Bush admits post-war Iraq situation a 'miscalculation'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Popmartijn

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
32,863
Location
Netherlands
Hello,

Apparently, Bush has admitted for the first time he made some miscalculations regarding 'post-war Iraq'. Hopefully he can learn from it and make the situation better soon.
From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3604564.stm

Bush admits Iraq 'miscalculation'

US President George W Bush has acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation" of what conditions would be in post-war Iraq.

...

Asked by the USA Today, in a separate interview, how the death toll - now approaching 1,000 US military personnel - would affect his election chances, he answered: "The president has to make hard decisions.

"My job is to confront problems not pass them on. And the American people have seen me make the hardest of decisions. That's just going to have to be a part of their decision-making process."

The death toll of US military personnel after the major combat operations ended (1 May 2003) is around 850.

C ya!

Marty
 
I think that the post-war situation was a definite miscalculation. The casualties have been much lower than I anticipated.
 
A_Wanderer
military or civil casualties?
I agree with you. But there was one thing (premium members can verify this with the search-button of interference) i can say "i told you so":
"Iraqis will be happy that saddam is gone, still many of them will hate the american forces"
 
Of course, it's better to admit it now than to be slapped around with it during the debates. And what better time to do it than when you're for the first time in ages ahead in the polls?
 
Millitary and Civilian, I would have anticipated anything from 2000 millitary to 50,000 civilian, this has not eventuated and Iraq is moving forward, definitely some bumps but there is progression.
 
Popmartijn said:
Hello,

Apparently, Bush has admitted for the first time he made some miscalculations regarding 'post-war Iraq'. Hopefully he can learn from it and make the situation better soon.
From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3604564.stm



The death toll of US military personnel after the major combat operations ended (1 May 2003) is around 850.

C ya!

Marty

Total number of military personal killed by hostile fire is 726. Another 245 have died as a result of non-hostile instances. Total that have died while serving in Iraq since March 2003 from both hostile and non-hostile instances is 971.
 
A_Wanderer
I think one reason for the misscalculation was that we all thought that Saddam had at least some WMDs and, of course, would use them to defend his life.
Or at least would use the WMDs to take as much people with him as he can when he sees no other exit than death
 
Last edited:
I wonder what other things he'll change his mind about before this is all over. Can we look forward to the end of the 'flip-flop' talk, now that Bush is doing it himself?
 
I guess you need to define "the war on terror" to reconcile the two.

If it means eradicating everyone who kills in the name of Allah, you will fail.

If it means shining the light of freedom and democracy on areas where the terrorists thrive, this is achievable.
 
najeena said:
I wonder what other things he'll change his mind about before this is all over. Can we look forward to the end of the 'flip-flop' talk, now that Bush is doing it himself?

Not likely. Can't let facts get in the way of the spin.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
If it means shining the light of freedom and democracy on areas where the terrorists thrive, this is achievable.

Define 'shining the light of freedom'. :wink:
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess you need to define "the war on terror" to reconcile the two.

If it means eradicating everyone who kills in the name of Allah, you will fail.

If it means shining the light of freedom and democracy on areas where the terrorists thrive, this is achievable.


I don't do nuance.
- George W. Bush
 
Klaus said:
A_Wanderer
I think one reason for the misscalculation was that we all thought that Saddam had at least some WMDs and, of course, would use them to defend his life.
Or at least would use the WMDs to take as much people with him as he can when he sees no other exit than death

Prior to the American-led invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s regime was not in a defensive situation, nor was it in an offensive situation. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a secular state that only began adopting Islamic teachings shortly before its demise. As a result, middle-eastern countries that held great importance in religious beliefs did not associate with the Saddam regime. Another reason is that Iraq remained a powerful state in the middle-east despite the Gulf War, and power is a known deterrent of outside political challenge.

Internally, Desert Storm only added to Iraq’s relative neutrality. After the war, “no-fly” zones were implemented over Iraqi airspace, which disallowed the movement of military forces by Saddam Hussein in the north and south of Iraq, and was enforced by American and British warplanes. Under the no-fly zones, a Kurdish nation flourished in the north, which later became a major ally in the invasion of Iraq.

