Good points Jay...although I surmise the trolls will try to thwart them by saying we shouldn't have gone into Iraq to begin with.

Where we go we go again...

WASHINGTON // The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.

Vehicles such as the Cougar and the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle have proven ability to save lives, but production started late and relatively small numbers are in use in Iraq, mostly because of money shortages, industry officials said."

Opinion:We have never ramped up production of equipment to protect our troops because we had already won..and the "conflict" was in "it's last thros"(sp)...If our President truly supported our troops he would call for a ramp up of production for equipment to protect them...
In every other war there was (or should have been) serious production of materials necessary for that war...
If we are going to continue to be in Iraq our President needs to make a public commitment for production of materials needed to support our troops....if not...Bring'em Home

1.) The UN was too soft on Saddam.
2.) The Russians, French, and Chinese were too busy making money to care.
3.) We waited too long to act. The diplomacy hasn't done us much good, so we probably should have just gone in and gotten it done.
4.) The UN is still worthless, and few countries give a damn about peace in Iraq.
5.) We should have killed Sadr when we had the chance, along with all of his followers.
6.) We should have killed anything crossing the border from Syria or Iran.

More on the ROE:
It is great that our troops will now be able to follow the murdering bastards back to their lairs.

JT- you make one grave error on your assessment of the ROE (6 above): Abu Ghraib and Haditha didn't have a damn thing to do with kiling or capturing terrorists. What was the ROE for that?
Further, being agressive in no way matches the brutality of the enemy. What, did you think our guys were going to strap on bomb vests and walk into areas crowded with cvivilians?

Jay,

all well thought out points. The one that I think need a bit more is yours about the disbanding of the military. Your reasoning points to the handling of the military as one in the best interest of administrative ease and efficiency but ignores the local effects. The firing of the military created a large swell of unemployment and left those now without jobs disgruntled, making them ripe candidates to bolster the ranks of the insurgents.

Even if the military were minimally useful at the task of providing security, they could have been out to work on local community improvement projects and infrastructure repair.; that would have kept them busy, kept food on their table and kept our military from having to fill these roles.

I feel the CPA was too reactionary and feared the army was full of Sadaam loyalists and posed a threat. In hindsight to many in the army, it was just a job, a way to get by. Some would argue that the same mistakes in judgement were made during de-Baathification. Bush even alluded to a loosening of that policy in his speech last night.

ah Jay...just wondering...why did you chose not to serve in the military as myself and so many millions of Americans chose?...How many Iraq vets have you personally had conversations with?
..I will not say that people who have not had direct experience with a situation have no right to our opinions...what I am saying is that if we have not had that experience we should preface our opinions..and use caution on the certinty of such opinions..
For example...in Nam we were only forced into one combat tour...I have no experience into what it would be like to be forced into multiple combat tours..
That does not prevent me from having an opinion..in only prevents me from pretending I "know" what is like...

Jay Tea, as always, a good opinion. I would add that the rules of engagement has to be streamlined so the front line troops can be much more agressive. They now have a SEVEN step process before ingaging. That cannot work.

No Go Postal: When the troops do a second tour, they are most likely posted in a safer zone. Say, one tour of combat, one tour of support and security.

ww

Jay,
I agree with you about #6. The ROE should disappear, let the military fight this WOT. They are there, they realize and know what has to be done. It's easy for us back here in the US to be armchair generals, but how many of us really knows what is going on?

Nogo, I will qualify as you have requested: I am a middle-aged woman, and thus have not served in the military, and definitely not on a battlefield. I also have not taught school or been a superintendant of education, but I have strong opinions (well-thought out I might add) about education, too.

My father & father-in-law, both WWII vets...not only did not have well-armoured humvees in the Battle of the Bulge---they very much lacked warm clothes, and ammunition was low. They have never complained.

My very good friend is going back for his 3rd year in Iraq in July. He re-enlisted after his first deployment knowing he would go to Iraq at least once if not twice more. He was hit by an IED last year, but has no qualms about going back other than he will miss his wife & child.

He was not drafted. This is not VIETNAM, get over it.

The ROE have changed over time since 2003. The bigger complaints have been with a lot of the more recent changes rather than longer standing ones. The most infamous was the recent decision that if individual soldiers were fired at they couldn't return fire unless they could determine if their whole unit was attacked. I can see where a soldier might not feel obliged to ask his attacker if the intent is to kill just him or the entire platoon before returning fire...

