Troops who led 2003 invasion deploy for third tour[/b]
FORT STEWART, Georgia (AP) -- Twice before, Sgt. Michael Konvicka has picked up a rifle to go to war. Doing it a third time won't be any easier.
"Every time I come back from Iraq, I tell my wife, 'I'm done honey, stick a fork in me,"' said Konvicka, 36, of Flint, Michigan. "I'm not really looking forward to it. But I've got 10 years in the Army, and I'm not about to throw that away."
Hours before President Bush was to announce his plan Wednesday to increase U.S. forces in Iraq, soldiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division said goodbye to their families as they deployed on their third tour. (Watch U.S. troops fighting in streets of BaghdadVideo)
The 19,000-troop 3rd Infantry, which helped lead the 2003 charge to Baghdad, is the first Army division to be tapped for a third deployment to the war. Barely a year has passed since its soldiers returned from their last yearlong rotation.
"It's another year I have to endure, and it's not easy," said Konvicka's wife, Sharon, resting her head on her husband's shoulder while soldiers piled duffel bags and rucksacks into trucks for shipping to Iraq.
Wives wept and wrapped their arms around husbands with rifles slung over their shoulders. Some 400 troops of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment departing Wednesday are among 4,000 soldiers of the division's 1st Brigade Combat Team deploying this month.
"I hope it's the last one," said Staff Sgt. Harold Hensel, 30, of Little Valley, New York, hugging his pregnant wife, who is due in May, before leaving for his second combat tour. "I was hoping the first one was the last one. But duty calls."
The 3rd Infantry's three remaining combat brigades are scheduled to deploy later this year, including the 3rd Brigade at Fort Benning, Georgia, where Bush planned a visit Thursday.
Sgt. Brad Weston, 23, said he could see positives and negatives to the president's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq while he's deployed there.
"The benefit is you do get more time where you're not having to be out patrolling," said Weston of South Bend, Indiana, who is deploying on his third tour. "The negative thing is there's more violence when there are new people there who don't know the area well."
When the 3rd Infantry first deployed to Iraq in 2003, it quickly helped topple Saddam Hussein's regime. During its second tour in 2005, troops saw Iraqis elect their first democratic government.
But Cpl. Matt Venn, 21, of Wichita, Kansas, said he sees few signs of hope in 2007 with the increasing violence from insurgents and sectarian militias.
"There's not many people over there who are on the straight and narrow," said Venn, who had deployed to Iraq once before, in 2005. "Out of the year, you'll find two families who are really innocent. And that's the people, I guess, we're trying to help out."
Venn's wife, Theresa, said she fears Iraq has become "a hopeless cause."
Unlike most military spouses, she served in Iraq in 2004 as a surgical technician, treating everything from bullet wounds to burns and cuts from roadside bombs.
"It makes it harder, because I've dealt with every injury known to man," the 25-year-old said.
She is no longer in the military. "It's unnerving, but I like to be positive and just put it out of my mind."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
How do you pro-Bush/war folks feel about this?
Sad that there seem to be more people like fatback in this country and less people like Sgt. Konvicka.
Yes, and too bad there aren't more people like Mrs. Konvicka in the President's cabinet who actually aknowledge the sacrifice of all those soldiers and in turn act responsibly as opposed to simply piling on in a vain attempt to save face for the history books.
Yes, and too bad there aren't more people like Mrs. Konvicka in the President's cabinet who actually aknowledge the sacrifice of all those soldiers and in turn act responsibly as opposed to simply piling on in a vain attempt to save face for the history books.
thank you.
and in sablabla's world of folks that are either like fatback or Sgt Konvicka, i wonder where Bush and his offspring stand?
Did anyone hear Barack Obama's comments regarding the speech last night???
I only hears a 30 second sound bite and would like to know what he said at length??
It was pretty standard Democratic POV stuff, with the usual(and sincere sounding) hope that there is SOME solution to the problem but that in his opinion it is not military at this point and that Bush's escalation plan is flawed.
