Why did neconservatives think that the Iraq war would be a cake walk?

Question

.

What were they thinking???? lol. Typical Nascar-NRA attitude

Yes Liberals did vote for the war and we understood it would not be a cakewalk contrary to what you thought. The vote was unfortunately based on the pack of lies that Dubs made to win us over. Dont forget your faltered Intelligence was on your clock just like 9/11.

Meathead....The Iraq war was not associated with the war on terror. It was however based on the pack of lies that GWB and Fox news told you that Saddam was in bed with AlQaeeda.

Answer 1

Because, as the following link shows, NO ONE in the Republican Corridors of Power have the first idea how to prosecute a war, being much too cowardly to join the US Armed Forces themselves. Of the miserabnle few who DID join, those were apparently incapable of finishing their military obligation in a satisfactory manner and ran away when things got serious.

I would no more expect a coward and deserter to know about war than I would expect a cow to know calculus.

Answer 2

Anyone who thought the Iraq war would be a cake walk was simply not listening. Please, everyone, go back to the record and read the speech the president made where he states the justification for the war. One point he made quite clearly, is that this is not going to be over quickly, it will be a long painful process and it will most likely take many, many years.

People are confusing the defeating of Saddam's army with the war on terrorism. When asked, most believed that we could take out all of the Iraqi military's fighting ability rather quickly. We did. Most experts figured we would be facing an insurgency. We are. What no one could have possibly known is that it would be this type of insurgency because this has never existed before in history.

There were insurgents at the end of every war. Die hard Germans, Japanese etc. sniping at our troops and causing casualties until they could be ferreted out. But never has there been a level of pure evil as we see in Iraq. This is an insurgency that kills its own civilians. This is an insurgency that deliberately attacks schools, hospitals, police stations, market places, bus stations places where practically all the casualties would be Iraqi civilians.

There has never been an insurgency like this so how could anyone have planned to deal with it? Our military is doing the best they can with the situation and are finally succeeding. These monsters are far more dangerous than even the Japanese Kamakazi. Even they limited their attacks to military targets.

It is sad that liberals get on TV and spout the numbers of civilian casualties and blame our troops for them. The reality is our troops are taking casualties rather than harm civilians. It is the enemy that is piling up the civilian casualties and they are doing it deliberately. I wish those who oppose this war, if they are truly concerned with Iraqi civilian deaths would stop and think about what will happen to those civilians if we are not there to protect them. If we pull out before the job is done, before security is established and the insurgency contained or eliminated the violence and genocide we will see is unimaginable.

.

Answer 3

I believe the general public got used to the idea a war could be won with air strikes, which is fine as long as you have no intention to occupy or control the place. Air strikes are impressive and make good television. In the time that followed 9/11, the American public had a thirst for vengeance. We trusted the government to know what it was doing, and to be going after the right people.
The Bush administration started discussing the invasion of Iraq on September 12, 2001, at a special cabinet meeting. A retrospective of events leads me to believe they knew very well how difficult this would be. Their biggest challenge was not a logistic one per se; their biggest challenge was to get the American public to accept a long, drawn out conflict. The arrest of Saddam Hussein, his execution, two sham "elections", were all events designed to buy the Bush administration time as the public waited for a final day of victory that kept being pushed backward.
We now know, of course, that Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, or 9/11. Those who believe it has to do with spreading democracy obviously don't research U.S. foreign policy, otherwise they would know just how many corrupt and dictatorial regimes the U.S. government supports. What's left? Oil, military contracts, reconstruction contracts, the 2004 election... There was never anything there but pure Machiavellianism.

Impeach.



suthrnlyts2004, you can't even read. I said nothing of the sort.

Answer 4

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell and National Defense Advisor Rice were all over the television beating the war drums and asking Americans if we do nothing about Saddam do you want the smoking gun of proof to be a mushroom cloud? America wanted vengeance and congress was to scared to oppose the administration. Vice President Cheney was adamant that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. We did nothing after we toppled Saddam, stood around as people started looting everything and just let the situation get out of control. It then reverted to their hatred of one another over religious and tribal differences. We had no plan for victory and I wonder if it wasn't meant to be that way so chaos would ensue and give us a chance to get a foothold in their oil.

Answer 5

Where do you come up with that Nascar and NRA BS? Yes, that's just what it is, BS!

We won that war in hours and that alone was a feat. And to the one above me who thinks we should have gone in with air strikes, obviously it's YOU who is the redneck here. Do you not remember how many Iraqi's came running to us to surrender and were relieved that we saved them from that tyrant of a ruler?

Grow up you guys and realize that AFTER the war was won, the real work began. Of course, you folks are far to ignorant and let me add SELFISH, to see that. Your biggest concern is the money we're spending and the fact that it's not being handed over to you for freebies... Betcha!

I just love the 'experts' on this forum. You are the easiest targets of all.

Answer 6

Right after 9/11 our President told us that this would be a long and hard fought war on terrorism. His enemies, and I mean the Democratic party, have made their goal to destroy this man and everything he stands for more important than fighting terror. It is hard enough to fight the terrorist without having to worry about who will stab you in the back politically. If the Democrats win and keep their opinion, we will lose in our fight for survival.

Answer 7

I would say the ones who are wanting to quit now because it's 'hard' were the ones who thought it would be a cakewalk.

Answer 8

Who claimed it would be a "cake walk" ? The initial operation was completed in record time, and a feat unmatched in warfare. But once the country was taken, the hard work began, routing out insurgents and terrorists. No one ever claimed that the war would be easy, because there has never been an easy war.

You make such statements, but you don't tell us who made such claims.

Answer 9

We underestimated how much the left would cry about the methods use by our military, and we didn't expect congress to slash their funding.

Answer 10

So the liberals that voted for the war.... I'm curious what you think about them?