Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

I've been paying attention to all this (The Iraq part of the war), and ALWAYS wondered why, exactly, we were fighting in the first place.

Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.

Learn what Halberstam, et al had been warning about.

Time was on the side of the enemy, and we were in a position of not being able to win, not being able to get out ... only being able to lash out ... And so the war went on, tearing at this country; a sense of numbness seemed to replace an earlier anger. There was, Americans were finding, no light at the end of the tunnel, only greater darkness.

Is this not "Mission Accomplished"? No, Halberstam wrote this in "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972. Deja vue because, well, did you even know about an essential strategic objective, need for a smoking gun, and an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective? And yet that was the lesson of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and history.

Read about the battle of Ap Bac in 1962 that demonstrated why Nam would not be a winnable war. Notice the Iraqis and Maliki's government are doing this same thing. Notice back then how many even in The Cellar did not recognized a situation that created Vietnam was creating "Mission Accomplished" - complete with a lying president.

Also notice Urbane Guerrilla, et al are promoting this reasoning that kept Nam ongoing for seven years after the Wise Men (just like the Iraq Study Group) told Johnson that Nam could not be won. But ‘big dic’ reasoning from Gens LeMay and Westmoreland continued to be promoted. Westmoreland so in denial as to proclaim fundamental military doctrine did not apply to Nam.

View posts from last summer – ie June 2006. That was America’s last (and desperate) hope to create a "Mission Accomplished" victory. One year ago is when "Mission Accomplished" could no longer be won because George Jr, Rumsfeld, etc refused to even give the troops what was requested (ie enough troops). Even more appauling, they were doing the exact same thing that undermined Swartzkopf fabulous military victory in 1991. I could not believe it. Would Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, etc make in 2003 the exact same mistake they made in 1991? Yes!

The Cellar (and this thread) are a history of what you should have known then when it was posted. Follow many posts. Some are based in military doctrine and the lessons of history. Others just know we must be winning because Gen Odierno was executing heavy artillery attacks every night. Like in Nam, where the myopic saw successful artillery attacks as an indication of victory, instead, those who understood basic military doctrine (and especially how to fight an insurgency) knew those artillery barrages only demonstrates how badly "Mission Accomplished" was being lost while effectively recruiting for the enemy.

Some posts not only warned of impending failures. Also provided repeatedly are underlying reasons why. Rumsfeld could not find Generals to staff his operation - had to reach so far down into the ranks to find Gen Sanchez. Gen Garner all but refused to continue. "Mission Accomplished" (and Rumsfeld) were carrer destroyers; that well known to those educated in military doctrine that long ago.

What is common to all above? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, those wacko extremists kept makinng the same mistakes again and again. Their political agendas (ie America does not do nation building) replaced intelligence. they are that dumb and that much driven by their extremist rhetoric. And we let them.