We're very fortunate to be doing as well as we are.

We had a decade of the military in decline as it was downsized, not only treated as a constituency to be fed and kept quiet (politically), but with leadership chosen for their ability to get along (politically) v. fight.

We are also paying a long past due bill for the lack of popular support for the military in Vietnam (a direct result of leftist propoganda broadcast as news). The military leadership, with malice of forethought, made it impossible to fight real wars without total involvement of the citizen army (reserves) by the way they deliberately partitioned skills and assignments between these two forces (to insure we could not fight a war without popular support... and I (naively) used to think their oath was to the Constitution, not the people..).

Note that the Congress is as culpable in this as the Executive (as the body responsible for sorting and sifting the senior military leadership).

There's another dimension to mistakes and blunders, though: the ability to learn from those mistakes and blunders.

--|PW|--

P.S. Did you catch this morning's Martha Stewart news? She's not a person. She's a punchline!

the ability to learn from those mistakes and blunders.

Ah yes ... but critics of Bush mistake the unwillingness to admit or ask for public contrition for the inability to "learn from mistakes."

It's ridiculous to expect a leader to show political weakness that would surely be used against him. Taking this administration to task for what would essentially be an unwinnable political strategy is something that greatly frustrates me about criticism of the President.

For reference, see the bottom half of this post.

And if there are clear examples of public mistakes made by this administration that you think Bush has repeatedly failed to learn from, rather than just no admitted, by all means, share.

There is a fine line to accepting mistakes as just that, a mistake, and learning. Notice I did not say "learning from your mistakes", you can learn from both mistakes and success ( although mistakes can often be QUITE instructive ;) ). This fine line is the difference between the most brilliant and the most incompotent generals.

Some times you should not pay attention to a mistake and keep going, sometimes you should pause and reassess. Sometimes you should reassess but don't the time. Some people can improvise off of mistakes like a fine jazz musician. Some cannot but are excellent when given a little time. Each has their strengths.

But when you understand these things even to a small degree you undstand just how full of crap all these arm chair generals really are.

When I wrestled in high school I lost an incredibly ill advised amout of weight( I dehydrated about 8 pounds off of myself). Around mid season I got extremely ill. In one match I was losing by 8 points (this is a amjor decision) I had no energy I could barely move. In the 3rd period I looked at my coach and said "should do a head lock throw?". He shrugged, he had no ideam he knew I was spent. Well I did do a headlock throw and it worked and I pinned my opponenent. Later in that season I took 3rd in the region and went to the State tournament, but again I got very ill and did jack in the tournament. What does this mean? Should I have gone up a weight class? Maybe in the next weight class I would have placed 5th and not gone to the state tournament because the competition was a little more fierce. Or maybe I would have placed second since I would have been much more healthy. I don't know. If someone had arm chair generaled me at the time I would have shrugged so would any other honest person.

This gets to the heart of why we need Bush rather than Kerry. As Lincoln said of Grant during the Civil War: "I can't spare this man; he fights."

It reminds me of some business advice, which basically states that someone with a 60% success record who tries 100 things is a lot more successful than someone with a 100% success rate who only tries one thing.

Hard advice for me to follow, sometimes, but valid nonetheless.

Bill, I'm afraid that if we start arguing about mistakes, we're going to get into partisan wrangling one more time.

Bet let me put this one forward: I believe that Bush made a critical error when he chose to invade Iraq with a force that was too small to maintain order in the chaotic first days after Saddam's fall.

For our purposes, however, it is difficult to ascertain whether Bush learned from this particular mistake. The only way to do so would be for the United States to invade another Middle Eastern country -- a circumstance that it is preferable to avoid right now.

Whether that particular act was a "mistake" by objective criteria is something that you and I can't conclude here. For the moment, though, let's just deal with my subjective perception that it was a "mistake" and the problem we encounter.

For the sake of this comment -- and this comment only -- the objective criteria of "mistake" are irrelevant, as I'm about to discuss my vote.

I have no real way of ascertaining whether President Bush will make this sort of mistake again. Therefore, I have to deduce from his demeanor and actions (and those of his advisers) whether such a mistake will be made again.

I know that Bush is in a Catch-22 right now as far as admitting mistakes. This is an artifact of the political system we are in, as much as anything else.

Still, if *I* am to vote for him, I must ascertain whether he recognizes what I have subjectively concluded was a mistake, or can convince me it wasn't a mistake. I have to assess whether he will act differently in the future before I cast my vote.

So I have to assess the president's apparent capability of learning from mistakes in other areas. However, in almost every area of governance, he has chose to exude confidence above all else.

So I have to ask myself: Is he confident because he *is* right, or because he merely *thinks* he's right?

The president's manner, coupled with my subjective observations of his presidency, lead me to conclude that he merely thinks he is right. That, coupled with my strong differences with him on policy, compels me to vote against the president.

--|PW|--

re: mistakes.

I'm willing to wait for the historians to judge. We've had no war that I'd grade above C+. There's far too little known to rate performance today. i.e. what (stolen and not) secrets have yet to be revealed? biographies written? horrors avoided? broken-up plots uncovered? promises and treaties between leaders kept and unkept? documents found, translated and correlated, and reported? exotic means for determining risk (e.g. spies in high places, enigma machines broken into, equiv of japanese magic cables deciphered, etc.. all to be held in secret for another 20-30 years on the odd chance it would save us from a nuke in central park, perhaps at the cost of a presidential election..) Which reminds me; ss there any doubt which candidate would be less likely to keep a nation-at-risk secret like this if the cost was not being re-elected?

The most we can expect of leadership is to pick the best people they can find to plan and execute these missions (unless you're LBJ or Clinton or Kennedy and try to personally dictate to the military how to fight, and then we just lose). Lincoln knew better. Roosevelt knew better. Bush knows better. All made changes in their military leadership as they learned their strengths and weaknesses.

Roosevelt and Marshall were the most ruthless. I suspect Bush and Rumsfeld will come in second when this is all behind us (including the transformation of the military into something less 19th century).