Iraq: where did we go wrong?

Where did we go wrong? Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam was wrong...No, I don't think so.

You got it right the first time: we were embarked on a global war on terrorism, we needed the good will of people in the Islamic world to wage that war, and the invasion of Iraq utterly evaporated that good will, for all time. The leaked White House memo from Cheney, written on 9/11, five hours after the event, asking staffers to make connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, tells the tale. This administration was going into Iraq whether it made sense or not. It didn't.

I seem to recall that, prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was a great deal of pressure from the left here and abroad to end the sanctions. There were repeated accounts of how many Iraqi babies were dying every month from the brutal, oppressive sanctions.

So the invasion was justified because people on the left were concerned about the well-being of Iraqi babies? Another serving in the feast of red herrings. Utterly non sequitur.

No, Saddam was not involved in 9/11. No one with a lick of sense ever said he was. But he was a danger to world peace, an ongoing terrorist threat to his own people and others, and committed numerous acts of war against the United States. He had to go. Period.

This was evident before Gulf War I -- yet he had firm supporters among the neoconservative clique that still runs the country. He was your bulwark against Iran, remember? Warts and all.

And let's face it -- in the world as it is today (or, even, in 2003), there is one nation and one nation alone that could invade Iraq, sweep aside their military, and depose the entire Baathist government in weeks. And that's us, spelled U-S.

And since we alone could do it, we alone should do it? This justifies our invasion of a small country that had not attacked us? And I find this "one nation" reference to be disrespectful of the coilition forces now fighting in Iraq.

He waged war by proxy by supporting, subsidizing, and training terrorists.

What terrorists did Saddam train? Who is your source for this tidbit?

Hang it up, Jay. All of your assertions are flawed, there is no logic here. Having supported the war all along based on your bad information and evil inclinations, you're finding justifications for that war in tea leaves and moon phases.

It was a bad idea, it remains a bad idea, and it has set the GWOT back decades. There's not a terrorist on the planet who wouldn't kiss George Bush on the lips and stick out his tongue.

Jay:

I hereby honorarily credit you with one of my 23 years of service in the AF and AF Reserve. This will not be applicable toward retirement or service-connected benefits in any way - but now you can say you 'served', if only by proxy.

Diane:

I hereby honorarily credit you with one of my 22 years of service in the AF and AF Reserve. This will not be applicable toward retirement or service-connected benefits in any way - but now you can say you 'served', if only by proxy.

To all the 'Chickenhawk' meme slingers - There ya go. They've served. That do it for you, or will you wonderful folks who are very supportive of 'free speech' as long as YOU agree with what they're saying continue to 'suggest' they stifle their opinon because they haven't served?

Jay,

Abu Ghraib and Haditha had nothing to do with looser or tighter rules of engagement.

Fighting a war by public opinion is an example of where we went wrong.

Fighting a war by media opinion is one of the examples where we went wrong.

Broadcasting our detailed plans for a war is yet another example where we went wrong.

JLawson, I served in the Navy during Vietnam. I volunteered. I am not sitting here whining about people who have not served having an opinion on Iraq and the service of our military. I am mature enough to know you do not have to be something to know something. Because I am not a doctor does not mean I cannot know when I need medical attention. Having said that, what you and other lefties need to do is READ the constitution and the history of that era. Our founding fathers specifically DID NOT want the military commanders running this country. We the people, not we the military. GW is commander and chief as stated in the constitution. Congress is not. Thank God. ww

In Viet Nam, we signed a bogus peace agreement that no single reasonable person expected to survive very long -- and it didn't.

It might have had a chance if we didn't have (a) Watergate, which led to (b) a huge Democratic congressional sweep in the 1974 elections. Even though the terms of the peace treaty called for US reinforcement if North Vietnam attacked, Congress would not authorize funds for President Ford to send troops when the attack came.

4) The disbanding of the Iraqi military was a mistake.

This is definitely a No. The Kurds promised that they would seceed if this happened. There might have been a war with the turks by now if this happened, no to mention an Arab-Kurd civil war in Iraq.

According to Jay, the Bush administration did everything right. It must be the media's fault.