He did better than the guy giving the official speech, who was charisma-deficient in his oration. Sounded like he was reading it right off the cards.
That's when I stopped watching, because I got tired of seeing people just grasping for straws on the whole issue. What a mess when I actually considered log-cabin Republican pumpikhead Andrew Sullivan to be making the most clearly thought out comments, most of which I can't even remember now. One comment involved wishing for a miracle.
The one line of reasoning that ran through all the comments last night, each talking head had to find a space to essentially say "look, nobody hopes that this WON'T work, but everyone knows it can't, given the reality of the situation."
- Obama said that he could not support Bush's call for more troops; that we need to be wary of Syria and Iran but diplomacy has never been discussed; adding more troops could make things worse because the Iraqi army is relying too much on us and we won't be there forever; he doubts that a re-vote on the war will have a legal effect on bush's power, but believes the symbolism is important, especially if gop members of congress vote against bush.
- Durbin (who gave the official dem response) was great, you are tripping. he turned the tables on the gop, said that they accomplished what they wanted (saddam is dead, free elections in iraq), so lets get out now. he said that america is not the world's 9-1-1 operator. iraq's problems are not our own. what he should have added is that there are atrocities all over the world, take a look at africa. if we are gonna be the world police, lets start with the areas that could benefit the most.
- what is success and what are we hoping for? iraq is not america. we spent $360 billion because the american public thought that iraq was a threat to our security. what could have been done with all that money....
this is like a non-debate. who supports sending more troops or staying in iraq? 17% of the population in the US. please.
- Durbin (who gave the official dem response) was great, you are tripping. he turned the tables on the gop, said that they accomplished what they wanted (saddam is dead, free elections in iraq), so lets get out now. he said that america is not the world's 9-1-1 operator.
Actually, I don't recall him saying we should get out now, but start drawing down, which is a big difference. I agreed with most of his points, I am simply saying it could have used a bit more conviction, not so mechanical.
And he was more specific regarding the 911 analogy, saying that we need to communicate to Iraqis that everytime IRAQ dialed 911, we won't be there. I guess I didn't catch his inference to not being the World's policeman. Which brings up a strange frame of reference all the officials of both parties seem to agree on, which is that Iraqis now have to manage this themselves. Did I miss this message during the initial invasion? Did we go in with the idea of preparing Iraq to manage itself politically and socially? That doesn't seem to have been a goal until after we realized we had a huge mess on our hands.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
Yea. We should invade Africa next.
I love how Peter thinks the mere mention of assassinating the president is appalling, but talk about invading other countries and killing tens of thousands of people is somehow funny.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
The same problems arise though, whenever we impose a military solution on political/social strife in parts of the world. Especially if we go it alone(essentially), as in Iraq. You just end up siding with one side in a civil war.
Our 'help' is one thing, military resources are another, and now our forces are being stretched dangerously thin.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
Yea. We should invade Africa next.
I love how Peter thinks the mere mention of assassinating the president is appalling, but talk about invading other countries and killing tens of thousands of people is somehow funny.
Did I miss this message during the initial invasion? Did we go in with the idea of preparing Iraq to manage itself politically and socially? That doesn't seem to have been a goal until after we realized we had a huge mess on our hands.
exactly, i'm like 100 pages or so through Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" book, but that seems to be his main point. while we might have had a shell of a plan, most people (including Bush Sr.) never thought that it was wise to go into Iraq because, once we took out Saddam, Iraq would be unstable and impossible to control.
the thing that is most frustrating to me is how bush (or anyone in favor of still being there) acts like americans give a shit about iraq. do you? does anyone over here? the whole reason we went over there was to fight terrorism so now regardless of whether bush was full of shit 3 years ago, does anyone STILL believe that if we left Iraq, the war would move over here? if terrorists or a coalition of arab countries who hate the US decide to attack us, i can't imagine that the war in Iraq would play much of a role. if anything, our presence over there just makes us more vulnerable. 140,000 troops are like sitting ducks over there while we waste a half a trillion dollars.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
The same problems arise though, whenever we impose a military solution on political/social strife in parts of the world. Especially if we go it alone(essentially), as in Iraq. You just end up siding with one side in a civil war.