Note also that the criticism about planning is often a euphemism for "we'll give you even more reasons not to do this." And when time (appears) to be of the essence, once you're 60-70% certain, you move. Note this is exactly what GWB learned getting his MBA.. decisions are more important than certainty. Heisenberg rules (action affects the results). Get good advice. Listen to the best arguments from each side. Decide. (given how intel had misread Saddam's nukes in 91, we were clearly late, since we were on the non-zero side of the risk equation, irrespective of "ground truth.")

I've just finished reading a biography of Ulysses Grant, many of whose battles illustrate the point perfectly. Over and over, at Forts Henry and Donelson, at Shiloh, in the prelude to the Vicksburg campaign, and in the Wilderness, he repeatedly made mistakes. But they didn't deter him; he perservered.

After the first day at Shiloh, General McPherson asked Grant whether he should prepare to retreat. Grant replied, "Retreat? No. I propose to attack at daylight and whip them."

After the Wilderness -- in which Grant's army suffered over 17,000 casualties -- Grant gave a reporter a message to take to President Lincoln: "Well, if you see the President, tell him from me that whatever happens, there will be no turning back." The reporter, Henry Wing, delivered a detailed report on the battle to the President and cabinet and then conveyed Grant's message privately to the President. Wing later wrote that, in response, "Mr. Lincoln put his great, strong around me and, carried away in the exuberance of his gladness, imprinted a kiss upon my forehead."

I believe that Bush made a critical error when he chose to invade Iraq with a force that was too small to maintain order in the chaotic first days after Saddam's fall.

Do you really believe that George Bush made that decision?

I would bet that the decision about force levels and type were driven by the military commanders, with Donald Rumsfeld looking over General Myer's shoulder. Most likely, it was Tommy Frank's call. They would have had more troops but for Turkey becoming non-cooperative.

I agree, I want a fighter, not an anti-war activist as President.

This is in no way a be-littlement of the soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country, but I find it hard to believe that 1,000 dead, though really shitty, is still less than the amount of people in Florida not wearing a seatbelt, Killed in an auto accident (not including Mortorcycles)

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/FinalReport.cfm?stateid=12&title=people&title2=restraints&year=2003

My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those who have died, but the Iraq war is far from a tragedy.

Sorry I find it hard to believe that 1000 dead in Iraq is such a blunder.

Anyone who expects Bush to admit to the mistakes he made is a naive fool. The Democrats would crucify him with video ad infinitum. So they accuse him of being inflexible. Polically he's extremely damned if he does and slightly damned if he doesn't. That is why that question is the 2 nd debate at the end was so ridiculous.

I'm not saying PW is a fool for saying Bush didn't go in with enough guys. That's a more objective opinion. But I am saying alot this flack is political BS. And I would submit to you guys that we have no idea what the accountablity is in the Bush admin nor do we have any idea at all as to what he thinks is a mistake. Not because he admits none, but because the admin think they will be crucified by first the press then the Democrats. And I would further say, politically, they are probably strategically correct.

Frankly though in the end it doesn't matter so much. Because as a party I think the Dems would be a foreign policy nightmare. The former Clinton appointees combined with the peace-at-any-cost wing of the party that will deamnd and receive significant power. This will be far,far worse than a military mistake that frankly should be shored by responsible generals on the next go around anyway.

And Washington was a poor general in the Revolution (losing more battles than he won). And Lincoln made mistakes with hiring a bunch of poor generals.
If we had thrown 200,000 troops in, would they have kept order or would most Iraqis feel more dishonored and resented the US? No one knows, but after twelve years of being jerked around by Saddam & not knowing the extent of what WMDs he had & who he was talking to, it would have been a mistake of inaction to let him stay in power.

When you stop to think about it, who are we to think that we know anything of what President Bush thinks and faces each day? He is the highest leader of the world, and has so much more information that any one of us, and any one person in his administration (although I am sure some others know most of it also). He does not know all of all, but must know some of all. He must gather the information from the best sources and make his decisions based on the knowledge at hand. He has the responsibility of it all. And He KNOWS that.
When you think of it this way, imagine how hard it was for him to debate Kerry on foreign policy. He knows sooo much, but can't talk about 95% of it, and here is this wannabe "yakking" about stuff he does not know (especially considering he missed all of those security meetings). If Kerry can't even get through a debate without offending half of his own party (not to mention his own wife), how can we trust him not to offend our allies..oh wait, he's already done that... oh well...

quess that answers that.

I trust President Bush to do the best job. Could never say that about Kerry.

"I believe that Bush made a critical error when he chose to invade Iraq with a force that was too small to maintain order in the chaotic first days after Saddam's fall."

I believe Bush was trusting his generals on this one, and the general in charge at the time was Franks.

I expect a president to listen to those guys, not micromanage every decision of the war.

I do think in hindsight, that we would have been better off with more troops, and we also should keep in mind that the original plan was to have the 4th ID launch out of Turkey and meet in Bahgdad, but Turkey refused to do that.

War is imperfect, and very few battle plans ever go as planned. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And I would rather have this president, who has the balls to do what needs doing than a president who isn't going to make a decision without taking a poll in France first.

I write with far less authority or talent than the soldier but none the less I used his letter as a basis to write to Sullivan...

------------------------------------
Andrew I wish I could just smack you with something, rhetorically speaking. It's mind boggling to me how you will post a perfectly logical explanation for failings in war like you posted just recently from a soldier who explained the 80/20 rule (he used 70/30). This rule doesn't just apply to war it applies to business and every situation that hinges on risk reward. Do you expect all of your investments to perform? If your mutual fund has losers do your trade it for the hottest thing going, even though it has no track record to back up the prospectus hype? Of course not. But for some reason (gay marriage) you have decided that 70-80% success on all the risk factors associated with this war going in is not enough.

