Did they really or did they just swallow their doubts in "support" of the troops? Was there ANYBODY working on the planning in the world most well funded intelligence and military complex, that honestly did not know that the "reconstruction" would last for years and involve much clashing between competing interests
In short, I'm curious whether in fact the real cost was really "under estimated" or whether it was simply under reported. I suspect the latter. However, I think that the expectations of those who supported the war from the public, was that it would take a couple of days and cost very little?
2006-12-20 10:50:37 · 12 answers · asked by rostov 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Please Note:
I'm not stating my opinion on whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do. That's scope for other questions. I'm only interested in the estimates of the real cost and the time intervals one would realistically have expected if one had 1% of the expertise at the disposal of the US.
I'm also not saying whether I think the US is winning or losing. Again scope for another question.
2006-12-20 10:53:10 · update #1
PLEASE NOTE, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LAY PEOPLE. I am talking about the Pentagon, the CIA, the chief of staff. I'm talking about people who are among the world most knowledgeable experts in their fields.
I know perfectly well, why the american public had its expectations, I'm talking about the people who must possitively known better.
2006-12-20 12:35:30 · update #2
Every educated person outside England and America know what the repercussions were going to be. And the half of America that lost in 2000 knew what the repercussions were going to be.
It didn't take a genius.
And now, I would guess just about everyone with half a brain has figured out those repercussions.
2006-12-20 10:56:41 · answer #1 · answered by noestoli 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It is the "now" generation. Watch TV and everything is resolved in less than 2 hours. They don't understand how long WW1, WWII, etc when on. If it can't be done now, we failed. Unfortunately, they don't have long term commitment or memory. Just look at the politicians that stood on the capital steps to sing after 911. How many of those same politicians were bashing our country's actions to keep another 911 from happening for the last election?
2006-12-20 19:06:55 · answer #2 · answered by c.s. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Honest answer? No one knew anything or cared about Iraq.
As Americans, we don't know much about our world. And no one wanted to hear on the news the history of Iraq and the region. No one wanted to know that it was a construction by the British that combined three different people groups, and no one wanted to know that Sadamm Hussein had worked hard to keep Iraq from collapsing, and that a lot of his killing was done solely so he could keep power.
We thought it would be easy because we see a diverse country like ours that works. What we didn't think about is that Iraq is a country that has never HAD to make it work because someone else made it work for them. And we didn't want to hear about it because we were more interested in our own lives to care about anyplace else. Iraq can't do democracy or a Republic right now simply because it has never had to try. And you're seeing the effects of them being forced into it now.
2006-12-20 18:58:15 · answer #3 · answered by ted_yc 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No one really thought all that much about the post-invasion, the invasion happened a little too fast with two weeks before 'we might go to war, probably not' to the president saying 'exile or we invade'.
2006-12-20 19:08:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because we have not had a real war in 60 years. Most of the people who were around during WW2 are dead. Americans do not understand what it means to be at war.
2006-12-20 18:54:09 · answer #5 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush had so much support from 9/11, people wanted to believe that he wasn't really the dolt we all knew he was but someone who would protect America. They bought into his lies never knowing he and his bunch were twisting and tweaking the intelligence to give a rosy picture of the coming war while in fact they did zero homework and knew nothing and planned nothing for after the defeat of the pathetic Iraqi army was accomplished.
Iraq will be known as the outstanding foreign policy blunder in 100 years. Bush's legacy will be one of idiocy and deceit.
2006-12-20 18:58:29 · answer #6 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
If Americans had been leveled with going in they would never have supported this war. It was all deception from the beginning. Even Colin Powell basically admits he was duped!
It's been a charade. Rmember Bush landing on the carrier telling us "major combat" had ended?
2006-12-20 18:55:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
check more closely and you will find only neo-cons like cheney and rumsfeld believed it would be a cakewalk.the journalist were afraid of being labeled appeasers or terrorist,a republican tactic that seems to have worked well up till the last 6 months or so.many experts including new sec of def baker warned that exactly whats happening would happen.
2006-12-20 19:01:38 · answer #8 · answered by sasuke 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
They never learned the lessons from Viet Nam.
2006-12-20 19:10:51 · answer #9 · answered by robert m 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ITS BEEN 60 YEARS AND WE ARE STILL IN GERMANY AND JAPAN....I'M SURE THAT IF WE HAD THE WIMPY MEDIA WE ARE NOW SADDLED WITH, WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE COLD WAR AT THE BERLIN WALL AND THEY WOULD HAVE SCOFFED AT THE BERLIN AIR LIFT EVEN AS IT WAS GOING ON....THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL DOUBTERS WHO GIVE CREDENCE ONLY TO THEIR OWN POETIC PROSE.
2006-12-20 19:07:12 · answer #10 · answered by Rich S 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