Bush Was Unready for Postwar Iraq

[Disagreeable]

What have I been saying? Bozos should have listened to the professionals. Link below; my emphasis.

"A dramatic military victory has been overshadowed by chaos and bloodshed in the streets of Baghdad, difficulty in establishing security or providing essential services, and a deadly insurgency," the report said.

"The costs, human, military and economic, are high and continue to mount," said the report, which was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent foreign policy group.

Two years after a stunning three-week march on Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi military forces have been unable to secure and rebuild the country, and reconstruction has fallen victim to a lack of security, the report said.

The White House has reacted to similar criticism in the past by saying there was significant postwar planning."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_postwar_planning;_ylt=Amd4hasRHK2sKmwo2jatvs.MwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

 

[Steve]

To claim the military was unprepared, one must look at the past reductions and lay blame where it belongs with the Anti-military left.....

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is among those taking strong exception. "We are not cutting defense spending relative to today's force," he says, but "relative to a force that is already intended to be twenty-five percent smaller." He sees a "devastating impact" on US status as a world power as the force that won the Persian Gulf War erodes. Between 1991 and 1998, he estimates, capabilities would shrink from twenty-eight Army divisions to fourteen, from thirteen carriers to eight, from 545 combat ships to 340, from fifteen carrier air wings to eight, from three Marine Expeditionary Forces to two, from thirty-six Air Force fighter wings to nineteen, and from 268 bombers to 141.

Senator Nunn points out that "the defense cuts proposed by the Administration make up eighty-five percent of all the net spending outlay reductions in the budget proposal" and come on top of substantial defense cuts made earlier.

But that was only the beginning of the clintons attempts to slash the great military.....

But then again he was looking to "experts" such as the Times to support his policy

The New York Times assures us our forces are adequate and, to boot, superbly equipped. "US weapon systems are unrivaled, so production of new tanks, planes, and ships can be put off for a decade or more," its editorial writers declare. Mark that.

Yep those tanks and heavy armor can be replaced by hummers...so when we use them the left can cry foul,,,and say we should have built more tanks....like the ones they ( the Democrats) cut from the Army....



http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/05edit93.asp

 

[Disagreeable]

And again you ignore the fact that Donald Rumsfeld had planned to cut the Army even more when he came into office. Therefore, I say the Military wasn't in such bad shape as you claim. I'm not going to bother to post links again showing what Rumsfeld had planned because you are a hypocrite, by your own definition: holding one group (Rumsfeld) to a different standard than another (Clinton).

 

[Steve]

There is a diferant Standard,,Clinton CUT troops...simple fact...

But if you can show me where Rumsfiled actually cut troops....I will directly compare the number of troops he actually cut to the number Clinton did cut and like him less proportionalty..

Lets see Clinton cut 14 army divisions
Rumsfield never actually cut a single soldier...

maybe you should look more at the Real demons that really did harm then the political retoric.......