Our 'help' is one thing, military resources are another, and now our forces are being stretched dangerously thin.
I hear people sayin'. We Don't need this war. I say there's some things worth fightin' for. What about our freedom, and this piece of ground? We didn't get to keep 'em by backin' down. They say we don't realize the mess we're gettin' in Before you start preachin' let me ask you this my friend.
Chorus Have you forgotten, how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten, when those towers fell We had neighbors still inside goin through a livin hell And you say we shouldn't worry bout Bin Laden Have you forgotten?
You took all the footage off my T.V. Said it's too disturbin for you and me It'll just breed anger is what the experts say If it was up to me I'd show it everyday Some say this country just out lookin' for a fight Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say right.
Chorus Have you forgotten, how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten when those towers fell We had neighbors still inside goin' through a livin' hell And we vow to get the ones behind Bin Laden Have you forgotten?
I've been there with the soldiers Who've gone away to war you can bet they remember just what they're fightin' for
Have you forgotten All the people killed Yes some went down like heroes In that Pennsylvania field Have you forgotten About our Pentagon All the loved ones that we lost And those left to carry on Don't you tell me not to worry 'bout Bin Laden
Did I miss this message during the initial invasion? Did we go in with the idea of preparing Iraq to manage itself politically and socially? That doesn't seem to have been a goal until after we realized we had a huge mess on our hands.
exactly, i'm like 100 pages or so through Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" book, but that seems to be his main point. while we might have had a shell of a plan, most people (including Bush Sr.) never thought that it was wise to go into Iraq because, once we took out Saddam, Iraq would be unstable and impossible to control.
the thing that is most frustrating to me is how bush (or anyone in favor of still being there) acts like americans give a shit about iraq. do you? does anyone over here? the whole reason we went over there was to fight terrorism so now regardless of whether bush was full of shit 3 years ago, does anyone STILL believe that if we left Iraq, the war would move over here? if terrorists or a coalition of arab countries who hate the US decide to attack us, i can't imagine that the war in Iraq would play much of a role. if anything, our presence over there just makes us more vulnerable. 140,000 troops are like sitting ducks over there while we waste a half a trillion dollars.
There were various groups within the Bush White House that wanted war with Iraq for different reasons.
Rumsfeld had a traditional view that Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East and that an invasion could continue to show his transformation of the U.S. military into a lean mean fighting machine.
The neoconservatives were mad that Saddam hadn't been overthrown in the first Gulf War and were itching for an excuse to go back in. They believed that getting rid of Saddam and setting up a democracy there would lead to a wave of democratization throughout the region. Democracies would also help in the war on terrorism because they would give the people hope for a new government instead of turning to revolutionary Islamist groups.
Cheney and Bush came to agree with their point of view.
The public argument put forth was that Iraq had WMD and was connected with terrorism and AL Qaeda, and were accused of helping with 9/11 and that therefore we needed to invade to disarm Saddam and stop him from giving WMD to terrorists that might attack the U.S. The issue of democratization wasn't really mentioned until just before the invasion, and then when no WMD were found, it became a larger part of the argument. It was never really part of the public debate over the invasion.
The argument that if we lose in Iraq Islamist will come over here is a crock. If the U.S. pulled out the civil war would escalate to widespread ethnic cleansing and murder throughout the country. The Shiites would prevail against the Sunnis, the insurgents would get wiped out and Al Qaeda in Iraq would either be kicked out or destroyed. Even if the country were divided into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas, after the Sunnis were able to control their own area they would most likely kick out Al Qaeda because they are only accepting them now out of convenience (they help in the fight against the U.S. and Shiites), not because of any widespread support for their Islamist cause.
What IS happening now are terrorist camps in Western Iraq that are exporting techniques like IED bombs to Afghanistan, and this is with the U.S. still occupying the country.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
Yea. We should invade Africa next.
