--- Ah, Andrew. I'm disappointed in you.
BUSH'S RESPONSIBILITY: It's worth saying here what we now know the
president got wrong - badly wrong. There were never enough troops to
occupy Iraq. The war-plan might have been brilliant, but the post-war
plan has obviously been a failure. We needed more force and we needed
more money sooner. The president has no excuses for not adjusting more
quickly to this fact: he was told beforehand; he was told afterward;
but he and the Defense Secretary were too pig-headed to change course.
I still favor the war; but I cannot excuse the lapses and failures of
the administration in the post-war. Yes, this was always going to be
very very hard. And yes, Iraq was slowly imploding under Saddam and
some version of what we are now witnessing was inevitable - and,
without the war, it would have happened without our stabilizing
presence. Yes, balancing keeping order and winning hearts and minds is
not an easy operation to pull off. But with the troop levels we
maintained - especially given the limited international support - we
made things far harder than they might have been, and our beleaguered
troops are dealing with the aftermath. We can still win this. We must
still win this. But the president is in part responsible for making it
even harder than it might have been.
Fer cryin' out loud.
It be time for a Fisking.
It's worth saying here what we now know the president got wrong -
badly wrong. There were never enough troops to occupy Iraq. The
war-plan might have been brilliant, but the post-war plan has obviously
been a failure. We needed more force and we needed more money sooner.
I hate to say this Andrew, because you are a brilliant man, but you are
neither a financial analyst nor a military analyst. You are a pundit,
my friend. $87 billion---and that's BILLION, with a big Carl Sagan
'B'--- dollars apparently isn't enough money and Bush didn't push for
it soon enough. Well, my little fiscal conservative, did it not ever
occur to you that perhaps he waited until he had a better handle on
what the true costs of an unpopular war would be before he went to the
Congress to get it authorized? That maybe, just maybe, he was trying to
keep the authorization process from becoming a attention seeking
whore-fest? How much money would you have had him ask for, being the
true fiscal conservative that you are? As far as putting boots on the
ground, well, are you a military analyst, Andrew? I don't think so.
Hannibal you ain't. Leave the decisions about the elephants to those in
the know. You are not in Iraq. You are in D.C. What you do know about
troop strength you know from reading other pundits and from listening
to press releases. Is it fair to ask the men and women that are there
currently to have to pick up more slack? No, it's not and I'm sorry for
it. But I do know that I would prefer to have experienced men and women
in the field, fighting the battles, than replacement soldiers who are
green and are liable to get themselves killed in the meantime. The president has no excuses for not adjusting more quickly to
this fact: he was told beforehand; he was told afterward; but he and
the Defense Secretary were too pig-headed to change course.
Too pigheaded? It seems to me that just like the 9/11 commission,
perhaps hindsight is playing with your brilliant mind. The phrase If only
comes to mind. If only we'd done this differently. If only we'd done
that differently. Pffft. We hadn't invaded and then occupied a country
for a longer period than a few months since WWII. And we all know what
kind of a pain in the ass the German occupation was for the parties
involved. Things have changed since WWII. Might it have occurred to you
that switching course might have given our enemies exactly what they
wanted? Again, neither of us are military analysts. We should leave it
up to those in the know to decide what should have been done and when.
Yes there are lessons to be learned, Andrew. It hasn't gone off
swimmingly, but look at what has been achieved. There are schools and
roads and infrastructure and a Constitution.
Would any of that have happened as quickly if we hadn't invaded? Nope.
Patience, man. I have a feeling the occupation of Iran and Syria will
go much better when we invade them. (And that was a joke---maybe)
I still favor the war; but I cannot excuse the lapses and failures
of the administration in the post-war. Yes, this was always going to be
very very hard. And yes, Iraq was slowly imploding under Saddam and
some version of what we are now witnessing was inevitable - and,
without the war, it would have happened without our stabilizing
presence. Yes, balancing keeping order and winning hearts and minds is
not an easy operation to pull off.
You made my point for me, it seems.
But with the troop levels we maintained - especially given the
limited international support - we made things far harder than they
might have been, and our beleaguered troops are dealing with the
aftermath. We can still win this. We must still win this. But the
president is in part responsible for making it even harder than it
might have been.
Ahhhhh, you want the French in there after all, don't you? AIEEEEEE! What about the Germans? How about the UN? Because it's partly the President's fault because he didn't bring more support to the table in the first place!
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. The President did not "in part" make it harder
for the US Military. You want know who did? The list is pretty freaking
long. Let's see. There's The UN. They made it harder because they
forced us to enforce their resolutions. They wouldn't do it. They
wanted more time for Blixie's Boys and Girls---even though it was on
Saddam to disarm in the first place. They were just there to verify
that he actually had done it. Then there's the French. They refused to
get on board---and the reasons why they didn't get on board aren't all
that altruistic, if you take my meaning. And Germany, after all, just
follows what the French do, as do the Russians. These countries and
international organizations wouldn't get off their fat asses to do
something about Iraq. We did. We knew this is what the level of
multilateral support we'd garnered would mean. I do believe the
President and Tony Blair said more than a few times the road would be a
difficult one, but one that must be traversed nonetheless. Don't tell
me you didn't know, too?
Yet you want these same countries. These same naysayers to come in and
help out. Well, forgive me, but I don't want their help. That's right. I don't want their help.
They had the balls to say we shouldn't go in. That we were violating
international law. That we were bad because we were doing this. They
have called for "regime change" here in the United States. Through the
EU and the UN they are actively trying to influence our election
because they don't like President Bush. And you want help from them?
What the hell? Figure it out. They don't like us. They don't like this
President. Why on Earth would he go to them for support? Such an action
would be, in essence, saying they were right all along. That we need
them to bail us out. Well, I don't think we do need them to bail us out
because we don't need to bailed out in the first place. We'll get the
job done. It may not be as pretty as you would have liked it to be,
like a remodel that didn't quite live up to your expectations, but it
will get done. Suck it up. Trust the people in charge. They know what
they're doing. And realize it's always darkest before the dawn.