You apparently signed on to a "perfect" war. I can not think of a more IRRESPONSIBLE act for a person of your influence. It would be absolutely understandable if you chose to support Kerry solely on the basis of his gay marriage stance and I would respect you for that. But you have allowed this issue to spill over into your opinions on the conduct of the war. My beef is that you are so quick to assign responsibility (not accountability), to Bush for his conduct of this without one iota of solid reinforcement of those assertions. My point is that wars are evaluated in historical terms after all angles have been examined. It's clear that this has not been a perfect war. If you will just point to the perfect benchmark in history to compare this war to and reach your conclusions, then I will kiss your ass. None exists in modern history that remotely measures up to this war. This war will be judged by whether or not it reaches it's objectives and so will George W. Bush be judged. Your permutations of noise on the issue is just twisted argument. The measure of this war is not what went wrong but what COULD HAVE GONE WRONG and how we stand today. In the beginning the notion of a free and democratic Iraq was considered wishful thinking. Nobody is hitting that anymore. It appears doable in at least the most optimistic scenarios. That would be an improvement in the original context of the war. Thus the critics have reduced their criticism to the imperfection of war with no accurate knowledge of the cause and affect of the events that have led us to this point. You can not know the context unless you know the then and the now of the enemy thinking and there is more than one enemy in this conflict. How did they interact? What were all the permutations of each event?

It is not yet knowable whether this war has been conducted correctly. That would be my point. In your business, risk reward is a zero sum game. In the real world people have to make choices quickly with no knowledge of actual probability. They have to mix the subjective with the objective and then act. There is a basis for this concept in decision theory based on Bayes Theorem which culminates with the hypothetical calculation of the present value of perfect information. The whole point of this study is to demonstrate to decision makers that perfect information is not affordable in the real world. It costs too much. That is what that soldier was telling you. That is what every Harvard MBA is taught. That is what Bush was taught. That is what I was taught at Oklahoma State. That is what Garth Brooks was taught at Oklahoma State.

Remember Chris Gaines?

Read Tommy Franks book.

We didn't have 500,000 troops to throw into Iraq - a repeat of "Desert Storm" simply wasn't an option ... the troops just aren't there to be deployed.

So your choice is - work with what you have or abandon the mission because someone's idea of the "perfect" force for the job isn't available.

Bush told Tommy Franks to get the job done. As near as I can tell, Tommy Franks developed a plan which would allow him to fight the war successfully with the troops he had on hand - the strategy was dictated by the military commanders, not the politicos.

(And, no, I don't place much faith in anonymous critics in the Pentagon & elsewhere who claim otherwise.)

Making a decision which doesn't turn out as you hoped is not "a mistake" for which a groveling apology is due. As General Franks has put it, "the enemy gets a vote" - whatever plan we come up with isn't going to survive first contact with the enemy anyway.

This isn't a new criticism - we hear this same sort of garbage (from the same sort of people, oddly enough) all the time re: Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan. These critics, in their arrogance, are quite merciless in their condemnation of the decision - even though their complaints are all premised on information obtained long after the war was over, information which Truman didn't have when he made his decision. The notion that such criticism should be tempered with a bit of humility, in recognition of the fact that Truman had to make the decision way back then without the benefit of hindsight.

I have no doubt that President Bush gathered together the best information available at the time he made his decisions and he made those decisions in good faith, based on the information then available.

I have no doubt that, if he knew then what he knows now, he would have done some things differently. Who among us would ever claim otherwise, even in the most mundane decisions of life?

But he didn't have that information back then - and the notion that a decision which doesn't turn out as well as one hoped is a culpable "mistake" for which an apology is due reeks of bad faith.

I read "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks and he addresses the force levels for Iraq in detail. He went in with the force he felt was necessary and was satisfied with their performance. He also states that no plan, no matter how complete and well thought out, survives the first contact with the enemy. He states also that they did not expect the Iraqi Army to just melt away like they did. Mistakes? Yes. Could they have been prevented? Maybe. The fact is, it happened once you discover a mistake, you fix it best you can, modify your plans accordingly, and move out smartly.
GWB was not directing the operation from the White House. He trusted General Franks and gave him the authority. That is the definition of a great leader.

Isn't it amazing how often people have to be reminded that we've been told by much of the intelligentsia (prior to the invasion) that what we are attempting to do in Iraq is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now that we've successfully invaded and won the war, welllllll -- switcheroo time -- now they completely change the terms of the test -- and President Bush is told that he has completely botched the "peace."

Pennywit, you don't have a damn clue what you're trying to assess so you can't have a clue what you're talking about. Give that human conceit a rest, will you?

"I believe that Bush made a critical error when he chose to invade Iraq with a force that was too small to maintain order in the chaotic first days after Saddam's fall."

Come on, PW. Do you mean Bush should have anticipated that we would overrun Iraq as quickly as we did and have more forces in place for just this eventuality? Talk about Armchair Gerenalship. What we saw was a highly competent set of troops, led by outstanding leaders, who did what most people before the war would have said was impossible. Had Hollywood made a movie with this type of result, the comments would have uniformly been, "Unrealistic. War's not that easy!"

It is only in the application of a plan with the best trained troops, and an enemy which really wasn't as dedicated as they were thought to be that things like this happen. And that's what you want. What was the term someone used (might have been the Prez) "Catastrophic Success." (spelling?) Aptly named. Success beyond what anyone could have anticipated. Guess what? When things go better that planned, some other things that you would normally plan on happening later get rushed into place early. Seems more likely this is what happened!

I respect anyone who has put on a uniform and fought for the this country. I, however, have to disagree with the analysis. There is a difference between being in the heat of battle, and being back in Washington making decisions. The criticism of Bush are for the larger scale decisions he has made – not allowing more time for inspectors, not getting more allies, not preparing for after the invasion. Kerry is not criticizing the day to day operations of the military. Bill seems to want to blame these decisions on others, but Bush is the Commander in Chief, and he is ultimately responsible.