I love how Peter thinks the mere mention of assassinating the president is appalling, but talk about invading other countries and killing tens of thousands of people is somehow funny.
--heh---------heh
you have to break some eggs to make an omelet
AKA
I'm not interested in your death count
Saba, its funny, I also love using death and destruction as a way to make snarky, provocative statements on internet message boards. When is the world going to realize that our bombs and guns are simply dispensing freedom???? Anyone who doesnt get that should just either assassinate W or shut up. gosh...
You value life when it furthers your view of the world or your political prejudices.
Did I miss this message during the initial invasion? Did we go in with the idea of preparing Iraq to manage itself politically and socially? That doesn't seem to have been a goal until after we realized we had a huge mess on our hands.
The U.S. made best case scenarios for what Iraq would be like after the invasion. The Iraqis would greet us as liberators, the government workers and police would come back to work the day after and the administration of the country would continue just without Saddam. The neoconservatives wanted to install Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress as the new leaders. (Which was later undermined by Bush, Gen. Garner and Paul Bremer). The U.S. could then walk away.
The idea wasn't that we were going to manage Iraq or teach them how to set up a democracy at first. The White House just assumed they would take care of all that themselves.
When that didn't happen, it was Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, backed by the neoconservatives in the administration that decided they were going to completely remake the country in our image with everything from new traffic laws, to a flat tax, to privatization, to deBaathification, to disbanding the military, and basically starting everything from scratch. We've seen how that has worked out.
WoW...these are my sentiments exactly! I feel like there are soooo many other areas of the world which could benefit from our help.i.e. Africa!
Yea. We should invade Africa next.
I love how Peter thinks the mere mention of assassinating the president is appalling, but talk about invading other countries and killing tens of thousands of people is somehow funny.
--heh---------heh
you have to break some eggs to make an omelet
AKA
I'm not interested in your death count
Saba, its funny, I also love using death and destruction as a way to make snarky, provocative statements on internet message boards. When is the world going to realize that our bombs and guns are simply dispensing freedom???? Anyone who doesnt get that should just either assassinate W or shut up. gosh...
You value life when it furthers your view of the world or your political prejudices.
you really still dont have any idea as to when im joking and when im not, do you?
"A joke[/b] is a short story or series of words spoken or communicated, ideally with the intent of being laughed at or found humorous by the listener or reader[/b].
I don't want to disrupt all the name calling, but I'd just like to add three more points to Bush's actual speech.
Following on what I wrote earlier about the speech being a replay of all the mistakes that the Bush Administration made when they invaded Iraq you can add these two as well.
1) Distaste For Diplomacy
Sec. of State Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were able to talk Bush into going to the U.N, but in general the lead up to the U.S. invasion was based upon accusations about Iraq and threatening U.S. allies to go along with the U.S. attack or else. The use of force was the one and only serious tactic to be used with Iraq.
Bush's speech has a similar tone. There is no serious consideration of using diplomacy to try to bring about a solution to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group suggested that the U.S. convene a regional conference that would include Iran and Syria to try to come to some solutions on Iraq since the conflict has a definite chance of expanding into a regional one if full fleged civil war breaks out. Some think tanks have suggested other international and diplomatic efforts. Bush still believes in using blunt military force though. Sec. of State Rice will go on a symbolic trip to the Middle East, but all the administration's eggs will be in kevlar vests of the army and marines.
2) Short Changing Economic Policies
After the 2003 U.S. invasion the U.S. launched a huge reconstruction plan for Iraq that was largely based upon huge U.S. corporations that worked on gigantic infrastructure projects such as building power plants, etc. In the end, the program was badly managed, had huge amounts of corruption and waste. Not only that, it had little actual impact on Iraqis. Iraqis were not given jobs for the most part and the Iraqis have not been able to operate or maintain many of the projects that the U.S. built. The U.S.'s economic policies also led to a privatization drive that shut down many government run factories and greatly increased unemployment just as many Baathists, the entire armed forces, and many police were being fired as well.
