With this Iraqi war, do we have Bush's failure or the failure of the Conservative philosophy or both?

Answer 1

Both

Answer 2

It is interesting how you phrase the question, almost as if you are hoping for failure just to validate your opposition to Bush and conservatives.

Clearly Bush and various conservatives have made serious mistakes in the execution of the Iraqi mission; but, having commited our nation, we should not wallow in what a terrible idea it was and how badly things are going, but on how we can leave that country in some semblance of peace and order.

Of course, if you knew before Congress agreed to support the invasion we would be facing murderous, homicidal and suicidal maniacs, who gleefully massacre innocent women and children, you should have informed our dumb leaders beforehand. If you had inside information that the worst scum of the earth would be drawn to Iraq to dance in the blood of others for the most morbid, sick interpretation of religious doctrine, it was incumbent on you to share your wisdom before we plunged into battle.

Now, perhaps it would be less disingenuous to ask "Since both Kerry and Clinton voted for the war, would the situation be any different today if either of them was President?" Apparently, like most people grounded in reality, they too had a premonition of the horrific terrorist carnage only after it began. But then Bush and those damned neocons duped our poor, ignorant, senators. For possibly the only time in their careers, they know not what they were doing.

Answer 3

Bush's failure. This war is by no means an example of "conservative" policies.

No bid contracts are not an example of conservatism. Nation building is not an example of conservatism.

A conservative policy in the post 9/11 era would be to increase spending on domestic security initiatives -- using the defense budget to secure the border, ports and airports.

Answer 4

"Failure of the Conservative philosophy"? Prominent politicians haven't been applying the true Conservative philosophy since at least Reagan. So I don't think that Conservatism should get a bad rap because the idiots in Washington want to exploit it.

I think the Iraq war is a failure of the entire government. Bush and the Congress need to work TOGETHER to figure it out and get something accomplished. Yes, he is commander in Chief, but our system of checks and balances limits his power and the Congress' power. They need to figure out what the agenda is, and then figure out how to complete it.

Answer 5

The failure is Bush and his administration not a failure of the Conservative philosophy. While conservatives did nothing to check Bush it was his plan and his actions that have caused the mess in Iraq.

Answer 6

Any of you folks know ANYTHING about the situation in Iraq and the middle east?

Go read Michael Yon and Bill Roggio's reports from the ground over there and then come back and post. You get a very different picture than the stories written by Bush-haters at the New York and Los Angeles Times.

Who are you all going to blame everything on when the Shrub is no longer in office?


Orion

Answer 7

I say the Conservative theory- and book- and jargon-based approach as exemplified by PNAC (see link) did not take into account any kind of street-smart reality.

Conservative philosophy as a whole isn't so bad (though I disagree with it) it's PNAC's ivory tower approach that's dangerous. This whole mentality that even though it's a war, we'd be greeted as liberators shows they know NOTHING about human nature.

Bush is just a tool of PNAC and their oil industry buddies, so I don't think he or any other similar pawn could have done any better. The Conservative philosophy of PNAC is to blame.

Answer 8

There is such a complicity of failures evidenced by the failure of the tactics used by our military to bring peace and stability to Iraq after a very sucessful conventional war that to simply answer 'yes' to both the stated reasons is inadequate. Even tough I am not a conservative (and hate general terms also because they are too shallow and perjorative), I don't think that specific 'failure' is as great a problem as the failure of the commander in chief, Pres. Bush, to fully understand his military capabilities, his command structure, his advisors and his tactics.
IMO it is highly likely that his best advisor (albiet in the wrong position), Colin Powell, left becuase he forsaw the devloping debacle and wanted no portion of the aftermath since his advise was not being taken seriously in the first place. The real question is: what is the largest factor the USA could control during the stabilization period?

The answer is largely in negatives: principal among others, 1.the USA had no control over how the population might interact within Iraq, 2. our forces established little control physically or diplomatically over how other nations might forment dissent, 3. our command stucture was compromised politically and 4. key Presidential advisors had economic interest involved in the pursuit of the war. The one positive factor that should have been controllable was the size of our troop force but the proper sizing of this force was compromised by both the later negative factors, 3 and 4.
Considerations: There is always a limited perimeter that any number of regular troops, armed even with the best equipment, can secure. This security is necessary 24/7, must take place in spite of troop rotations, reinforcements due to casualties being delayed, rebuilding efforts, etc. The administration was advised that a certain number was adequate based on new and untested tactics that included using civilians, US and indigenous, for resupply and some security, having fighting brigades instead of divisions so that more actual 'infantry' was available for each tropper place in the combat zone and the effectivity of 'state of the art' weapons. The new estimates of all fighting force capabilites were far too optimistic and had been made to justify a primary change in the structure of the USA military in order to show less men in uniform and still 'feel good' about the strike capability of those forces. The change was also made to mollify the political 'left' by reducing troop numbers, to offer financial gain for certain persons on the inside who knew beforehand of the changes being made, Cheney and Rumsfield with links to Haliburton, a corporation making billions on this war. And to sort out, politically agrandise and promote the 'yes men' generals from those who were harder to control. The result was that no accurate assessments of the post conventional war were sent to the President or his staff. They were told what they wanted to hear. Now over 3100 of those civilian suppliers have been killed in addition to the over 3000 soldiers, what were to be stabilization assets have been relegated to convoy guarding, and the force remaining is ineffective in controlling the populace evn if there wasn't significant outside interference.
We neede many more troops (but did not have them) then, not belated now.
The failure of Bush and his advisors to establish and enforce a soveriegn border for Iraq either through military might or with diplomacy brings to question whether any of them are fit to advise anything.
As I said over 3 years ago. It is now time to bring all our assets home, let the powers there fight it out until as few are left as possible and THEN decide to either let the place rot under whatever form of governement emerges, or go in and firmly establish whatever regime is necessary using whatever resources might be required after rebuilding our depleted military to a significant force (even if it angers 'the left').
We also need to ascertain that the top general officers are unbiased and untethered and that they can perform the proper duties of their positions without political interference.
We also must establish firm diplomatic ties with Syria, force them, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to get involved in stabilization and prevent Iran from being involved overtly or covertly.
We must in the future totally divest all advisors of war from all sources of gain due to war to prevent 'misconceptions' and, dare I suggest, war profiteering.
What a damn mess now this is and what a Gordian Knot must now be untied.
I tire........


"Drop the BOMB" Col Kurtz

Answer 9

I would say the Iraq war resulted from Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm in a manner which could be verified.

Answer 10

I think it depends on what you think the goals were. If bush's purpose was to get reelected and make big bucks for haliburton and co, then no, the thing was masterfully planned and executed. If it was to be a quick and clean deposing of sadaam and setting up a friendly democratic stable pro american goverment, well then its par for bush's course, since everything he's ever been handed he's run into the ground.

Answer 11

I don't think there's anything conservative about the war, is imperialism at it's best and it seems to be failing like it has done historically but not before ruining the country.