But one of my problems with Bush is his apparent misunderstanding of so much. His appearance on Meet the Press several months ago showed someone who did not seem to have grasp on what was happening. His first debate appearance was similar. All he seems to be able to say is that “a free Iraq will make America safer” – that’s great, but how do we make sure Iraq is free? And if you believe Pat Robertson about what Bush told him just before the invasion, you really have to ask if he really understood what he was getting us into.

Bill is right. The President knows he's made mistakes.

It would be stupid to announce that to the world, though.

There is another theory out there somewhere, certainly in my mind and it goes like this. Winning the peace is a relative term. Whose peace and who is supposed to win it? I would submit that the peace we want to win is ours.

The more troops scheme has several potential flaws I can see. First, more troops mean more targets. So more troops don't mean fewer casualties.

Moore troops mean a larger footprint, which I believe, means less public support for "occupation".

The only benefit to balance the negatives of more troops is the idea that we could have prevented an insurgency and that violence would be substantially less. I spent a few years working in Russia in the mid nineties and it struck me that in all that time I don't recall a single Russian telling me they were sure glad the Americans saved them from totalitarianism. They saw their new freedom as entitlement or just the natural progression of perestroika. I was struck also by the huge growth in consumerism often fueled by their socialist sense of implied equality. Their biggest primary concern seemed to be that they couldn't buy everything in the store. No rejoicing that they used to be able to buy everything in the store but what little there was wasn't for sale to just one person. This is a long winded way of saying the Russians simply had no sense of appreciation for something they didn't feel a struggle to obtain which was liberal democracy.

My sense is the same of the Iraqi culture. I happen to think our best chance of success is best described as the USA driving a bus toward the agreed objective but we do it so slowly and inept that they get off the bus and run out ahead of us just to get there before they completely lose their sanity. In the process they will likely come together as a people and a nation.

In the process I think they will enjoy the journey much more and appreciate it enough when they get there that they do whatever it takes to get there.

Finally there is this discussion about a civil war. Well I submit that is what we see now. It's better that it happens now. We can control it. What if everything was superficial and we turned over total sovereignty and withdrew all but the catastrophic troop requirement and all hell broke loose. Then what?

I may be a lone dissenter but I think the war is going splendidly at this point... even Falluja seems to be the right temperature as an Iraqi issue. I've read more than one testimonial that many Iraqis have had all of the attacks they can stand and they don't care if we level the place. That level of aggressiveness simply didn't exist last spring.

THe boldness point is aptly demonstrated by another Civil War figure, when Gen. McClellan demonstrated a distinct lack of that trait before he was relieved by Lincoln. Let us hope the voters of 2004 are as wise as were our forbears 140 years ago when they rejected McClellan's effort to unseat Lincoln.

Vanyogan: You're not a lone dissenter. This war is going incredibly well by any rational measure.

The claim that we should have invaded with more troops is a common one, and is again a hindsight situation. Some generals have said we needed more, but others said quite clearly that not only did we not need more, but if we had more then they'd just present more targets to be killed and casualties would be higher. It is interesting how selective the critics are when they pick only the generals who say "we needed more" and ignore what all the others said.

Bill's essential point is valid, and it is one that will bounce off of most of Bush's critics. I believe this is because most of them are more interested in being critical of Bush than they are of actually realizing that no war is ever perfect and that hindsight is always 20/20--only it's not even 20/20, for in this case it's STILL not clear we needed more troops, and it's not clear that the generals who said more troops would have just caused more casualties aren't right.

What I see of the Bush critics otherwise is that they want him to name specific mistakes. Not to just admit that some things will undoubtedly seem wrong in hindsight, which he's done, or admit that there have been miscalculations, which he has. They want specifics--but why, in a political environment where anything he admits to will be used to crucify him?

It is my view that a vote for Kerry pretty much at this point is a vote to prevent AMerica from acting in a pre-emptive fashion to try to reform a fascist dictatorship. If we had gone into Iraq, removed Saddam, and left, many of the critics of the operation would even now be saying that we should have stayed and tried to democratize the region, and they'd be many of the same exact critics who say we should not be there now. But in any case, if Kerry is elected, it will lead me to oppose ever again attempting to liberate a country and reform its government, for such operations take years and inevitably involve mistakes, and the American people will have declared loudly and clearly that they don't have the stomach for any such ventures.

I hope Bush wins. If he does not, it'll radically change how I see the American electorate and what I'll be willing to advocate in the future.

I unfortunately also believe a Kerry victory makes it much more likely that we'll eventually use nuclear weapons on some middle eastern country. But so it does, that'll also be the choice of the American people.

Here is another post Sullivan made a while back quoting Roosevelt:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_03_30_dish_archive.html#200076932

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt on the back-seat drivers in this war, "The Strenuous Life: Essays and Addresses."

ABC reports that the "fuel convoy from Tallil air base near Nasiriyah to Taji north of Baghdad" had vehicles that were "unarmored and in poor condition".

Geez, talk about profiting from the war casualties by tipping off the enemy...

Totally tasteless.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=184420

I agree with Bill that for the president to admit mistakes would be very foolish, but I think why he's under such pressure to do so may be partly because he hasn't really done what presidents traditionally do when mistakes are made. Fire people. Are we supposed to believe George Tenet is responsible for all the mistakes of this administration? Why does Rice still have a job? Or Feith?

And is anyone else kind of sick of all the coverage in the press about what went wrong or right in the planning of the war or whatever, and wish we could talk more about what to do next in Iraq? I know some people think the Iraqis will pretty soon just get their sh#t together and unite as a nation in democracy and all that, but it seems pretty far-fetched and dreamy to me. Iraqis are not some homologous group, and will probably not just come to recognize their common ground and hammer out a nice tolerant democracy amidst the chaos of an ongoing war. What will be our response if they elect a Shia extremist? Will we crush their new government? What if the guerrilla insurgency continues for several more years? I wish the campaigns and the media were trying to answer these questions, rather than obsessively focusing on who's fault everything is.

