But where then, John, is the accountability for the major mistakes made in fighting this war? No one is stepping up to the plate. Who's taking blame for invading with a force of 125,000 when double that number was needed? Who's taking blame for declaring "mission accomplished" and then watching 2,000+ more Americans troops die in a vain cause. Who's taking blame for thinking that GI's would be met as conquering heroes like Paris 1944 and that momentum alone could rebuild a post-Saddaam Iraq?
Three more GI's died yesterday and April will go down as the bloodiest month of 2006.
Yet Bush stays, Cheney stays, Rummy stays, Condi stays....hmmm, who can then can the voting public punish?
Rumsfeld is going nowhere = Republicans going nowhere. That's why I'm so fired up about this war.
My only question is why you don't work for the Bush administration, GC. I mean the knack for pointing up at the sun and being able to say how dark it is outside is a rare thing, and they could use some new talent these days. I mean even McClellan got tired, and he was one master bullshitter. Yes, while there are undoubtedly many generals("thousands" is more than a bit of an overstatement) who have not become vocal in opposition to Rummy, the story got legs because of who the generals were/are and the capacities in which they worked with him (i.e., they weren't running a marine base in the Phillipines). These were the people that were intimately involved in the err..."planning" and running of the war, and therefore are those who have the inside knowledge on just exactly how FUBAR things are over at DoD. Rummy needs to go, and not because of the generals. Their enhancing us with details of the obviously piss poor job he has done doesn't give him a free pass.
All you have to do is take a look at Col. Wilkerson's shitty op-ed from yesterday (which I skewered here to realize just how pathetic some of the military criticism has been.
I don't think John (or myself for that matter) is interested in a blanket pardonning of Bush, but it seems that a little BDS has blinded people to the fact that the people attacking Rumsfeld are even more clueless.
But where then, John, is the accountability for the major mistakes made in fighting this war?
Jeff, at no point did I ever say that this war was executed flawlessly at its inception; I think it is clear some mistakes were made. The last time I checked, however, no war has ever gone flawlessly, since such is the nature of war. War is chaotic and unpredictable. The mistakes made, in my opinion, also had more to do with unprecedented circumstances that had never been seen in a modern war, like what to do with the sovereign army of the government you have just toppled. If you want to fault them for not having psychic powers, be my guest.
You and I clearly disagree when it comes to the value and necessity of this war. More bluntly, I do not view Iraq as a "vain cause," but a sadly necessary one. Every time I see pathetic old Saddam on the news, ranting and raving at his trial, I think about how the world could have been spared decades' worth of pain, misery, and death if European nations had had the guts to stop Hitler in the 1930s before he made his bloody mark.
I sleep well at night knowing -- knowing -- that we did the right thing. The fact that Europeans were upset with us only further cemented my certainty.
As for you, Deuce, your comments are amusing. I nevertheless long for substance. (And I can assure you, if I were running this White House, they would not be having the message problems they are having.)
John, fair enough. You clearly see Iraq as being a more worthy cause than I do. But tell me, in all honesty, do you really sleep better knowing that the fate of Iraq is now more closely tied to that of Iran than ever before?
And do you sleep better knowing that under the eyes of this administration Iran is now packing some real weapons, something it turns out Saddaam only dreamed of?
The more facts that emerge, I'm convinced Bush Jr simply had a thing for Saddam because of what he did to his daddy - from the sting of an uncompleted mission to the assassination attempt in Kuwait to Saddam laughing at outlasting Bush after the latter's defeat in the '92 election. In the wake of 9/11, this animoisty became national policy and led to an unnecessary war.
Iran was and remains 1000x more of a threat than Saddam's Iraq. I don't sleep better at all.
The more facts that emerge, I'm convinced Bush Jr simply had a thing for Saddam because of what he did to his daddy - from the sting of an uncompleted mission to the assassination attempt in Kuwait to Saddam laughing at outlasting
Jeff, I respect your opinions and all, but wow. Walk away from the Michael Moore DVDs and come back to us.
Jeff- You raise an interesting question.
"Do you feel safer?"
NO.
I felt a hell of a lot safer when there was a Soviet Union. They had their guys and we had ours. Everyone on our side was a good guy. Everyone on theirs was a bad guy.
As much as I love Ron, JPII, and Maggy, I almost wish they hadn't brought the Soviets to their knees.
Now, everyone has nukes... Every day some other delinquent gets closer to the nuclear prize. Unstable powers like Pakistan, North Korea, and break-away Soviet Republics have nukes on their territory. Iran and Brazil are getting closer and closer. I fear nuclear horror much more than in the 80's.
So... What to do...
Any ideas Jeff?
[F]air enough. You clearly see Iraq as being a more worthy cause than I do. But tell me, in all honesty, do you really sleep better knowing that the fate of Iraq is now more closely tied to that of Iran than ever before?
I sleep better knowing there is one less Middle Eastern nation governed by someone who views dictatorial power buttressed with WMD as acceptable. (One down, eight or so to go.) Say what you will about Iran (which, I think we can all agree, is a threat), but Iran has been a threat for a long time, their below-the-radar status notwithstanding. (If you think this nuke program of theirs is of recent vintage, you have a lot to learn.) Iraq was its own problem, and while it is far from solved, it is no longer run by Saddam and has elected its own government. That, under any objective assessment, is an improvement.