I wish my friends from the left would let go of the silly "chicken-hawk" labels, just as I wish those on the right would let go of the "left hates America argument." What does that accomplish?

I am no fan of George Bush. I look forward with joy to his last day in office. I think the war in Iraq was wrong and that it's conduct has been a disaster. That being said, I carefully listened to Bush last night and I watched him closely. My sense is that he was sincere and is earnest in his desire to try and fix the mess. I'm prepared to support what he is doing as long as there are positive results in the next year or so.

No one seems to be able to come up with a viable plan so lest give this one a shot. I certainly don't believe we should just walk away at this point as the consequences appear to be disastrous.
H.

From what I'm hearing from the guys and gals coming back from there, your second point is either completely true or based on wishful thinking.

Jay you fell asleep waiting for the speech.?.that's nothing Bush has been totally asleep for almost 4 years as the commander-in -chief. Some of the somnolent highlites of his address you may have missed.
Bush:"some people's solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals." Hands up anyone who thinks he carefully considered this proposal, or any of the other Iraq study Group proposal for that matter..
Bush: "Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace..What country is he thinking off? iI seems just the opposite in Iraq, and finally the scariest prediction "These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations  conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."... to gain the trust did he say that?...Bush still completely misunderstimates or has never understood the nature of the vicious sectarian strife in Iraq, which is the main reason why we have gone so wrong in Iraq.

So let me see if I have this straight, Jay: We didn't make any big mistakes, and you're in favor of winning.

Really putting yourself out there, aren't you?

Where did we go wrong?

The moment we had our first shred of evidence that Iran and/or Syria was helping the insurgency, not moving to bomb them.

Jay said:

4) The disbanding of the Iraqi military was a mistake.

Debatable, but I think not. The Iraqi military was a mess, for a variety of reasons... Saddam's military was adequate for most purposes -- brutally suppressing dissent at home and discouraging hostile neighbors from abroad.

Wrong on this one Jay. Throwing 400,000 young Iraqi males out of work overnight into an economy that had massive unemployment was a huge blunder. It's no surprise that many of these men who suddenly had no way to put food on the table for their families turned to the well-funded insurgency.

Your characterization that Saddam's military was a "mess" is also off the mark. It seems to me that they stood up to a numerically superior Iranian army pretty well for many years.

And the idea that the military was just for suppressing the people of Iraq is also off the mark. That was certainly the case for the Republican Guards but was not the case with the regular Army. The regular army was full of average people who weren't connected with the regime and many of whom probably didn't like Saddam. Throwing them out of work was a huge mistake because it also created a security vacuum that we were unable to fill because we didn't have enough troops to police the country.

AND, the Constitution was also a mistake because the Sunnis overwhelmingly rejected it. Therefore, it can't be said that the government/constitution enjoys popular support.

Imagine, if we had forced our own Constitution on states that had rejected it (as 97% of the people in Al Anbar). We probably would have a civil war right at the birth of our country.

Hugh,

You'll support the President as long as things go well ???? As opposed to supporting the Terrorists if things don't go well ????

I don't think you'll switch teams ...

I am curious who you might think of as a "replacement" coach instead of Bush & Co. if things "don't go well" ???

Pelosi, Obama ??? Murtha ??? McCain ???

Well the coach has another 2 years on his contract so strap on the foul weather gear and be prepared to be a fair OR foul weather supporter ...

Larkin, I now want you to consider the possibility that when we invaded Iraq, Saddam and his two killer sons were still alive and well. The army officers were probably fearful that Saddam would return eventually and David Bremmer would not want to have to deal with sorting out the loyalists from the willing. Many battles throughout our history had problems that were corrected. All we need is a will and a spine to see it through. In this age, the enemy knows exactly what the citizens of the USA are thinking. They too have computers and web sites. They know the lefts debate. The hear our news casts. The read the op eds. If they were to hear a unified voice for the most part, I think that would put the fear in them. Unfortunately, I think we have become a country of spineless whiners. ww

The moment we had our first shred of evidence that Iran and/or Syria was helping the insurgency, not moving to bomb them.

No one really knows the depth of official Syrian and Iranian governmental support for the Iraqi insurgency. It's safe to assume they are meddling at some level but I doubt either country wants to see Iraq collapse and an Al Qaeda-type regime established. The Iranians are Shiite and are considered infidels by Al Qaeda. Syria is secular.