Winston Churchill had the best attitude about such things - commanders can only be brought to account for doing things in contravention of information generally known at the time of decision. It must be generally known because if its just one odd guy out there with what turns out to be the correct solution its simply not reasonable to presume that a commander should automatically come into contact with this guy - and it must be available at the time of decision because, of course, a commander can only make decisions based upon information available at the time.

Given this test, there have been no actual mistakes in the Iraq campaign. Be honest, now, and ask yourself if any of you really expected Saddams most ardent troops to just fade away at the first touch of American power - ask yourself if you expected the Iraqi's to loot their own city in the interim between the Saddamite collapse and the assertion of complete American control in Baghdad - ask yourself if you really expected the long-suffering Shiite majority to become the source of that minority of Iraqi's who are most determindly fighting us. The information available at the time of decision was that Saddam's "Special Republican Guard" would fight hard, that the Iraqi's ground down by 30 years of terror would remain docile and that while resistence to our presence would exist, it wouldn't come from the Shiite's of all people.

The most important thing, as has been pointed out here, is that President Bush made the decision - one can always discover reasons for inaction, for waiting; history is replete with stories of commanders who did nothing because it seemed safe - only to have themselves destroyed by enemies who were willing to do something. Given what we know of Kerry, he is clearly of the type to do nothing - unable to be guaranteed of absolute and easy success, he'll fail to make decision after decision, thus causing catastrophic defeat. Making no decisions, he'll make no mistakes as they are defined by Bush's detractors - but the sum total of his actions will be a collosal error.

"Kerry is not criticizing the day to day operations of the military."

What do you call the Tora Bora criticism then? That was more of a command and control decision.

I won't go too dep into military anslysis here. I'm not in the military, so I'm not that qualified.

However, I am entitled to judge the president's performance as commander-in-chief. Why? Because I'm a voter.

In terms of "more troops," I do believe the president could have planned better for the immediate aftermath of victory over the Iraqi military. Whether the problem was too many troops, too few troops, disorganization on the ground, or a lack of data on Iraq's leaders on the ground is immaterial for the purposes of my decision.

Somebody here called me an armchair general. To an extent, that's true. Anybody who votes against a president during a time of war is an armchair general.

A vote for a wartime president is implicit approval of his conduct as commander-in-chief. A vote against him is implicit disapproval.

To disapprove of his performance as commander-in-chief is my right. Moreover, analyzing his performance is my duty as a voter.

Now, on to more substantive critiques of my position:

Hindsight. I am not merely deploying hindsight here. I had several concerns leading up to the president's decision to invade Iraq. Among them was the apparent lack of a plan for occupation, the apparent paucity of evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and the continuing threat of North Korea. But chief among my concerns was that the United States would be committed to a long-term occupation that would hamper the United States' ability to apply military pressure if it should be necessary in other settings. I believe that my concerns have been borne out. Others may disagree with me; I expect that will vote differently than I will.

--|PW|--

People like Pennywit, (how many wars have you planned, btw), should read General Franks' book, where he explains how the war was planned, and who did what.

Short answer: Franks came up with the force levels. It was his call.

The monday-morning quarterbacking by people who've never served, and have not the slightest idea what they're talking about never ceases to amaze me. And yet they get to vote. Great system, eh?

Sometimes I think Heinlein was right.

Eric:
Starship Troopers, right? One of my favorite books. I'm not making my assessments in isolation, though. I have a few family members who've served in the military, including my father, who was in a Chinook unit in Vietnam.

I've talked these sorts of issues over with my father and with others. I have a general (or perhaps major) idea of what goes into planning military operations. I recognize risks that must be taken in order to successfully
prosecute a war.

But I also firmly believe that this war has been mismanaged, not on the tactical level (which has been, by all accounts, a rousing success), but at the strategic level.

Now, to get back to the question of leadership. I am incredibly dissatisfied with the leadership evinced by both Kerry and Bush. Kerry has evinced an excellent grasp of peacetime issues, but he seems unable to break himself of his Vietnam-era paradigm.

Bush's leadership, strikes me as quite forceful, but headed in the wrong direction. To my perception, he has evinced little capability of changing that direction, even if he becomes aware it is wrong.

If I am given that, how should I vote for the commander-in-chief?

--|PW|--

--|PW|--

Pennywit - you are appropriate in one thing...your handle. If you paid a penny for your wit....you got gypped, see if you can get your money back.

Here is a question that has come up in my circles. Is it possible for Congress to legislate Iraq policy. Suppose Kerry wins and the Congress wants to legislate policy and get Bush to sign it BEFORE Kerry ...ugh. You get the point. Is this possible? Can Congress legislate policy that a President can be accountable for?

I’m impressed with the level of civility in the discourse here, it’s refreshing.

Rollins: “The criticism of Bush are for the larger scale decisions he has made – not allowing more time for inspectors, not getting more allies, not preparing for after the invasion.”

Remember, time was of the essence, summer was coming on and delay would mean our troops would have to fight in 120 degree weather in chemical warfare suits, casualties caused by heat might have enormous. Waiting for the inspectors or the nonexistent “other allies” (it is beyond question now that there would never be other allies) represented an unacceptable risk to the assault force and an unacceptable political risk to the Kuwaiti and Qatar governments.

Things had to move and move fast. And did.

Pennywit: and Rollins,

Think back, in fact, search the web for contemporary stories: in all the disaster and nightmare scenarios, who imagined that Iraq would simply fall apart? Is this what happened in Germany in 1945? In Japan? In Kabul in 2002?

No plan? The plan was, and is, to establish a democratic, prosperous and free Iraq. The template would be the same as the Afghan one, an interim leader, a national council, a constitution, a free election, a new day. As in any plan, the bad guys get their say, that doesn’t mean that the plan is defective, it just means you’re at war, the other guy means to win. You decide if you do as well.

War is full of unknowables, all in all, this one is going remarkably well. In three years of nearly continuous combat we have lost about half as many soldiers as we did on June 6th 1944. Two of the most repressive regimes in human history have been disposed of.
If we can stop carping at each other and focus on the mission, dragging the middle east in to the 21st century, we will by definition have defeated terrorism. It’s my observation that free countries rarely spawn terrorists.