Consequently, with no strong allies, no obvious foes, and being restricted to the middle of Iraq, Saddam was forced to adopt a semi-pacifist position. True, Iraqi forces would occasionally fire on American and British planes, but such attacks were not threatening and instead were done symbolically to represent the survival of Saddam’s rule despite international intervention during the Gulf War.

What can be more intriguing are the questions, “How could Saddam Hussein be able to build WMD if tight international sanctions were imposed against his regime, he was surrounded by indifferent neighbours, and his own borders were monitored by western powers?,” and, “If he was unable to build WMD after the Gulf War, and the conviction leading to the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam had these weapons prior to the Gulf War, why didn’t he use them during the Gulf War, or during the invasion of Iraq?” However, I will provide no answers to these complicated questions in fear of making false assumptions that ultimately bring me to tell a few harmful lies.

Propaganda is a simple person’s happiness.
 
I guess that the subsequent investigation of massive corruption within the UN Oil for Food Program combined with the arms smuggling during the late 1990's hasn't raised any questions about the long term effectiveness of said sanctions in preventing the regime from restarting WMD production - thats good to know.
 
A difference exists between illegally obtaining an AK-47 and legally producing in mass quantity M-16s. A difference exists between illegally obtaining an AK-47 and legally producing in mass quantity WMDs. Iran, the most militarily advanced country in the middle-east, with no major sanction imposed against it, is only beginning to produce in limited quantity WMDs.
 
Whole cities and areas are under insurgent control, and the King of Jordan has claimed that elections are "impossible" in Iraq. He's next door, so he knows what's going on. It's a mess, and I'm not sure it can be fixed.
 
I guess that we shall wait and see. I am optimistic, ones view of the country can be clouded by the mainstream media. I am not saying that there are a lot of problems but I am saying that they can be overcome. The problems so far are localised to very few provinces. If we see the Kurds make a move for full independence then I will say that the entire country may no longer be viable but so far there has been steady improvement.

Grand gestures to show force will occur in the next 6 months, to influence the US elections as well as the Iraq election. The planning for the situation must have been FUBAR because the CPA itself was not actively pursuing the insurgency in the Sunni Triangle enough, they are afraid of killing civilians and that makes them weak in the eyes of the insurgents.

Also cutting support for the insurgeny by foreign powers is important. This is not Vietnam, Vietnam was a civil war where each side was backed by billions of dollars of arms and expertise, full cold war proxy battles. The enemies in this tale are weak powers and a "resistance" that is killing more Iraqi's than American soldiers. As long as the US goes all out against the insurgency the situation can be solved. Insurgencies have been fought and won before, Mindanao and Malaya are two examples from relatively recent memory. The tale of Black Jack Pershing's methods of dealing with Islamic fighters (while untrue) could certainly be an interesting rumour to spread in scaring away potential holy warriors.

Also the problem of the Iraqi economy versus security loom large. Until the economy improves significantly and employment can be found for the young men they will have no interest in a stable Iraq and will fight for the militias. To prevent this one must get the economy working, but this is a massive undertaking considering that the infrastructure was so worn down at the time of the war. On the same token reconstruction efforts require security, its a two sided problem that should be adressed.

The glass is 2/3 full. It is not a cakewalk but it is not going to hell.
 
If the Kurds make a move for independence the neighbors in Turkey will freak out. The Erdogan government might collapse. Some people think that Iraq is eventually going to break up into three countries, the Kurdish north, the Sunni Muslim central area around Baghdad and the Shi'ite south. They're artificially forged together into the same state. This was the case with Yugoslavia. Iraq could just balkanize the same way. This would be really bad for the whole area.
 
The concept of a Shiite south, I am not sure if it will float. The only groups who would win in any fight for power there would be Iranian backed, and that oil is a very valuable piece of the puzzle.
 
Iran would dearly love to see another Shi'ite state, and maybe they think they can help one develop. This would be a nightmare for the whole region as all of the other Middle Eastern countries are Sunni and they'd probably harrass a Shi'ite state. If they (the Iranians) don't think Iraq as a whole can became a Shi'ite state they may encourage the South so as to not have to fool with the "Sunni triangle". It's what Jordan, Turkey and the other neighbors don't want. But since when did Iran give a damn about its Sunni neighbors?
 
Back
Top Bottom