Pentagon, think tank reports, and the generals in Iraq have all said that high levels of unemployment are directly responsible for some of the violence in Iraq. They wanted more money aimed at economic programs.
Bush's plan gives lip service to this, but will probably not give enough and produce enough. Bush says that there will be a huge expansion of provisional reconstruction teams, but the U.S. has never been able to adequately man these teams nor provide security for them. Only a small fraction of the teams currently in Iraq are even operating because it's simply not safe for them. Bush's plan doesn't explain where the new personnel will come from, nor how they will be adequately protected this time. Bush also says that the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion on reconstruction projects. The Iraqi budget is only $20 billion. Not only that, but the Iraqi government is so badly staffed and corrupt the various ministries have been unable to spend most of their budgets so far. The Iraqi governnent, following a sectarian agenda, has also refused to provide money for projects in Sunni areas nor pay security forces that are mostly Sunni. There is no reason to believe that the Maliki government will suddenly do a better job with these. The military was already set to begin a jobs program by trying to re-open some of the closed Iraqi factories, but little additional money will be spent on them. It seems like the White House will just incoporate the existing program into their new plan rather than vastly expand it.
3) Finally and most ominously is the possibility of a real escalation of Bush's policy into a regional conflict. Bush really believes that the U.S. is and can win in Iraq. Yet there is little reason to believe that this policy will work. So what's going to happen 6-12 months from now when that becomes apparent? In Bush's speech he singled out Iran and Syria as meddling in Iraq and said that a new carrier group will be sent to the Persian Gulf, anti-missile defenses will be distributed to Gulf states, and Iran must not develop a nuclear bomb. Maybe when Bush's new military plan doesn't work, he'll blame Iran for interferring, combine it with some flawed diplomatic effort launched against Tehran, and combine those to make an excuse to go to war with Iran.
As the credit card commercial goes
Failed invasion plan for Iraq False promises of success New policy that won't work Expand the war to Iran
Comments
Yes, and too bad there aren't more people like Mrs. Konvicka in the President's cabinet who actually aknowledge the sacrifice of all those soldiers and in turn act responsibly as opposed to simply piling on in a vain attempt to save face for the history books.
thank you.
and in sablabla's world of folks that are either like fatback or Sgt Konvicka, i wonder where Bush and his offspring stand?
- Obama said that he could not support Bush's call for more troops; that we need to be wary of Syria and Iran but diplomacy has never been discussed; adding more troops could make things worse because the Iraqi army is relying too much on us and we won't be there forever; he doubts that a re-vote on the war will have a legal effect on bush's power, but believes the symbolism is important, especially if gop members of congress vote against bush.
- Durbin (who gave the official dem response) was great, you are tripping. he turned the tables on the gop, said that they accomplished what they wanted (saddam is dead, free elections in iraq), so lets get out now. he said that america is not the world's 9-1-1 operator. iraq's problems are not our own. what he should have added is that there are atrocities all over the world, take a look at africa. if we are gonna be the world police, lets start with the areas that could benefit the most.
- what is success and what are we hoping for? iraq is not america. we spent $360 billion because the american public thought that iraq was a threat to our security. what could have been done with all that money....
this is like a non-debate. who supports sending more troops or staying in iraq? 17% of the population in the US. please.
(God, there's so many!)
Yea. We should invade Africa next.
Actually, I don't recall him saying we should get out now, but start drawing down, which is a big difference. I agreed with most of his points, I am simply saying it could have used a bit more conviction, not so mechanical.
And he was more specific regarding the 911 analogy, saying that we need to communicate to Iraqis that everytime IRAQ dialed 911, we won't be there. I guess I didn't catch his inference to not being the World's policeman. Which brings up a strange frame of reference all the officials of both parties seem to agree on, which is that Iraqis now have to manage this themselves. Did I miss this message during the initial invasion? Did we go in with the idea of preparing Iraq to manage itself politically and socially? That doesn't seem to have been a goal until after we realized we had a huge mess on our hands.
I love how Peter thinks the mere mention of assassinating the president is appalling, but talk about invading other countries and killing tens of thousands of people is somehow funny.
