do it with the full force at your disposable and don’t look back, cause the only thing you should see is the charred earth you just passed over.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Penn

Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?......

Nope, didn't say that.

I'd say "About time!"

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Penn

Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?

Sir, is it possible that Iraq was (and, perhaps, is) a very real national security issue - just not the precise issue that we were told about?

Originally Posted by Penn

What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.

Might it be that we have no intention of withdrawing? Furthermore, could it be that we dare not withdraw?

Originally Posted by Penn

It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!

As you say, Sir, the verdict of history will be most interesting. I suspect it will be at least 50 years before a dispassionate and thorough study of the facts can be conducted.

You make mention of oil companies. Had a person purchased shares of Exxon in 1980, the value would have increased 16 fold today. That doesn't count the 10% dividends that would have been paid each year. Both the President and Vice President have backgrounds in the oil industry. It strains imagination that they would not know the significance of oil depletion, as well is its potential impact on the US economy. Perhaps they acted on that knowledge.

Due to sanctions and poor management, the Iraqi oilfields may not have been well-developed. It is possible that Iraq is one of the great untapped reserves of hydrocarbons available. In addition, it sits in the middle of a strategically essential resource - crude oil distributed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. If we suppose the possibility that our nation depends on cheap and abundant crude oil, as I believe it does, and if we also suppose that our leadership was aware of these factors, then perhaps protection of our economy was the true national security issue. If that happens to be the case, then it seems unlikely that we can fully withdraw anytime soon.

Would the great majority of people be willing to fight a war for purely economic purposes? I suspect not - at least, not yet. Should a leader pursue a course for one reason, while claiming a different reason? I'll leave that question to folks wiser than I.

[Penn]

Pete, Thanks for not be too vague about your position...lol
Nmap, you're most likely correct. Excuse me while I go scream at the moon.

[AngelsSix]

Penn.....you ever watch the show "The West Wing"? I liked that fact that they portrayed the things that go on in the White House and in politics in general are beyond the scope of the average citizen. There are a lot of handshakes, backslapping and lunches that make decisions in this country. That is why it is called politics. We can talk a big game about things that we think happened; but just like the history books, if we weren't there we cannot speculate on a lot of these issues. Point I am trying to make is that people are inherently human and want to do good. But they also want to protect their hides. If you find that you don't agree with the politicians, that is your right as a citizen. But bad decisions happen. I see them every day in the military....ask the folks that failed to report Spc Touma missing. Sometimes we drop the ball. Generals and politicians are not infallible.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Penn

Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?

NO!

We are not in disagreement with SH being a SHead, or that he needed to go, but he was contained and controlled by the no fly zones. Hell, Russia was contained for 45 years!!! What was the rush to war if in fact the disicion was made 8 months before 9/11? What was the policy issue that put this plan into motion. It wasn't WMD's that was the excuse.

1. The no-fly zone was BS! The Kurds and Shiia's suffered a great deal with the no-fly implemented.

My instinct tells me the reason Rumsfield went with a smaller force was not because he thought it reasonable, but because he did not want to call up the full force as was done in GW1. It was a PR decision.

Negative...w/our technology we have an advantage of using a smaller force. Also, the MSM hampers our ability to fight with their self-righteous beliefs of; we can accomplish "every" thing thru diplomacy. Wars have been fought since humans have been around. What makes people think, that they'll end in our generation?

What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.

I noticed in your initial post that Powell name was not mentioned?

It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!

As much money the US has spent on Iraq! Why should we NOT let our oil companies have first shot at Iraqi oil contracts?

This is not a statement of I don’t support the war, but I support the troops. Its, if you are going to commit boots to the ground, do it with the full force at your disposable and don’t look back, cause the only thing you should see is the charred earth you just passed over.

Call me an a$$-hole if you want however...I'd secure the North & South of Iraq and let Baghdad AO have at it. Baghdad reminds me of DC with a twist for religious extremism.

Stay safe.