Why is it so unreasonable to expect that Bush or Rumsfeld might have planned what would happen after Saddam's government fell?
2007-09-13 12:50:07 · 13 answers · asked by arvis3 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You bet he did. Ike was not stupid. He had a major plan and several contingency plans.
2007-09-13 13:18:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the whole issue, Bush fained what the Mideast scholars said and instead relied on Rumsfeld's assessment. Rumsfeld based his thoughts on the word of Ahmed Chabali, an ex-Iraqi national and CIA operative. Chabali, who was on the CIA payroll with an open budget (which means he didn't have to account for spending) of 4million dollars.
It would be like Ike planning D-day without any military intelligence based solely on the information from the guy who Hitler beat up in second grade.
2007-09-13 13:08:35 · answer #2 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They had plans just as we had plans now in both cases the actual activities after the invasion varied significantly from the original plan. The big difference is back then the American media and democrats werent working to get Americans to turn against the war. The majority of the people were on the US side and the media supported their country. There was little second guessing of the military commanders
2007-09-13 13:02:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you knew any history at all, you would know that Esisenhower DID have a general idea about what was going to happen. He knew that with presure on both fronts, Germany's army would eventually collapse. In this war, (not a battle so not a legitimate comparison even) they just ran in and occupied Iraq with no exit strategy. Of course, with your lack of knowledge concerning history you woudnt know, the Allies had begun planning what they would do after Germany had fallen and the war won in 1943.
2007-09-13 13:00:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were so many military blunders when we landed on Omaha beach, we should all be blushing even now.
We landed in a place where steep cliffs were in front of our troops, and they were being slaughtered by German guns above them.
Many of our troops could not reach the beach, because the troop carriers stopped too far out to sea, and their big guns could not reach far enough to provide cover for our troops.
On top of all that, the landing barges stopped too far out in the water to drop off the troops and many, (many ) drowned with their heavy backpacks, rifles an boots pulling them down.
We lost more American soldiers that ONE day, than we would loose by staying in Iraq for another 5 years.
However, in those days people would have thought it was treason to criticize our leaders in time of war.
2007-09-13 13:35:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your questions do not make logical sense. D-Day was one battle in a six year long war. The falling of Saddam's government was a victory in the war, not in one battle.
2007-09-13 12:56:48 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is to anyone that compares Iraq war to world war 2.
Are you comparing fighting nazi germany, and Japan and world war 2 to the illegal invasion and occupation of a country on "faulty intel"..a war of choice???
Are you crazy?
Do you people realize how ignorant you sound? You can make any number of cases as to why we need to fight in Iraq...and even though I oppose the war, I will admit that there are some decent sounding arguments. But this one is really insane. There is ..I repeat no comparison between fighting a country like nazi germany that was invading and attacking and occupying countries all over europe illegally and on false pretenses (Sound familiar?) to us doing it to iraq. you hear me. Get that through you primal skull.
2007-09-13 13:02:31 · answer #7 · answered by me 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he jumped on an aircraft carrier and said the mission was accomplished.
When Ike told Truman we were done in WW II we were done. The Germans and Japanese were on the mat and not getting up unless we picked them up.
2007-09-13 13:08:03 · answer #8 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty straight forward. Good question. All wars are dynamic situations, not something that is so static that we can predict exactly when and how to end them. You make a plan, if it works, GREAT! If it doesn't, make a new plan that will work.
2007-09-13 12:55:06 · answer #9 · answered by Chef 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not. They ****** up, everybody knows it. But that doesn't mean we just cut and run because it is hard. I have two relatives serving in Iraq in combat roles by the way. We are left with a mess in Iraq but it can be fixed and is being fixed. We can't fix it if we leave.
2007-09-13 12:56:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