Difference between revisions of "US-Iraq/war/invasion"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(removed inclusion of "justifications"; was messing up section editing)
(→‎Other Opinions: yingling: failure in generalship)
Line 96: Line 96:
 
* '''2004-09-29''' [http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659 Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi reports from Baghdad]
 
* '''2004-09-29''' [http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659 Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi reports from Baghdad]
 
==Other Opinions==
 
==Other Opinions==
 +
* '''2007-05''' [http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198 A failure in generalship] by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling: comparison with [[Vietnam War|Vietnam]]; analysis of the situation
 
* '''2007-03-07''' [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print Beyond Quagmire]: A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be? (Experts: Zbigniew Brzezinski, [[Richard Clarke]], Nir Rosen, Gen. Tony McPeak (retired), Bob Graham, Chas Freeman, Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer, Juan Cole)
 
* '''2007-03-07''' [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print Beyond Quagmire]: A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be? (Experts: Zbigniew Brzezinski, [[Richard Clarke]], Nir Rosen, Gen. Tony McPeak (retired), Bob Graham, Chas Freeman, Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer, Juan Cole)
 
* '''2007-02-16''' [http://www.vastrightwingconspiracy.com/blog/2007/02/single-darkest-day-in-history-of-us.html  The Single Darkest Day in the History of the US]: strongly anti-withdrawal blog entry. Seems to make some strange equivalences, but perhaps this could be useful in understanding the pro-Bush mindset?
 
* '''2007-02-16''' [http://www.vastrightwingconspiracy.com/blog/2007/02/single-darkest-day-in-history-of-us.html  The Single Darkest Day in the History of the US]: strongly anti-withdrawal blog entry. Seems to make some strange equivalences, but perhaps this could be useful in understanding the pro-Bush mindset?

Revision as of 01:43, 5 May 2007

the President
he's got his war
folks don't know
just what it's for
no one gives us
rhyme or reason
you have one doubt
they call it treason
- Roberta Flack, 1969
"Compared to What"

Overview

This page is about the United States invasion of Iraq, which took place during George W. Bush's presidential administration.

The invasion got rid of Saddam (which very much needed to happen) but has resulted in a very expensive quagmire and greatly harmed the United States:

There should probably be a separate article about the US occupation of Iraq.

Nicknames: Messopotamia, The Iraqi Horror Picture Show (although this latter might better describe the Abu Ghraib abuses or the use of torture during GWB administration in general)

Reference

Related Pages

Alternatives

...as opposed to "staying the course" without clear goals, much less a plan.

Effects

news of effects

The Republicans largely continue to stand behind the war effort, a position which is now in stark disagreement with their 2000 Party Platform:

The 2000 Republican Party Platform says:

When presidents fail to make hard choices, those who serve must make them instead. Soldiers must choose whether to stay with their families or to stay in the armed forces at all. Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.

from The New Yorker:

Ron Suskind, in his book The One Percent Doctrine, claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reëlection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush’s strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance.

News Articles

Reports

Other Opinions

David Brin

From http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html :

  • Over a thousand Americans lost, with more dying almost daily and no end in sight.
  • Uncounted (and secret) numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths.
  • Scandals; poorly supervised thugs ruining our reputation for decent behavior.
  • A Western Alliance in shambles.
  • Relentless lies; intervention justified by fabricated evidence reminiscent of Tonkin Gulf.
  • Plummeting readiness levels — our military is being used-up.
  • Utterly divisive of American public (possibly a desired goal), repeating the social effects of Vietnam (Editor's note: further enhancing Bush's existing divisiveness)
  • Clever incarceration tricks overused as bludgeons, wrecking credibility and undermining due process.
  • Incompetent preparation and handling of the aftermath, featuring rapid deterioration of political, economic and social life in Iraq
  • Worldwide acceptance of US moral leadership plummeting.
  • And the fundamental strategic outcome — provoking a radicalized Islam, further stirred by Saudi-funded Al Jazeera Network and Saudi-funded religious schools, from Morocco to Mindanao, threatening a pan-Islamic coalescence into Jihad mentality for the first time in a thousand years.

Humor

Quotes

  • "I thought they were out of their minds, once I realised that they weren't kidding. The most inappropriate, the most counterproductive thing we could've done would've been to invade Iraq and I rather thought that was self-evident." – Richard A. Clarke, former US Counter-Terrorism Advisor [2]

Trivia

  • "Drat Saddam, a mad dastard!" is a palindrome.