Thursday, January 25, 2007

The Failure to Plan for Iraq After Saddam's Fall

President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and virtually the entire Bush administration have been rightly condemned for their absolute FAILURE to plan for Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi army crumbled, Saddam fled into his series of spider holes, and Iraq quickly fell into absolute chaos.

The US troops made no effort to keep the peace, protect Iraq's infrastructure, treasures and people. There were insufficient troops and the troops on the scene were neither trained nor directed to perform police duties.

As time progressed things went from bad to much, much worse. The vacuum created by the near total lack of planning by the so-called coalition of the willing is precisely what allowed al-Qaeda and insurgents from Iran and Syria to gain a foothold in Iraq.

Today's disaster can be directly linked to President Bush's failure to plan for the future of the country his forces so easily conquered. Frankly, it's a failure repeated over and often throughout history. And George Bush needed to learn from history.

So do the Democrats who are now using the Iraqi people and the future of the middle east as pawns for their personal and political gain.

Bush used his huge post 9/11 popularity and overwhelming poll numbers to cover his invasion of Iraq and cover-up his failure to properly plan, study, prepare and execute an intelligent strategy for the future.

Today, Democrats are using the same cover of overwhelming public dissatisfaction for the war to tie the hands of the military and either plunge Iraq into civil war or perhaps give control of Iraq to the same terrorists Bush had hoped to defeat.

Here is a telling editorial from the Washington Post,
Congress's Iraq Quagmire:

"ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission."

"Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy."

"Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it."

Ninety percent of the strong heartfelt convictions being expressed on the floors of Congress today are simply poll driven drivel.

How else can you explain the speeches given in support of President Bush during the run up to the Iraq invasion?

Now we see the same impassioned speeches against the President.
This is not "cut and run." This is "duck and cover."

I'm not saying we must stay in Iraq. I'm saying we must understand and be willing to accept and support the consequences of the decisions we make.

Cartoon courtesy of Cox and Forkum, from their article
Losing Strategy.

A tip of the Wizard's pointy cap to Bill Gnade of Contratimes for pointing me to the Washington Post editorial quoted above.




1 comment:

Vigilante said...

No, I don't think so.

Today's disaster can be directly linked to President Bush's failure to plan for the future of the country his forces so easily conquered?

No. The roots of today's disaster were planted when Bush personally and unilaterally set upon using 9-11 as a excuse to invade Iraq.