I have also heard the "Bush was protecting daddy" stuff before. It is bunk. I have no doubt Bush probably disliked Saddam that much more for the reasons you mention, but you need to remember that Bush won an election during which a majority of Americans gave a nod to his Middle East policy by re-electing him. Americans wouldn't have done that if Iraq had solely been the arena for a Bush blood feud.
As for you, G-Veg:
I felt a hell of a lot safer when there was a Soviet Union. They had their guys and we had ours. Everyone on our side was a good guy. Everyone on theirs was a bad guy. . . . As much as I love Ron, JPII, and Maggy, I almost wish they hadn't brought the Soviets to their knees.
I respect your view, and even agree with you, to an extent: the world was somewhat safer when there was a bipolar struggle between two rational nations. But ponder this hypothetical: do you not challenge one enemy in the present to avoid the creation of enemies in the future? History is replete with examples of Side A beating Side B, only to inadvertantly bring about the creation of Side C. Should we therefore shy away from fighting Side B in order to prevent the rise of Side C? I truly hope your answer is no.
But back to you, Jeff. You asked me if I sleep better. I do. In fact, I am going to sleep right now. Good night.
GC- I'm a realist. I take the world as I find it; but, I AM a bit nostalgic for the "Soviet Era" of my youth... understanding that I am WAY oversimplifying things.
In answer to your question, good and right must seek to vanguish every foe as it appears. The Soviet Union was an evil institution, well deserving of destruction. That Maggy, Ron, and JPII slayed that demon is a good thing.
However, the last 20 years has brought a sharp focus to the fragile nature of international law, to its very real limits. At the end of the day, only two real choices for affecting rogues exist... dialog w/ pressure and brute force.
Iran is about to withdraw from the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. The "dialog" has clearly failed and the pressures that can be brought to bear seem too weak to have the desired effect. Iran is going nuke and I don't see any way to prevent it.
Brazil is going "nucular" too. Within the confines of the treaty, the dual-use technologies that will get them most of the way there are lawful. There is no talk of reviving or renegotiating the treaty and the mechanisms for keeping a lid on this force are an artifact of the Cold War.
In short... we are screwed.
Russia and China continue to pour technology, that is useful for long-range technology and nuclear armament, into unstable powers . North Korea and Iran are unassailable through conventional military means; absent the provocation of an actual nuclear strike by either against one of the West's allies. Pakistan, India, Israel, and Brazil are ever arming. The US maintains her arsenal at a level sufficient to destroy the planet many times over and our "allies" have comparable arsenals spread accross the globe.
Doesn't look like we need an asteroid to destroy us... We've got a cauldron that seems likely to blow within the next century.
God help us all.
By the way, quick follow-up to something Deuce said in his comment:
Yes, while there are undoubtedly many generals ("thousands" is more than a bit of an overstatement) . . .
Actually, no, the projection is accurate. There are literally thousands of retired generals of varying ranks, although I do not have one concrete number.
Defense Department statistics set the total number of active-duty generals at 881:
http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/rg0602.pdf
Civilian sources, such as Slate magazine (you know, that conservative bastion?), has used those active-duty data to extrapolate an estimate of the total number of retired generals:
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&
id=2139847
So, yes, there are literally thousands of retired generals . . . and less than one-tenth of one percent of them think Rumsfeld should go. Want to guess how many might have the opposite opinion (or at least have the decency to keep their personal opinion to themselves)?
G-Veg, interesting point about how far things have come. And I certainly agree about the widespread nature of the danger of proliferation. A MAD scenario really doesn't apply anymore. But that's also why I don't think GC's approach as seen in Iraq will ever work: "one down, eight or so to go."
Paul, the Michael Moore cool aid is pretty good, actually. Nah, not really. He's still just a fat slimy manipulator. But on the specific issue or Iraq, I too believe that in retrospect we made a really big mistake. And I'll be the first to admit that my support for the war during the first 18 mos was foolish too.
But, in my defense, I didn't have access to the CIA, State Dept, UN, and a decade's worth of intelligence gathering. I didn't show those flawed satellite photos to the security council as I lobbied for war. I merely listened to speeches talking about Saddam trying to get uranium from Niger and how Bin Laden had built a relationship with Saddam through their common hate for the US. I heard about what was done to the Kurds and how it could be done to us in America anyday now.
GC, I realize through previous posts that you put more stock into Saddam's pre-war capabilties than most commentators. Fair enough, as we'll never really know. But we do know that it was NOTHING at all like the fear that had been built up in the American public in the wake of 9/11. In fact, it probably was no more of a threat than those 8 or so other countries you mentioned.
So what to do, then? Given your position, it seems pretty analogous to when Patton said in May 1945, "Ok, did that. Now let's keep going all the way to Moscow."
In both cases, America just can't take it anymore. "Slow down, Georgie boys." We can't change what we've done, but the time has come to limit the damage. That's why I say bring the troops home now.
And, GC, speaking as a former prosecutor who never really slept well while at his job, more power to you! Here's hoping those old misdemeanors that you described plea out. Nothing worse than old files! 
Commenting by HaloScan