"But let me put this one forward: I believe that Bush made a critical error when he chose to invade Iraq with a force that was too small to maintain order in the chaotic first days after Saddam's fall."

The Army of 2003 was not the Army (sizewise) of 1991. The decision to invade Iraq with what you deemed a "force too small" was a constraint driven by enormous global commitments and the downsizing the Army underwent. (While being wrung out in the 90's by various peace and hugs missions.)

And what if we had 500,000 troops in place for OIF? Could we have supported them logistically? Becauses we didn't just downsize the number of our formations, we downsized our capacity to transport and supply them. There were shortfalls as it was. People whose major logistic effort in life is to organize a cocktail party for 30 have no clue what it is like to support that many Americans with EVERYTHING 8000 miles away from home.

Still, I suppose we could have made a maximum effort and moved that much of our force into place for OIF...at the risk of dangerously weakening our forces elsewhere. How would the real life villain portrayed in Team America react to an overcommited US military? Are you willing to gamble?

And I think we're all forgetting that the 4th Infantry Division was supposed to come in from Turkey and attack Baghdad from the north. The Turks didn't allow them in, because John Kerry's allies (the French and the Germans) held out membership in the EU to the Turks if they would screw us.

Finally, had US forces shot looters the leftists in this nation would have been the first to point fingers and scream "babykillers" again.

literally nothing they won't criticize

Well yes, when Bush or his people make a mistake, which there have been plenty of, people will call him or them on it.

I think it’s called democracy or something.

The defense of "Well you can't come up with anything better" is feeble. Bush has landed the U.S. in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't mess. The reason why no one can come up with a solution short of "Pull out" is because there is no solution.

More troops? Maybe it’ll help, maybe it’ll make things worse, who knows at this point? What Bush has demonstrated is that he doesn’t know. From claiming there would be no casualties, to shortchanging the troops on equipment, armor and numbers, to listening to Iranian spy/crook Chalabis, to disbanding the Iraqi’s army, to declaring “mission accomplished”, to ignore requests for more troops from the CPA, to WMD, to connections to Al Qeada, to prison torture and G-d knows whatever else he has done nothing but wrong.

Team Bush tried to turn lead into gold and now that it’s pretty much a failure you’re getting annoyed because people are commenting that it was impossible to begin with.

People need to start asking themselves do they support America, the war or Bush? Because if you’re for the latter you’re not doing the former any favors. Bush has been a foreign policy disaster, this is not longer partisan this is fact.

" Bush has landed the U.S. in a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't mess."

I am so relieved. I thought it was Islamo-Fascism that put us in this mess!

The President made a point this week that I've been saying for some time. Does anyone think the Syrians, Iranians, Jordanians etc. we're fighting in Iraq right now would be living peaceful lives in their homes? 9/11 was bin Laden's call for global Jihad. The days of Clinton's cruise missile diplomacy ended when that first airline slammed into the WTC.

Has anyone else noticed that one of the most effective tactics the enemy is using are car bombs near Iraqi military recruiting stations? Seems that they nail about 15 or 20 guys every time they try that. And yet, there are always crowds around those stations of men looking to join. Some may need the work, and some may just be trying to infilitrate. Many hold the spark...they're fighting for freedom. And it was the American military that gave him that chance.

Yes I am tired of Sullivan and even Don Imus claiming that Bush should fess up and "apologize"! For what? Believing every major intelligence outfit in the world about Saddam's WMDs? And what a stupid political move it would have been--like Carter's "malaise" speech. I don't want a contrite puss like that for prez.

When Sherman said war is hell, I don't think he just meant war intrinsically, any time (else why would he have been a general), but all the wasted lives and blunders that are inevitable. If we had know the true scope of the casualties in WWII (including friendly fire) we would have revolted, made FDR sue for peace in 1943. And most Brits didn't really know how many casualties they were suffering in the blitz either; they just knew what was going on in their neighborhood. As it was, they kicked Churchill out as soon as it wound down.

And the Abu Graib critics--what hypocrites. Does anyone remember this clinical discussion of torture in Slate? Bah. How soon they forget...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2057099

But I also firmly believe that this war has been mismanaged, not on the tactical level (which has been, by all accounts, a rousing success), but at the strategic level.

Read Tommy Frank's book...It's striking that the books begins with the president asking each of the generals involved whether they are "satisfied with the strategy" and "got everything [they] need" before issuing the go ahead.

At the end of the day, the president ask for detailed options, the general provides them. The president gives the *go ahead* to the general to execute *the general's* plan. It's not the president's job to *manage the war*. [Just imagine Roosevelt telling Eisenhower that there's not enough troops in the latter's plan for D-Day.]

Perhaps you were thinking of Bush's *decision* to go to war at the time he made that decision. Maybe the usual stuff about not giving the inspectors enough time or not getting more allies (France?). But that's not about the *management* of the *war* per se.

Bush's leadership, strikes me as quite forceful, but headed in the wrong direction. To my perception, he has evinced little capability of changing that direction, even if he becomes aware it is wrong.

Nice qualifier: "to my perception"... just a thought: of the two, the one who says that 9/11 did not change him is Kerry...

Loy:
Perhaps "management of the war" is a misnomer. You are right -- I did want to see a more aggressive effort at coalition-building or a larger commitment of troops from other countries. I also looked askance at the decision to invade Iraq instead of the more dangerous (IMO) North Korea.

I'm also thinking of decisions that are not necssarily military-related. For example, the overreliance on the Iraqi National Congress for information. I also believe that the Coalition Provisional Authority erred when it disbanded the Iraqi army and pursued aggressive de-Baathification. Finally, IIRC, most of the rebuilding contracts were awarded through the CPA. Would it have been more effective to award these contracts through the military units in charge of the various towns in Iraq? I realize they had some discretionary funds, but I wonder if more money should have been shifted to them.

