Thursday, March 09, 2006

When did we lose this war?

If you read “The Fall of Baghdad”, by Jon Lee Anderson, you’ll find out when the losing began. Mr. Anderson is a journalist who was in Iraq before and during the invasion. He talked to Iraqis and he tells you what they said.

As I read his words it seems to me we began to lose the war after the invasion and during the time of the looting and burning. Remember Rumsfeld’s snide remarks about the boy carrying the vase from a building? He said we were seeing the same picture over and over and implied that we were so stupid that we thought each time we saw it we thought it was another vase being taken. Well, while Mr. Rumsfeld was chiding our intelligence, his ignorance was losing a war.

When this looting began the American troops did nothing to stop it. At that time I believe Mr. Rumsfeld made another ridiculous comment about freedom being messy or something like that. The Iraqis didn’t see it the same way Mr. Rumsfeld did. They saw it as insanity and no one was doing a thing to stop it. There was a vacuum of authority. That is when the religious figures stepped in to fill the void, and that’s when the Iraqis lost their faith in the United States’ ability to give them what they needed, security.

Most Iraqis were in favor of the invasion and removal of Saddam from power, but they resented the Americans standing around and allowing their country to be destroyed. That resentment has grown with each day that our troops have remained there.

Please consider reading, “The Fall of Baghdad”, because it will help you to see this war from the Iraqi’s point of view and I feel that is important. We promised them freedom. We have given them death and destruction. It’s amazing to read how this happened and what we did to these people, all in the name of “spreading democracy around the world”.

17 Comments:

Blogger Carl said...

According to Sun Tzu, wars are lost or won before they're fought.

In this case, we lost on Nov. 7, 2000...

March 09, 2006 1:07 PM  
Blogger PoliShifter said...

Thanks for the book tip. Glad to see your blog up. Earlier it was MIA.

Rumsfeld is an ass...He said:

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/

Basically everything opposite of the what the Bush Administration says is true.

Thus when Condi and Rummy say there is "No Civil War" what they really mean is "there is a civil war"

March 09, 2006 1:10 PM  
Blogger pissed off patricia said...

I cannot recommend this book enough. It’s written with fair attention to both sides. If you do read it, here’s a hint I wish I had had from the beginning. Before beginning to read, get a slip of paper and a pen. There are quiet a few named Iraqis in the story and after a while all these names that we aren’t used to begin to run together. When he introduces you to an Iraqi, write down the person’s name and their occupation. You’ll thank me for this, I promise. Maybe it was just my lack of memory but I found myself, especially toward the end, having to flip back to remind me who each named person was and what they did.

March 09, 2006 1:35 PM  
Blogger Walt said...

I find myself forced to agree with Carl's assessment that we lost this war on 7 November 2000. George W Bush had a great deal of animus toward Iraq's leader, coupled with the desire to out-do his father's accomplishments.

During the run-up to war, the State Department planned out the postwar authority, timetabling and reconstruction (as I recall, it ran to about 14 volumes). Then the President ordered State to hand the plan over to Defense, who snorted at it and threw it into the nearest dumpster.

The hubris shown by the Administration over the past five years has been little short of breathtaking. And, as the ancient Greeks knew, Nemesis waits for those who are too proud.

I hear Nemesis approaching.

March 09, 2006 1:52 PM  
Blogger pissed off patricia said...

I agree the war was lost before it began in many respects. But the invasion happened and if our troops had been trained to approach this mission a different way, we still might have been able to pull it off. One example was when one of the hospitals discovered the looters were coming their way, someone went to get a group of troops to come and hold off the looters. When the troops arrived they trained their guns on the nurses who were standing outside the hospital. They had to be told that the looters were approaching and the troops actually turned around and aimed their guns the other way. They were clueless about what to do when the looting and burning began and the people of Iraq saw this incompetence quickly. It wasn’t so much the soldiers fault as the fault of bad preparation by the higher ups. The planning was rushed and lacking in knowledge of the almost certain situation they would be met with once they controlled the country.

Add to that the soldiers who somehow thought they were going after the attackers of 9-11. So these kids had nothing but hate for the Iraqis. That didn't help.

March 09, 2006 2:31 PM  
Blogger Left of Center said...

"George W Bush had a great deal of animus toward Iraq's leader, coupled with the desire to out-do his father's accomplishments." this is true. I think deep down he resents his father, after all it was Jeb who was suppose to be president, it was Jeb who was the smart one. (I say that in realitive terms) Others knew of Georges thinking and took advantage of it, they are Cheney Rumsfeld and Card. Oh, we forgot hubris and narsissism.

March 09, 2006 3:15 PM  
Blogger Sheila said...

LOC,

I agree with Cheney and Rumsfeld, but Andy Card is a yes man. I have never known him to have a free thought past what his superiors want and I had the pleasure to work under him. The only thing he ever added to the administration was the ability to never question or object...and loyalty in profusion.

Now Rove is another story. I really think he's the real Chief of Staff in this Administration, not Mr. Card.

March 09, 2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger enigma4ever said...

POP: thanks for the book recommendation- they were out of it at Borders today..ordered it..I don't know if that is a good or bad sign- but I will take it as a good sign ;-)

( glad you like where I put you on the Blogroll..let's see if Neil comes strolling in for a martini...hehe)

Hmm, about the Administration..I think LOC hit the nail on the head...cept we know Dick is really the prez, and I think Andy, and Rovey go into the girls room and bitch slap each other for who is in charge That day...

March 09, 2006 4:32 PM  
Blogger eProf2 said...

Don't forget Bush's comment, "this (the looting and burning) is being done by just a few thugs and thieves." Or something like that!

March 09, 2006 4:59 PM  
Blogger skippy said...

got a link to the website for the book, and/or the amazon page?

March 09, 2006 6:18 PM  
Blogger sumo said...

I'm going to the Barnes and Noble tommorrow for the book...thanks.

March 09, 2006 9:26 PM  
Blogger enigma4ever said...

Skippy visited you??THE SKIPPY ? Wow..you are famous...

March 10, 2006 12:41 AM  
Blogger Neil Shakespeare said...

Well, I don't know about democracy, but Rummy is good at spreading manure.

March 10, 2006 2:56 AM  
Blogger pissed off patricia said...

The book link

March 10, 2006 5:25 AM  
Blogger SB Gypsy said...

Naaw, it was in the name of security, vengence, and eliminating WMD - spreading freedom only became operative when those former were proven to be lies.

The real reason was OIL

and the oil bourse that Saddam Hussain started that dealt in Euros...

Funny, Iran just is starting an oil bourse that is dealing in Euros, too.

March 10, 2006 9:46 AM  
Blogger Rory Shock said...

another excellent post ... thanks for the reading suggestion ... will check it out

March 11, 2006 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We lost this war when ShrubCo. chose to prosecute it in the first place. It wasn't justifiable, but then they in their hubris never figured they were going to have to set up a force for occupation.

They have taken a fragile, artificial nation (cobbled together out of dissimilar religious and ethnic groups that already disliked each other by the British and French at the end of WWI) and shattered the ties that held it together, the outcome that was most likely to occur.

Incredible incompetents!

- oddjob

March 13, 2006 6:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home