I also don't believe that either country could effectively seal their borders and stop their own people from going to Iraq as volunteers. Think about it. We are the greatest, wealthiest country in the world with the most technologically advanced military in the world and WE can't even control our borders. It's not an easy thing.

Personally,
I think that once it became clear that Syria and Iran were likely sources of terrorists and support/supplies, the borders should have been declared no-man lands. Any traffic crossing outside of manned border posts are fair game for Predator drones, helicopter gunships and A-10s.

SCSI - you seem to be forgetting that Saddam had hidden away TONS and TONS of weaponry and explosives. We never even scratched the surface in clearing all that up.

The army officers were probably fearful that Saddam would return eventually and David Bremmer would not want to have to deal with sorting out the loyalists from the willing.

Maybe so, but then we should have had enough of our own troops to establish order if we were going to disband the Iraqi military and we also would have set up some kind of payment system whereby the families of the former Iraqi soldiers wouldn't go hungry.

1. Yes it was a mistake to invade. The destabilization of the region which resulted has made things WORSE than it was before, with Iran having much greater power and influence.
2. The election was a good idea, but like many of the other good ideas we've had, it ended up making us look worse. The election was meaningless because the government is powerless. I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqis who are thinking to themselves that THIS is democracy, they want no part of it. They should have achieved stability first and then held the election.
3. It was bad in the sense that we didn't secure the territory we controlled. We left arms caches all over the place and they are still fueling the insurrection today. Additionally, we we didn't put down the rioting that occurred in the aftermath of the invasion which set a very bad precedent.
4. I think it was a mistake. If we had supported the Iraqi military, they probably would have supported us. So we not only created a political vacuum, we created a military one as well, and the various factions and militias filled that void with no opposition. The central government is trying to rebuild the army now but it goes without saying that the insurgents are going to resist efforts to take away their power.
5. Absolutely. I've discussed this above.
6. Depends on how you define the conflict. If Iraq was/is our enemy, then it's within the rules to level the place. But if we're there to help the Iraqi people and establish democracy, then yeah, the rules are pretty tight. We can't "destroy the village in order to save it," to borrow a phrase from Vietnam. Our mission is to transform Iraq, not to destroy it.

Bottom line to all this is that from the moment we crossed the border, we were in deep trouble, but the decisions we made along the way have only made things worse. And adding a few more troops won't solve it.

Easy to set up a few straw-man alternative and knock them down, but you left out the big mistakes, as I saw them. You could also read Fiasco by Tom Ricks, or Squandered Victory by Larry Diamond.

How about these possibilities:

7. Failure to provide enough troops to police Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. The CPA and military spent months and millions rebuilding and reequipping Iraqi government buildings which were looted or burned right after the invasion. This delayed the resumption of Iraqi government operations, which delayed social services, policing, municipal services, etc., which pissed off a lot of Iraqis.

There were not even enough troops to secure the huge ammunition supply points (ASPs) in Iraq, some square miles in size, or dispose of the munitions within the bunkers. As a result, the bad guys looted the ASPs of artillery shells and other munitions at will - for months. This is where the IEDs and mortar attacks are coming from now - those stolen and cached munitions.

8. Failure to have adequate relief and reconstruction funds immediately available at the time of the invasion. The invasion was completed in April 2003. At that time, only $2 billion in USAID funds had been allocated. The $18 billion in reconstruction funds was not even appropriated until September 2003, and did not begin to flow into, after the long federal acquisition regulation process, until May 2004 or so. By that time, the shit was hitting the fan, and security costs had to eat up a lot of that money

The delay in appropriation and contracting, and the failure to have a reconstruction plan in place, severely damaged our credibility with the Iraqi people, who began to see the occupation as a incompetent government.

9. Authorizing brutal interrogation techniques which hardened detainees often swept up in error, and led to the public image disaster of Abu Ghraib. Related to #7, in that more troops would have been less stressed and able to take time to distinguish who the bad guys were.

10. Not installing an Iraqi government sooner, and not authorizing elections sooner. I think Richard Perle's point that the occupation was a mistake, and it would have been better to organize and install an Iraqi government immediately, has a lot of merit, although it's debatable.