Cheney and others thought we would roll in, install new leaders and that would be it. Could it be " faulty intelligence " or arrogance or terrorists who hate us for our freedoms ?
2006-10-28 12:02:39 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Birds: Hope you are OK. You are not making any sense.
2006-10-28 12:14:06 · update #1
Miscalculation? I don't think it's so much a miscalculation as it is a misguided emphasis of their pre-existing plan. It's certainly part arrogance. Anyone who is so utterly dogmatic has signs of arrogance. But it is also a pre-occupation with their "real" focus.
The Neocons have an end-justifies-the-means perspective. They feel that instituting capitalist-democracy is the safest way to assure safety - for America AND for Israel. The present administration is a strange amalgamation of heavy-handed, Texas-Christian-Eschatological ideology and Neoconservatism. Israel is a big part of the Neocon ideology (as is oil). It's what gives the middle east focus over, say, central and southern Africa.
Great book on the present situation is Jimmy Carter's, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. Also see great Wikipedia summary on Neoconservatism.
Carter's Book
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Endangered-Values-Americas-Crisis/dp/0743285018/sr=8-6/qid=1162077064/ref=sr_1_6/002-7764483-6772030?ie=UTF8&s=books
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
2006-10-28 12:16:21 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a group the Administration and its advisors had almost no understanding at all of Iraqi society, culture, and religion. They went in under the assumption that they were just like us and would welcome our liberation and embrace with open arms our system of government. All of these assumptions were wrong.
As soon as whatever time the US finally extricates itself from active involvement in Iraq, expect the Iraqis to abandon any notions of US-style democracy and basically go back to a system whereby the religious leaders are judge, jury and executuoner. I do not think that any democratic form of government set up and propped up in Iraq by the US will long endure, and I think it will be driven out of office within two years after the end of US interference.
All of this is a result of US policymakers and planners having no real understanding of Iraq and its people.
2006-10-28 19:17:29 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's an confidential memo presented to President ! and he is chief of commander so he gave the directives to go head..cause he believes in confidential memo, as well his team.Here me and you cannot justify the information is faulty,cause it's a decision of President of United States with the consent of congress and senate.We will never knows who and who was !Terrorist doesn't hate freedoms.Where there is a freedom there presence is exist there.Which country doesn't host terrorist? knowingly or unknowingly all are hosting terrorist.we cannot blame Rumsfeld,nor intelligence dept or his Neocon buddies for miscalculating,we all are misfortunate that we cannot trace the terrorist.
2006-10-28 19:14:55 · answer #3 · answered by precede2005 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They believed whatever they were told by a small group of Iraqi troublemakers. Even though they had no proof whatsoever of WMD, they went in thinking that an easy win in Iraq would scare the terrorists away. Now, after almost a million deaths in Iraq, there are more terrorists than ever.
2006-10-28 19:08:26 · answer #4 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld and his cohorts allowed the war profiteers (contracting companies) to overrun the Pentagon, spend all available money and order him around. He refused to listen to the Generals who have studied war strategies and practiced them. Rumsfeld is a neocon fascist who was in it for the future gains. Too bad he underestimated his targets. Millions of lives and trillions in resources went down the drain.
How much more can you take? Time to get those idiots out of office.
2006-10-28 19:06:41 · answer #5 · answered by Reba K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question!! Been wondering about this myself. I don't think it was "faulty" intel, but faulty conclusions drawn from it. I think the basic problem was that Chulabi et al convinced us that we would be welcomed with open arms by Iraqis who had had enough of Saddam. What we missed was that not all Iraqis would have this attitude, and that a major effort would be made by Iran, Syria, etc. to destabilize our efforts. Therefore, our initial effort was not overwhelming enough. Also, our "de-Baathification" was misguided. Many in Saddam's govt. were not against our invasion - just as not all Nazis were against our defeat of Germany in WWII.
2006-10-28 19:17:15 · answer #6 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually they did not miscalculate so badly, they just didn't think they could make more money for the Republicans, therefore staying the course will assure making more and much more money for their cronies.
2006-10-28 19:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by me_worry? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your hindsight is so great.
Democrats miscalculated too. Now they've had to surrender.
The Democrats should have consulted with you in the first place.
2006-10-28 19:09:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its either :
A) They were blinded by greed
OR
B) They just didn't care how bad it was going to be in the first place... for all we know their companies are selling the weapons and explosives to the insurgency. It wouldn't surprise me a bit.
2006-10-28 19:12:54 · answer #9 · answered by eggman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A severe misunderstanding of basic principles of political science.
2006-10-28 20:01:59 · answer #10 · answered by melaskinados 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