Why has the Bush adm. handled the war so poorly?

Question

Everything points to several mistakes-where at the out set they were given alternative advice-don't disband the army-more troops to SECURE IRAQS borders-worry about conventional arms depots-(5 main depots-countless weapons and explosives) were ignored completely. Arrogance-Ignorance-Incompetance-take your pick-but this babie has cost us 400 billion $-and contrary to what FOX news has been telling you for 4 years -IRAQ IS A MESS. And it was the BUSH ADM. which has persecuted this WAR--Yea Clinton lied-but as many beleive when Bush lied soilders died.

Answer 1

Personally, I believe the invasion of Iraq was used to deflect criticism of the hunt for Bin Laden. There were over 50, 000 troops in Afghanistan looking and no sign so Bush decided to invade Iraq due to the ease of Desert Storm. He had the misguided impression that Iraqi troops would surrender like the first time and by ousting Saddam, the troops would be welcomed with open arms. Not that Saddam didn't deserve to be ousted but there are other dictators still leading other countries, North Korea, China, to name a couple. Iraq looked to Bush as an easy victory, went before the UN for legitimacy, and when the UN didn't buy into it, went ahead and invaded anyway. Yes, congress approved the invasion, but based on faulty intelligence and as the truth began to come out, opposition voices were branded as traitors or flip-floppers. Congress had no reason to doubt the intelligence and as such voted for war. Who wouldn't believe their Commander in Chief? As far as Fox news goes, propaganda is always part of any military conflict. Fox bought into the Bush fantasy, as did millions of voters. Hard to just blame Fox for that.

Answer 2

The war is not handled poorly IMO. It is a WAR. No wars have even gone perfectly according to the plan. Tons of Wars have gone bad for one side or the other at points in the battles(fields).

To justiify Iraq one only needs to understand Saddam was a tyrant and a fool. The UN did not totally agree to America and the COALITION(15+ Nations on the Ground) to oust Saddam at this time. But, the world saw the same evidence our President saw. So, the other 15+ Nations read and (mis)interpreted the same security documents. If those Nations did not think it was worth going why are they there giving the USA a helping hand.

This war is not different than any other war. The enemy has to shake and be beaten before there can be peace. People have whined and complained about every war the USA has been involved in since the War of Independence 1775. War is sometimes the only thing to solve the issues once diplomatic means breakdown. As is the case with Iraq.

Thanks

Answer 3

These are interesting points, but one must understand the foundation of what you are saying. As far as Iraq is concerned, I wouldn't say Bush and Clinton lied. I think they believed the intelligence they were provided. But that's not the point here. Your question was to answer why the current administration has handled the war poorly. To give this question justice, we must analyze what makes the conduct of the war a poor one. I sum this up in three brief points:
1. failure to secure the borders following the seizure of the country
2. failure to provide adequate training to Iraqi security forces in a timely fashion
3. failure to counter the media factor.

The first two problems stem from the number of boots on the ground. Due to the lack of international support, the United States was left to bear the majority of the human capital requirements to execute this action. And, because the United States has a strategic need to be able to prosecute two wars and prepare to defend the homeland simultaneously, this limits the number of assets that are readily available. True, the United States could have put many more soldiers in Iraq. But, because the operational tempo would have brought the same soldiers back time and again (or left them there far too long at a time) the defense department had to make a conservative commitment.

If fingers must be pointed, the truth is that the Defense Dept. could not (and still can not) maintain force projection requirements and the amounts required because there simply aren't enough warm bodies in the military. The Clinton Administration effectively drew down the U.S. military during the 1990s ostensibly because there was a minimized threat after the fall of the Soviet Union. The truth is that with the fracture of the communist giant, new threats emerged that we can now visualize on a scale that requires a much more versatile force. The budget put in place in the 90s just could not put together a force that can do today's job.

Not only are there not enough troops to (1) control the border in Iraq, and (2) secure the country while simultaneously training and equipping the Iraqi security forces, the PLAN to train those forces has not succeeded. I can not effectively argue the finer points of this since I am not privy to the details of the training plan, but it is evident that it is not working. The pressure to do it quickly and with such few augmentees from our own military has essentially produced an ill-prepared force to do a job that would require a much more resilient entity.

Problem #3 is the media. Almost from the beginning of the insurgency, the media has been used against the United States' efforts to control the situation on the ground. The enemies of the U.S. government understand this to great length and have employed techniques founded in psychological warfare to turn the tide just as it happened during the Vietnam conflict beginning in 1968. What's more, the free press of the United States itself, with an intent to sell stories ("we love dirty laundry") and papers, focuses on the negative aspect of the war, turning international and homegrown support around. We are left with a bolstered extremist uprising and a weakened U.S. foreign policy based largely on the inability to communicate positive aspects of the U.S.-led occupation.

These three major issues will dominate the handling of this conflict until one of three things happens:

1. The popular voice of the U.S. will influence lawmakers to demand a withdrawal, ending in defeat not only for the United States but for the Iraqi people.

2. The U.S. will send more troops in an attempt to control an out-of-control situation (which will likely not be enough unless Congress passes legislation effectively increasing the size of the U.S. military, sending the national deficit into very unpopular waters)

or...
3. A broader conflict will ensue (probably involving Iran) in order to stablize the region. Ironically this answer will serve only to further destabilize it and probably lead to a third world war.

Answer 4

Because of his advisers, When has America ever been labeled an "Occupying Force"? It goes against the very concept of America.
Not getting advice from other Muslim countries in the area was the biggest mistake that smells of arrogance when you think you know it all. Obliviously, they didn't know how to deal with Muslims at all, Look whats happening in Afghanistan, before they went in drugs were being
cultivated at 1500 acres per year now they're over 400,000 acres, a problem, I'd say so. They should have had the soldiers wipe them out while they were there. No Vision of where they are or where they're going.....

Answer 5

I love to see uneducated rants like this. First, let me say, I was in Iraq and YES..I saw my share of flaws, I am not here to defend that we made no mistakes, that would be ludicris of me. However, to see people who have no Military or Political training or education pick apart what they think are the major flaws boggles my mind. If your going to offer what YOU believe is the mistakes of the war, then you should be prepared to offer what YOU think the solution is or should have been. I saw some errors upclose and personal, and I could offer my PROFESSIONAL opinion on how they should have been handled. Also, we learn from our mistakes, and this whole war is a learning process. This is not about oil, this is not another Vietnam. This war has no front lines, our enemy comes from all directions in all forms. We have educated Military Leaders in charge of what is going on over there, The ones who are at groung zero. The president gets ADVISED by his MILITARY LEADERS. If you are NOT THERE, or have not BEEN THERE, nor understand the full logistics of how to fight the type of enemy on the type of battle field we are fighting on, then do me a favor and go pick apart something YOU KNOW ABOUT FROM EXPIERIENCE OR TRAINING.

Answer 6

The undertaking, taking down Saddam's dictatorship, grew to become into performed. we've a clean undertaking - convey a democratic republic to Iraq. 4.5 unemployment value, protection for unborn babies. there have been blunders in this conflict, as there have been in each conflict. yet common, Dubya has finished a first rate job.

Answer 7

They miscalculated the amount of oposition to US forces AFTER the invasion was over. The apparently, assumed that eveyone in Iraq wanted Saddam out and a democratic government in.

Answer 8

Because the majority of these people are living in the bubble and have no practical idea of the life in the real world. They don't know much about world's real problems.

Answer 9

Becasue he thought that he could just sweep Iraq of all terrorism easily becasue of america power.

Answer 10

Wars of aggression are a bad thing-not only when many American troops die.