--heh---------heh
The same problems arise though, whenever we impose a military solution on political/social strife in parts of the world. Especially if we go it alone(essentially), as in Iraq. You just end up siding with one side in a civil war.
Our 'help' is one thing, military resources are another, and now our forces are being stretched dangerously thin.
you have to break some eggs to make an omelet
exactly, i'm like 100 pages or so through Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" book, but that seems to be his main point. while we might have had a shell of a plan, most people (including Bush Sr.) never thought that it was wise to go into Iraq because, once we took out Saddam, Iraq would be unstable and impossible to control.
the thing that is most frustrating to me is how bush (or anyone in favor of still being there) acts like americans give a shit about iraq. do you? does anyone over here? the whole reason we went over there was to fight terrorism
I hear people sayin'. We Don't need this war.
I say there's some things worth fightin' for.
What about our freedom, and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backin' down.
They say we don't realize the mess we're gettin' in
Before you start preachin' let me ask you this my friend.
Chorus
Have you forgotten, how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten, when those towers fell
We had neighbors still inside goin through a livin hell
And you say we shouldn't worry bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
You took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbin for you and me
It'll just breed anger is what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country just out lookin' for a fight
Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say right.
Chorus
Have you forgotten, how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell
We had neighbors still inside goin' through a livin' hell
And we vow to get the ones behind Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
you can bet they remember just what they're fightin' for
Have you forgotten
All the people killed
Yes some went down like heroes
In that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten
About our Pentagon
All the loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?!
Jesus.
You son yourself over and over and over.
you really still dont have any idea as to when im joking and when im not, do you?
There were various groups within the Bush White House that wanted war with Iraq for different reasons.
Rumsfeld had a traditional view that Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East and that an invasion could continue to show his transformation of the U.S. military into a lean mean fighting machine.
The neoconservatives were mad that Saddam hadn't been overthrown in the first Gulf War and were itching for an excuse to go back in. They believed that getting rid of Saddam and setting up a democracy there would lead to a wave of democratization throughout the region. Democracies would also help in the war on terrorism because they would give the people hope for a new government instead of turning to revolutionary Islamist groups.
Cheney and Bush came to agree with their point of view.
The public argument put forth was that Iraq had WMD and was connected with terrorism and AL Qaeda, and were accused of helping with 9/11 and that therefore we needed to invade to disarm Saddam and stop him from giving WMD to terrorists that might attack the U.S. The issue of democratization wasn't really mentioned until just before the invasion, and then when no WMD were found, it became a larger part of the argument. It was never really part of the public debate over the invasion.
The argument that if we lose in Iraq Islamist will come over here is a crock. If the U.S. pulled out the civil war would escalate to widespread ethnic cleansing and murder throughout the country. The Shiites would prevail against the Sunnis, the insurgents would get wiped out and Al Qaeda in Iraq would either be kicked out or destroyed. Even if the country were divided into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas, after the Sunnis were able to control their own area they would most likely kick out Al Qaeda because they are only accepting them now out of convenience (they help in the fight against the U.S. and Shiites), not because of any widespread support for their Islamist cause.
What IS happening now are terrorist camps in Western Iraq that are exporting techniques like IED bombs to Afghanistan, and this is with the U.S. still occupying the country.
AKA
Saba, its funny, I also love using death and destruction as a way to make snarky, provocative statements on internet message boards. When is the world going to realize that our bombs and guns are simply dispensing freedom???? Anyone who doesnt get that should just either assassinate W or shut up. gosh...
You value life when it furthers your view of the world or your political prejudices.
The U.S. made best case scenarios for what Iraq would be like after the invasion. The Iraqis would greet us as liberators, the government workers and police would come back to work the day after and the administration of the country would continue just without Saddam. The neoconservatives wanted to install Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress as the new leaders. (Which was later undermined by Bush, Gen. Garner and Paul Bremer). The U.S. could then walk away.
The idea wasn't that we were going to manage Iraq or teach them how to set up a democracy at first. The White House just assumed they would take care of all that themselves.