--|PW|--

"Perhaps "management of the war" is a misnomer. You are right -- I did want to see a more aggressive effort at coalition-building or a larger commitment of troops from other countries. I also looked askance at the decision to invade Iraq instead of the more dangerous (IMO) North Korea."

Penny, who would you have joined the coalition? The Germans? French? Russians? All three nations were up to their armpits in Saddam's oil money. They worked at every turn to undercut our policies, and their manipulation of Turkey no doubt COST us lives. It is past time to look at those nations as allies.

Now, regarding invading North Korea...be honest. If W had done that you would be shrieking about why are we invading North Korea when is was Islamic men that attacked us.

The Islamo-Fascist world presents the greatest near term threat. North Korea, while possessing WMD, isn't as idealogically driven as the Mullocracy. Democracies don't wage war on other democracies. With our long term commitment to instituting democratic reforms in the Middle East we make ourselves more secure, while at the same time removing customers for NK's WMD technology off the market. This is going to be a long fight...maybe even longer than the Cold War. (You know, when that idiot actor's simplistic vision saved the world.)

Please try to look past your partisan disdain of conservatives in general and Bush in particular to see this strategy, and accept that instant gratification is not an option.

You are right

Thanks :-) Ok, to the more substantive issues you raised.

I did want to see a more aggressive effort at coalition-building or a larger commitment of troops from other countries.

I would too. But objectively speaking, what other military powers with the capability of power projection into the middle east--and most importantly, might make reliable allies on the ground--are there left in the world?

Russia? There's every reason *not* to want them to have too much influence in the ME.

China? They are a great power in East Asia, but don't expect them to be able or willing to project power into the ME in substantial numbers. But again, there's every reason *not* to want them to have too much influence in the ME as well!

That leaves France...and after the revelation of UN-scam, I find it hard to believe that they could have been moved.

Upshot, I really don't think the Bush administration could have achieve more than they did objectively. They could have tried doing more, but ending with essentially the same results and taking up precious time for military operations before the hot season and allowing Saddam more time to prepare.

I also looked askance at the decision to invade Iraq instead of the more dangerous (IMO) North Korea.

From the point of view of world security, *both* need to be dealt with.

Agreed: NK is more dangerous, but NK also presents further challenges than Iraq--in the form of neighboring China, which has historically (for more than a thousand years!) treats the Korean penisular a buffer of imperial defense. Unless the US wants a hot war with the PRC, there's no immediate military solution for the NK problem in the short run. If NK pisses even the Chinese off enough for them to stay neutral, then all bets are off.

Iraq, on the other hand, does not sit within the immediate sphere of influence of a *great power* with known nuclear capabilities. The problem it poses is open to an immediate military solution. Coupled with the fact that sanctions are falling to pieces, it is fully rational to settle it first.

By the way, I'm not persuaded that the US cannot both continue to provide security in Iraq *and* respond to a major crisis in the far east--especially if it stays the course and get the Iraqis' trained and not give the terrorists hopes that it will cut and run.

I also believe that the Coalition Provisional Authority erred when it disbanded the Iraqi army and pursued aggressive de-Baathification.

I'm not sure if there's any real alternative. Unlike the Japanese or German armies of WWII, there is no love lost between the populance and Iraqi army. IMO, the latter is just too much identified with the Baathist regime. (In contrast, the German Army always had an identify separate from the Nazi party.) I think by building up a new national military from the ground up, the US is setting the conditions for ordinary Iraqis to identify with and trust the new military.

Finally, IIRC, most of the rebuilding contracts were awarded through the CPA. Would it have been more effective to award these contracts through the military units in charge of the various towns in Iraq?

Probably, That's why I donate to Spirit Of America (go to: http://www.spiritofamerica.net/) But all that is hardly the President's job, is it?

We really are getting to the nitty-gritty here.

At one point, I was totally opposed to invading Iraq, but it rapidly became obvious that something had to be done about him. My ideal solution, quite frankly, would have been for somebody, preferably Syria, Russia, or Saudi Arabia, to pay off Saddam and send him and his family to some estate in the middle of Africa where they could be tyrannical lords of a few blades of grass. Of course, I also want my pet rabbit to learn to rhumba. It wasn't going to happen.

The thing about disbanding the army is that the people in it didn't really have anywhere to go. Suddenly, you had thousands of unemployed young men who had guns and were pissed off at the United States. Somehow, I don't think that was helpful.

The other problem with that, coupled with the aggressive de-Baathification, is that once you get down below the first few layers of the chain of command, you start running into people who didn't support Saddam, but joined the party so they would be able to hold positions in their lines of work.

That de-Baathification has been somewhat reversed by now, but I would argue that such aggressive efforts in the early phases of the war were counterproductive.

On the subject of contracts, I can't be certain how much influence the president has; I'm not that cognizant of contracting law. Nevertheless, you have to remember the CPA was created not by congressional order but by executive mandate. Given that, the president had a great deal of latitude when it came to the allocation of funds and awarding of contracts.

One of the most impressive things about the beginning of the occupation was that when U.S. forces found Saddam's money repositories, they would turn around and use the money to employ locals to sweep streets, build things, or do virtually anything. It was a good move because it gave Iraqis reasons to like the Americans -- and, more importantly, it gave people something to do. Idle hands, know what I mean?

North Korea does require more careful handling, but I would argue that the United States should have struck there first; perhaps some sort of pressure could have been brought via China. The problem with striking Iraq first was that it gave North Korea time to further build its nucler program AND it decreased the United States' ability to bring troops to bear elsewhere in the world; after all, simultaneously occupying two countries and invading a third (if its needed) would be difficult even for today's military.

--|PW|--

Of course, I also want my pet rabbit to learn to rhumba. It wasn't going to happen.

LOL...

The thing about disbanding the army is that the people in it didn't really have anywhere to go...The other problem...is that once you get down below the first few layers of the chain of command, you start running into people who didn't support Saddam, but joined the party so they would be able to hold positions in their lines of work...That de-Baathification has been somewhat reversed by now...

Good point. (But are you saying that the administration is not adverse to making changes when a particular plan is shown not to work?) But I suspect it's a matter of degrees here. I think de-Baathification is absolutely necessary (just as de-Nazification was), the only question is *how far*. But again, I really wonder how much say the President has. Was it his call or the generals'?

North Korea does require more careful handling, but I would argue that the United States should have struck there first; perhaps some sort of pressure could have been brought via China. The problem with striking Iraq first was that it gave North Korea time to further build its nucler program AND it decreased the United States' ability to bring troops to bear elsewhere in the world; after all, simultaneously occupying two countries and invading a third (if its needed) would be difficult even for today's military.

I almost jumped at reading "struck there first"? (My familiy lives in the far east and I really do not relish the idea of a hot war anywhere in East Asia.) But you went on: "perhaps some sort of pressure could have been brought via China"--phew! But isn't that what the administration is doing, multilateral talks involving China, Russia, SK and Japan? (While Kerry wants bilaterial talks)

The fact is, what exactly can the US at the moment beyond diplomatic pressure, e.g., through China and otherwise, to NK? If there is any hot spot in the that world requires a miltilateral solution, it would have to be NK. And *that* takes *time*, as Bush's critics like to remind us.

In any case, striking Iraq sends a powerful signal to NK: the US means business.

Lastly, don't forget the SKoreans. I think they are quite capable of withstanding an invasion from the north (as long as the Chinese are not behind it, and the Chinese are not silly enough to do that...)--for more than enough time until help comes from outside. But if Saddam goes crazy and does a rerun of Kuwait'91 again, none of the likely victims would be able to stand up to him without massive outside help.

Pennywit,
"... a larger commitment of troops from other countries."

Everyone, even the US, _dramatically_ cut troops after the breakup of the USSR. Germany is feeling over-stretched helping in Afghanistan! (Where there's less than 10% of the troops needed as in Iraq.)

The list of countries that _could_ send _sizable_ troops is exactly the list of countries I personally would veto: Russia, China, Iran, perhaps Egypt.

_IF_ we had had 500,000 troops in Iraq from day one, we might well have a different security situation. But you're trading security for turning things into a full occupation. The more you clamp down, the fiercer the 'honest insurgency' would gain steam. Not the Jihadists - the insurgents. By having 'too few' troops, we have some problems - but we have some opportunities. Why are the massive car bombs aimed at _recruiting_ centers? Why are the lines _longer_ the day after the bombing? Who has lost more troops _in_ _combat_: Americans, or American-trained Iraqis? Who's lost more to IED's? Does the US get 100% of the blame?

The whole 'killed one, made two terrorists' WORKS IN REVERSE TOO. (Ignoring that killing one trained Jihadi to create two _untrained_ Jihadi's isn't as unequal as it seems for now). I saw a couple of interviews-in-recruitment-line a while back... now I don't see any. Too much 'They tried to kill my brother, so I rounded up three friends and we're joining the Iraqi Guard' stories I guess.

And if we _had_ sent 500,000, we'd have to keep pretty close to that number until things settle down to avoid the perception 'they're bailing'. (No matter how many troops you have in there, you're still going to have the occasional car bomb - and we've been shown how to obsess over that.) 500,000 for a 3 week war -> easy. 500,000 for 6 months - not too tough. But when you start posing a sane transition strategy (aka this will take years, we're no where near 'out'), then you're proposing 500,000 troops for 5 years. THAT might require a draft - and if it doesn't, it would be only because nothing happened anywhere else in the world at all.

Here's the thing about NK and military force. To my mind, the threat of military force is even more effective than military force itself. If U.S. forces are occupied elsewhere, then the threat of force is less likely to be available in the first place.

--|PW|--

P.S. Isn't Kim Jong-Il just lonely? Why don't we clone him a little friend?

P.S. Isn't Kim Jong-Il just lonely? Why don't we clone him a little friend?

No, No, send in Team America!

So... that's a strong argument for _NOT_ using 500,000 troops. The 'threat of force' is not currently as strong as if we'd kept our 130,000 troops at home. But with only 4% of the troops in Iraq, even NK should recognize we aren't currently at the limit for threatening force.

"Now, regarding invading North Korea...be honest. If W had done that you would be shrieking about why are we invading North Korea when is was Islamic men that attacked us. "

If anyone remembers Bush's Axis of Evil speech, the liberals hit the roof asking why in the world NK was included in the Axis.

Also, a part of me thinks much of the decision to go to Iraq from that Axis, was because of the three, Iraq was the easiest compared to the other two. Also, I think the administration is holding out that a stable democracy next door to Iran will help get the democratic movement rolling in Iran-the majority of the populace hate and loath the mullahs.

Also, a part of me thinks much of the decision to go to Iraq from that Axis, was because of the three, Iraq was the easiest compared to the other two. Also, I think the administration is holding out that a stable democracy next door to Iran will help get the democratic movement rolling in Iran-the majority of the populace hate and loath the mullahs.

That sounds exactly right! Of the three, the problem Iraq posed was most open to an immediate military solution. Less so Iran, and definitely not so NK. NK is the backyard of a great power--China (and Russia to a certain extent, as well). Any precipitious military move there could easily be prelude to WWIII, or at the very least, a replay of the Korean War.

Besides, unlike Iraq, NK is actually pretty much isolated. They haven't got anything that the French might be interested in buying (e.g., oil). So ironically, NK is the sort of place where sanctions might conceivably work in at least partly quarantining the problem. (Not forever though.)

On the other hand, a tolerably stable and democratic Iraq will have repercussions throughout the ME--in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Finally, invading Iraq has turn it into a lodestone of Islamic Terrorist activity, thus allowing the US to fight AQ and its surrogates (and slaughter them big time) in the ME instead of back home on US soil.

Damn, that was beautifully elucidated. No wonder you got a million visitors. Hat is off.