When that didn't happen, it was Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, backed by the neoconservatives in the administration that decided they were going to completely remake the country in our image with everything from new traffic laws, to a flat tax, to privatization, to deBaathification, to disbanding the military, and basically starting everything from scratch. We've seen how that has worked out.
wrong. they should just shut up.
"A joke[/b] is a short story or series of words spoken or communicated, ideally with the intent of being laughed at or found humorous by the listener or reader[/b].
dont forget Poland.
Brilliant.
Following on what I wrote earlier about the speech being a replay of all the mistakes that the Bush Administration made when they invaded Iraq you can add these two as well.
1) Distaste For Diplomacy
Sec. of State Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were able to talk Bush into going to the U.N, but in general the lead up to the U.S. invasion was based upon accusations about Iraq and threatening U.S. allies to go along with the U.S. attack or else. The use of force was the one and only serious tactic to be used with Iraq.
Bush's speech has a similar tone. There is no serious consideration of using diplomacy to try to bring about a solution to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group suggested that the U.S. convene a regional conference that would include Iran and Syria to try to come to some solutions on Iraq since the conflict has a definite chance of expanding into a regional one if full fleged civil war breaks out. Some think tanks have suggested other international and diplomatic efforts. Bush still believes in using blunt military force though. Sec. of State Rice will go on a symbolic trip to the Middle East, but all the administration's eggs will be in kevlar vests of the army and marines.
2) Short Changing Economic Policies
After the 2003 U.S. invasion the U.S. launched a huge reconstruction plan for Iraq that was largely based upon huge U.S. corporations that worked on gigantic infrastructure projects such as building power plants, etc. In the end, the program was badly managed, had huge amounts of corruption and waste. Not only that, it had little actual impact on Iraqis. Iraqis were not given jobs for the most part and the Iraqis have not been able to operate or maintain many of the projects that the U.S. built. The U.S.'s economic policies also led to a privatization drive that shut down many government run factories and greatly increased unemployment just as many Baathists, the entire armed forces, and many police were being fired as well.
Pentagon, think tank reports, and the generals in Iraq have all said that high levels of unemployment are directly responsible for some of the violence in Iraq. They wanted more money aimed at economic programs.
Bush's plan gives lip service to this, but will probably not give enough and produce enough. Bush says that there will be a huge expansion of provisional reconstruction teams, but the U.S. has never been able to adequately man these teams nor provide security for them. Only a small fraction of the teams currently in Iraq are even operating because it's simply not safe for them. Bush's plan doesn't explain where the new personnel will come from, nor how they will be adequately protected this time. Bush also says that the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion on reconstruction projects. The Iraqi budget is only $20 billion. Not only that, but the Iraqi government is so badly staffed and corrupt the various ministries have been unable to spend most of their budgets so far. The Iraqi governnent, following a sectarian agenda, has also refused to provide money for projects in Sunni areas nor pay security forces that are mostly Sunni. There is no reason to believe that the Maliki government will suddenly do a better job with these. The military was already set to begin a jobs program by trying to re-open some of the closed Iraqi factories, but little additional money will be spent on them. It seems like the White House will just incoporate the existing program into their new plan rather than vastly expand it.
3) Finally and most ominously is the possibility of a real escalation of Bush's policy into a regional conflict. Bush really believes that the U.S. is and can win in Iraq. Yet there is little reason to believe that this policy will work. So what's going to happen 6-12 months from now when that becomes apparent? In Bush's speech he singled out Iran and Syria as meddling in Iraq and said that a new carrier group will be sent to the Persian Gulf, anti-missile defenses will be distributed to Gulf states, and Iran must not develop a nuclear bomb. Maybe when Bush's new military plan doesn't work, he'll blame Iran for interferring, combine it with some flawed diplomatic effort launched against Tehran, and combine those to make an excuse to go to war with Iran.
As the credit card commercial goes
Failed invasion plan for Iraq
False promises of success
New policy that won't work
Expand the war to Iran
Priceless!